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

94–772 PDF 2016

EMPOWERING STATE MANAGEMENT 

OF GREATER SAGE GROUSE 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, May 19, 2015 

Serial No. 114–7 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Vacancy 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Vacancy 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Parker, Democratic Deputy Chief Counsel 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, May 19, 2015 ............................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wyoming .................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Arnett, Ed, Senior Scientist, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Loveland, Colorado .............................................................................. 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 26 

Clarke, Kathleen, Director, State of Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, Salt Lake City, Utah; Former Director, Bureau of Land 

Management, 2001–2006 .............................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 16 

Miller, Dustin, Administrator, State of Idaho Office of Species Conservation, Boise, Idaho .......................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 37 

Swartout, John, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Governor John 

Hickenlooper, State of Colorado, Denver, Colorado ................................... 37 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 41 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 74 

Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Massachusetts, Prepared statement of ....................................................... 73 

Western Governors’ Association, James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director, 

Prepared statement of .................................................................................. 69 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EMPOWERING 

STATE MANAGEMENT OF GREATER SAGE 

GROUSE 

Tuesday, May 19, 2015 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, Lamborn, McClintock, Lummis, 

Benishek, Duncan, Labrador, LaMalfa, Denham, Cook, Westerman, 

Graves, Newhouse, Zinke, Hice, Radewagen, MacArthur, Mooney, 

Hardy; Grijalva, Costa, Dingell, Gallego, and Polis. 

Also present: Representative Tipton. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee—the script says the committee 

has to come to order, but you are all so quiet out there, anyway. 

We will see what—we are now in order. 

The committee is meeting today to hear testimony on 

empowering state management of the greater sage grouse. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority Member, 

Vice Chair, and a designated Ranking Minority Member, which will 

allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner, and help keep 

Members to their schedules. 

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ opening 

statements be made part of the hearing record, if they are submitted to the Committee clerk by 5:00 p.m. today. 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Hearing no objections, that is so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent to allow Representative Tipton of 

Colorado to participate in today’s hearings when he is able to be 

here, and to ask questions. 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Hearing no objection, that will be so ordered, as 

well. 

All right. Let me begin with some opening statements, if we 

could. So, fortunately, I am going to start with mine. You know, 

whether you all want it or not, I am going to start with mine. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

The CHAIRMAN. Over the past few months we have been hearing 

a lot coming from the Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife, and 

Bureau of Land Management about their cooperative efforts. Today 

is the time we are going to hear directly from states. 

Forty years ago, the Endangered Species Act was passed with 

every good intention; but, despite some of the rhetoric coming from 

2 

special interest groups and their claims, the reality is that less 

than 2 percent of the more than 1,500 listed species have ever actually been recovered. Cramming more species onto a list, or blocking millions of acres, including restricting even how our military 

can use lands for military training and readiness, is not a measure 

of success. 

You know, in the play ‘‘Wicked,’’ Elphaba was asked—was told 

by the good witch, whose name just escaped me, that black is this 

year’s pink. We can also say the same thing, that the greater sage 

grouse is this year’s northern spotted owl. Twenty years ago, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service placed millions of acres under Federal 

management, destroying jobs, wiping out entire communities. 

And the result? Well, today the spotted owls continue to decline, 

this time caused by a larger species of owl, the barred owl, and catastrophic wildfires from poorly managed forest land that was 

blocked off for the owls’ habitat. Fish and Wildlife Service is now 

dispatching armed bird specialists to kill the predatory armed 

barred owl, which—I am sorry, neither is effective, nor is it 

creative. 

So, what we need to do is, simply, we have to think differently. 

The failure of Federal programs, which is constant, is not going to 

be the issue of today’s hearing. It is how to succeed that is going 

to be the issue of today’s hearing. To do that, we have to simply 

think differently, and we need to examine the states’ under-utilized 

authority to manage species. The states are in charge of wildlife, 

and the states have a record of success in that obligation. States 

are the laboratory of innovation, something the Federal Government, with its efforts, simply cannot match. That is why we are 

still here, in some effort, to try and do things differently. 

The states have not been sitting on the sidelines in this effort. 

There are some special interest groups out there that are simply 

saying, in all the rationale they give, that the common boundary— 

that states are incompetent to do this kind of job, that only somebody on the national level is smart enough, is organized enough, 

has enough resources on the national level to actually do this. That 

is pure, unadulterated balderdash. And you all know what word I 

am thinking of, instead of ‘‘balderdash.’’ 

What we will show in here is simply that people at the states 

level have just the trained competence and intelligence to do it. If 

you actually look at some of the special interest groups’ arguments, 

what they are saying are people in the states are dumb, and only 

people here in Washington are smart. We have one witness today 

who worked for the state, then became the national BLM Director 

here at Washington, and then left and went back to the state. I will 

ask her at some time what made her go dumb, all of a sudden, 

when she left Washington and went back to Utah. But that, indeed, is the argument that some interest groups keep extending. 

That does not work. 

In 2011, then-Secretary Salazar invited 11 states to develop individual sage grouse management plans to effectively balance economic development and management of the species. Those states 

responded in an unprecedented effort, backed by some of the top 

researchers and scientists in the country, and came up with programs that, unfortunately, have been dismissed out of hand by the 

3 

Fish and Wildlife Service without a good reason. It is not, as the 

Director said, nor is it right to have strongholds where wildernesslike restrictions over 16.5 million acres of land will be done—all 

drafted in Washington, behind closed doors, and without the input 

of the states. That is not, in my estimation, collaboration or 

cooperation. 

We can do better. We will do better. And if we allow the states 

to actually go forward with the plans they have, we will find an 

amazing renaissance, not only with this species, but all sorts of 

other processes that we can do in the future. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

NATURAL RESOURCES

Over the past few months, we’ve heard much rhetoric from Interior Department, 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management officials about their 

‘‘cooperative efforts.’’ Now it’s time to hear directly from the states. 

More than 40 years ago, the Endangered Species Act was enacted with good 

intentions and bipartisan support to recover species at the brink of extinction. 

Unfortunately, with less than 2 percent of the more than 1,500 listed species ever 

recovered, the law is failing. 

Cramming thousands more species onto the list and blocking the use of millions 

of acres of land—including restricting even how our military servicemen can use 

lands for military training and readiness, cannot be a measurement of success. 

States are using resources wisely to recover species and keep them off the list. 

We should do more to encourage them. 

It is in that context that we examine the states’ underutilized authority to manage species. Given the chance, states could prevent the need for a Federal listing, 

and prevent endless fights to de-list species that recover. States have already proven 

to be laboratories where innovative policymakers can experiment to develop more 

effective policies. The problem with the Federal one-size-fits-all approach is that it’s 

never actually been compared to anything else. 

The greater sage grouse is fast becoming the ‘‘new’’ northern spotted owl. Over 

20 years ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service placed millions of acres under Federal 

management, choking out a once thriving Northwest timber industry, destroying 

jobs and wiping entire communities off the map. The result today: Spotted owls continue to decline, caused by a larger species of owl—the barred owl—and catastrophic 

wildfires that have destroyed poorly managed forests blocked off for the owl’s habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service is now dispatching ‘‘armed bird specialists’’ to kill 

the predatory barred owls. This doesn’t sound like effective or creative management 

to me. 

There has to be a better way to conserve these animals and at the same time protect the livelihoods of the people that live closest to them. Standing idly by as the 

Federal Government makes the sage grouse the next spotted owl while wrecking 

countless local economies is not an option. Instead, a significant step in the right 

direction would be to empower states to fulfill their duty as wildlife managers. 

Some say states have been sitting on the sidelines. To the contrary, states have 

been leading on their own, despite the Interior Department’s top-down, litigationdriven approach. 

In 2011, when then-Secretary Salazar invited 11 western states to develop individual sage grouse management plans, there was confidence that states could 

develop individually tailored plans that would effectively balance economic development and management of the species, and that these plans would provide the blueprint for successful sage grouse management. 

The states responded with an unprecedented effort, backed by some of the top researchers and scientists in the country, and many were hopeful they would be given 

fair consideration. But despite these significant efforts, state plans were dismissed 

out of hand. Even worse, the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service recently 

mocked those concerned with their inept handling of the Federal listing process as 

a ‘‘kabuki drama.’’ 

Last October, the Fish and Wildlife Service introduced perhaps its most stunning 

sage grouse suggestion yet: stop everybody from doing anything, by creating arbitrary ‘‘strongholds;’’ in effect, cementing wilderness-like restrictions on 16.5 million 

acres of Federal land in several states. States that have spent significant resources 

4 

and years on sage grouse efforts were blindsided by these new proposals, which 

were drafted in Washington, DC behind closed doors, without their input. This 

doesn’t sound like collaboration or cooperation to me. 

We can do better. We need transparency for data and science behind these 

Federal listing proposals. We need to remove incentives that fuel frivolous litigation. 

We need to ensure policymaking happens out in the open and not behind closed 

doors or in courtrooms. What we need to do is to bring management of species into 

the 21st century. 

I look forward to hearing about the positive work being accomplished to protect 

and manage species that will serve to point us in a new direction. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I will turn to the Ranking Member for 

his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today’s meeting continues a very familiar trend of holding hearings to criticize the 

Administration’s work under the Endangered Species Act without 

inviting the Administration to testify. A balanced hearing on this 

topic would include witnesses from the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, which together manage the 64 

percent of the remaining greater sage grouse habitat that is located 

in the U.S. public lands. 

It would also include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

agency that will decide, based on the best-available science, whether the bird warrants protection under ESA. Instead, the Majority 

has invited political appointees, not scientists, from three states 

who claim they have been frozen out by Federal managers and 

their efforts to conserve sage grouse—and their efforts are 

sufficient. 

As far as their claim of having no access, nothing could be further from the truth. Federal agencies have worked closely with the 

11 relevant states throughout the process of developing sciencebased strategies to conserve sage grouse and their habitat. I am 

sure if the Republicans had invited any of these agencies, they 

would have told us more about this collaborative effort. 

Even as they have worked closely with state officials, Federal 

agencies have gone out of their way to let states prove they have 

sufficient local conservation measures in place. Federal officials 

have asked states to submit plans that balance conservation needs 

with other state priorities for public and private lands. Last year, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service approved such a plan for Wyoming, 

and I am hopeful other states will take advantage of this 

opportunity. 

To be clear, the states cannot reach their goal of avoiding an 

ESA listing of the greater sage grouse unless their plans create certainty that the bird is not threatened with extinction. The greater 

sage grouse has been wiped out in two states, and has seen its 

range nearly cut in half because of habitat destruction. At one 

point, as many as 16 million greater sage grouse called the sagebrush sea ecosystem their home. Now the population has been reduced to as few as 200,000 birds. 

I am confident that the necessary work can be accomplished in 

advance of the September 30 deadline, and that the greater sage 

5 

grouse can become an ESA success story. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the states themselves agree that a not-warranted decision is 

within reach. 

Unfortunately, some Members are attempting to snatch defeat 

from the jaws of victory. They support legislation to delay a listing 

decision and give up control of the people’s lands to state governments that lack the resources to manage them. Instead of supporting an unprecedented cooperative conservation effort, some 

Members on this committee are undertaking efforts to undermine 

the entire process. They have gone as far as arguing that protecting the greater sage grouse could impact military readiness, a 

claim which has been roundly discredited by the Defense 

Department. 

I understand why some people want to short-circuit this process. 

If it works, then ESA works. A successful plan that avoids species 

listing and protects a landscape stretching across multiple states, 

while also allowing for economic development, would undercut arguments in favor of weakening the Act. 

The ESA has been the catalyst for conservation of many species 

and landscapes across this country. We are close to another success 

with the greater sage grouse. The only thing standing in the way 

is a group of people more concerned about the extinction of their 

talking points than the extinction of the species. 

Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I yield 

back the remainder of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, RANKING MEMBER, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s meeting continues the familiar trend of holding hearings to criticize the 

Administration’s work under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) without inviting the 

Administration to testify. A balanced hearing on this topic would include witnesses 

from the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, which together 

manage the 64 percent of remaining greater sage-grouse habitat that is located on 

U.S. public lands. It would also include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency that will decide based on the best available science whether the bird warrants 

protection under the ESA. Instead, the Majority has invited political appointees— 

not scientists—from three states who claim they have been frozen out by Federal 

managers and that their efforts to conserve sage-grouse are sufficient. 

As far as their claim of having no access, nothing could be farther from the truth. 

Federal agencies have worked closely with the 11 relevant states throughout the 

process of developing science-based strategies to conserve sage-grouse and their 

habitat. I’m sure if the Republicans had invited any of these agencies, they would 

have told us more about this collaborative effort. 

Even as they have worked closely with state officials, Federal agencies have gone 

out of their way to let states prove they have sufficient local conservation measures 

in place. Federal officials have asked states to submit plans that balance conservation needs with others state priorities for public and private lands. Last year, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service approved such a plan for Wyoming, and I am hopeful that 

other states will take advantage of this opportunity. 

To be clear, the states cannot reach their goal of avoiding an ESA listing of the 

greater sage-grouse unless their plans create certainty that the bird is not threatened with extinction. The greater sage-grouse has been wiped out in two states, and 

has seen its range nearly cut in half because of habitat destruction. At one point, 

as many as 16 million greater sage-grouse called the sagebrush sea home; now the 

population has been reduced to as few as 200,000 birds. I am confident that the necessary work can be accomplished in advance of the September 30 deadline, and that 

the greater sage-grouse can become an ESA success story. FWS and the states 

themselves agree that a ‘‘not warranted’’ decision is within reach. 

6 

Unfortunately, some Members of Congress are attempting to snatch defeat from 

the jaws of victory. They support legislation to delay a listing decision and give up 

control of the people’s lands to state governments that lack the resources to manage 

them. Instead of supporting an unprecedented, cooperative conservation effort, some 

members—including the Chairman of this Committee—are trying to undermine the 

process. They have gone as far as arguing that protecting the greater sage-grouse 

could impact military readiness, a claim which has been roundly discredited by the 

Department of Defense. 

I understand why some people want to short circuit this process: if it works, then 

the ESA works. A successful plan that avoids species listings and protects a landscape stretching across multiple states—while also allowing for economic development—would undercut arguments in favor of weakening the Act. The ESA has been 

the catalyst for conservation of many species and landscapes across the country, and 

we are close to another success with the greater sage-grouse. The only thing standing in the way is a group of people more concerned about the extinction of their 

talking points than about the extinction of species. 

Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Now I am going to call several 

different audibles here. Part of it is because we have a time commitment here. So, before I recognize the Vice Chair and any other 

designee for opening statements, I would like to have some of our 

witnesses be introduced by those here who know them very well. 

So, we do have at the witness table, Kathleen Clarke, who is the 

Director of the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office in the State 

of Utah, and formerly the Director of the Bureau of Land Management here in Washington. We have Mr. Dustin Miller, who is the 

Administrator from the Idaho Office of Species Conservation in the 

State of Idaho; Mr. Ed Arnett, who is with the Theodore Roosevelt 

Conservation Partnership; and Mr. John Swartout, who is a Senior 

Policy Advisor from the Office of Governor Hickenlooper, in the 

State of Colorado. 

Because Mr. Lamborn has another obligation, I would like him, 

if he would, to take a moment to introduce Mr. Swartout. And then 

we will actually turn to Mr. Polis and Mr. Labrador to introduce 

some of the guests. Let me finish off with mine, and then we will 

go from there. Then we will come back to the statements. Sorry. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

this hearing. Thank you for your flexibility. It is my honor to introduce one of our witnesses, Mr. John Swartout, who is the Senior 

Policy Advisor, as you said, for Governor John Hickenlooper. 

In the past, Mr. Swartout has been Executive Director of Greater 

Outdoors Colorado, GOCO, and of the Colorado Coalition of Land 

Trust; so he does have a lot of resource and land background and 

experience. In addition to working for Governor Hickenlooper, he 

has worked in the past for Senator Wayne Allard and Governor Bill 

Owens. He is one of these individuals whose abilities are sought 

out by governors and administrations on both sides of the aisle, 

and I think that is a real testament to his ability. I am glad we 

can have him here today; and I really commend his testimony to 

everyone who is at this hearing, and listening, and will read later, 

like I will, because I can’t stay for the whole hearing. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. Polis, I understand Mr. Arnett is your constituent. 

7 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I am thrilled to welcome Dr. Arnett from 

Loveland, Colorado. Dr. Arnett, who has his Ph.D. in forest science 

from Oregon State University, is the Senior Scientist at the 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. His other academic 

degrees include natural resource management, fish and wildlife 

management, zoology, and physiology. He worked as a wildlife biologist for the Forest Service and for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

After he finished his doctorate, he joined an international conservation effort. He also is part of a public television series, ‘‘This 

American Land,’’ that helps educate the American public about our 

natural resources. He is also an avid sportsman, enjoys big-game 

hunting, fly fishing, and water foul and upland bird hunting, and 

is also an American Kennel Club judge. 

I am really thrilled to welcome, from Loveland, Colorado, Dr. Ed 

Arnett. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Labrador, if you would like to 

introduce Mr. Miller from the state of Idaho. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

pleased to introduce Dustin Miller this morning. It is great to have 

him here. He is a graduate of the University of Idaho, with a degree in environmental science. He served as a natural resources 

field coordinator to Idaho Senator Larry Craig before he joined 

Governor Otter’s Office of Species Conservation in 2008. 

At OSC he served first as a Project Manager and Policy Advisor 

for Terrestrial Wildlife Issues, and has served as the Administrator 

of the agency for nearly 3 years now. The Office of Species 

Conservation is charged with coordinating and implementing policies and programs related to the conservation and recovery of species listed as threatened, endangered, or candidate under the 

Endangered Species Act in Idaho. In his position at OSC, Dustin 

has worked tirelessly and led statewide efforts to develop Idaho’s 

sage grouse management plan. They have done a terrific job, and 

I thank you for being here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Kathleen, I will apologize. You are from my state. It is not going 

to be as flowery as the other introductions. I apologize for that. 

She had the opportunity of having a lot of experience in the state 

of Utah, and then, I think about the time I came back here, she 

also came back here as the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. She spent 5 years in that thankless job, and did a marvelous 

job in trying to bring some kind of balance to the entire situation. 

After retirement from that, she has gone back to the state where 

she is still working now with Governor Herbert’s Office, dealing 

with the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office. 

I have to admit, in a whole bunch of areas when it has come to 

land issues, you have been a valuable resource in everything that 

we are trying to do in Utah, from the public lands initiative, to this 

area that deals with sage grouse. I appreciate your willingness to 

come back here and be with us in a hearing room that you have, 

I am sure, many fond and maybe not-so-fond memories from your 

past experience. 

[Laughter.] 

8 

The CHAIRMAN. But it is great to have you here. I thank all the 

witnesses, especially because I know how long it takes to travel 

from out in the real world, where we live, to come back here; so 

I appreciate you doing that. 

With that, and with appreciation for making the break so we 

could do those, I would go back to our opening statements. I will 

recognize the Vice Chairman, the gentlelady from Wyoming. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of this 

hearing, as I understand it, is to allow states to tell their remarkable stories. I appreciate that you have given them a voice. We will 

catch the Administration’s position on another day. 

In 2011, Secretary Salazar invited the states to take the lead in 

conserving sage grouse. The goal was preventing a species listing 

that would devastate western economies, which it can because it affects 11 states. The states have responded with tens of millions of 

dollars, countless man hours, and an unprecedented dedication to 

sage grouse conservation. 

But what we have found out as states is, because there are 11 

states, and the issues that threaten sage grouse populations in 

these 11 states are so different, a cookie-cutter approach won’t 

work. Each state is unique in their ecology, their economies, their 

culture, their sage grouse habitat, and the reasons for sage grouse 

to decline in their states are very different, some within the control 

of mankind, some not. 

I am proud to say that Wyoming has led the pack by securing 

the first and only federally approved state sage grouse plan. Our 

plan makes sense for Wyoming. It balances sage grouse conservation with energy production, agriculture, and other human necessities. But each state varies in the type and degree of threats to 

sage grouse. For some, like in Wyoming, it is primarily oil and gas 

production. In others, like Utah and Nevada, it is wildfires and 

drought. 

So, you cannot use the same methodology in each state to address the problem. The factors aren’t static, even within a state. 

States are in the best position to be nimble, and to respond to the 

conditions on the ground. And states can achieve this better in real 

time, as they adjust to the conditions they are dealing with, rather 

than on paper in the Federal Register. 

That is why the Fish and Wildlife Service needs to allow states 

to craft plans that are as unique as the states themselves. This 

isn’t just important for the sage grouse, it is important for my state 

of Wyoming; because no matter how solid Wyoming’s plan is, if the 

sage grouse is listed anywhere, it is listed everywhere, including 

Wyoming. 

So this hearing, Mr. Chairman, is also very timely, in light of 

yesterday’s announcement by the Administration that they will 

pursue some administrative changes to the Endangered Species 

Act. It is a refreshing day when the Administration admits that the 

law needs more transparency, more state and local involvement, 

and less unproductive litigation. These are exactly the kind of improvements that were passed last year, and by the full House, as 

9 

part of H.R. 4315. We had four bills that we bundled and sent to 

the Floor that came out of this committee that did exactly that. 

Now, the Administration has previously spurned this committee’s 

efforts to improve the Act and defended the deeply flawed system. 

So we need to make sure that, while the Administration took a 

positive verbal step yesterday, that they follow through and fix the 

problems as they exist on the ground, not just here in Washington, 

among bureaucrats. 

So, as we review the Administration’s proposals in more detail in 

the days ahead, I hope they are a sign that we can finally lose the 

scare tactics, have articles about people that want to tweak the 

ESA and update the ESA as gutting the ESA. That is hardly the 

case of what we want to do. We need this open dialog with the 

Administration on how to bring the ESA into the 21st century. It 

is a positive sign. This hearing is a positive sign. 

Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for holding this hearing to allow sage grouse states, the leaders in sage 

grouse conservation, to tell their remarkable story. 

In 2011, Secretary Salazar invited the states to take the lead in conserving the 

sage grouse. The goal: preventing a species listing that would devastate western 

economies. The states have responded with tens of millions of dollars, countless man 

hours, and an unprecedented dedication to sage grouse conservation. 

With 11 states involved, a cookie cutter approach won’t work. Each state is 

unique—in their ecology, in their economics, and in their culture. 

I am proud to say that Wyoming has led the pack by securing the first and only 

federally-approved state sage grouse plan. Our plan makes sense for Wyoming, balancing sage grouse conservation with energy production, agriculture, and other 

human necessities. But each state varies in the type and degree of threats to sage 

grouse—whether oil and gas production, wildfire, drought, urbanization, invasive 

species, or pinion junipers. 

And these factors aren’t static. States are in the best position to be nimble and 

responding to conditions on the ground. States can achieve better results for the 

sage grouse in real time, not just on paper in the Federal Register. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service needs to allow states to craft plans that are as 

unique as the states’ themselves. This isn’t just important for the sage grouse, it’s 

important for the state of Wyoming. No matter how solid Wyoming’s plan is, if the 

sage grouse is listed anywhere, it is listed everywhere, including Wyoming. 

This hearing is also very timely in light of yesterday’s announcement by the 

Administration that they will pursue administrative changes to the Endangered 

Species Act. The Administration has finally admitted that the law needs more transparency, more state and local involvement, and less unproductive litigation. 

These are exactly the kind of improvements passed by this committee and the full 

House as part of H.R. 4315 in the last Congress. Yet this Administration has had 

‘‘just say no’’ policy on ESA improvements for the last 6 years, including a veto 

threat of last year’s modest, common sense package. 

The Administration has spurned this committee’s efforts to improve the law, all 

while defending a deeply flawed system. Simply trusting that the Administration 

will fix these problems on its own seems like allowing the fox to guard the hen 

house. 

As we review the Administration’s proposals in more details in the days ahead, 

I hope these proposals are a sign that we can finally lose the scare tactics and have 

an open dialog with the Administration on how to bring the ESA into the 21st 

century. 

Thank you again Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

10 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. I understand Mr. Polis is giving the opening 

statement for the Minority side. Is that correct? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED POLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Bishop, 

Ranking Member Grijalva. Thank you to our witnesses. 

You know, I wonder whether, if the Dutch had an Endangered 

Species Act, whether the dodo bird would have gone extinct, and 

whether we would have the expression that something has gone 

the way of the dodo. Unfortunately, too many animals, including 

the dodo bird, have become extinct due to human actions. 

The heath hen, a coastal North American bird in the grouse family, was once found from Massachusetts, south of Virginia, right 

near this area. But, due to over-hunting and habitat loss and domestic cats, my friend, the heath hen, who I have here, has sadly 

gone the way of the dodo. 

What will be the fate of the greater sage grouse? If the language 

recently tucked into the Defense bill—of all things, the Defense 

bill—is any indication, unfortunately, my friend, the greater sage 

grouse, could go the way of the heath hen and go the way of the 

dodo bird. Effectively, it could be legislated into extinction by politicians. And that would be a shame, because state and Federal 

managers are on the cusp of a huge conservation victory if wildlife 

experts are allowed to stay the course without congressional or political interference. 

I am fortunate to share my home state of Colorado with both the 

greater sage grouse and the Gunnison sage grouse. The greater 

sage grouse, which is the topic of today’s hearing, is distributed in 

six populations in northwest Colorado; but it is threatened by industrial oil and gas development, fragmentation of its sagebrush 

habitat, fire, and invasive weeds. Due to these threats, the greater 

sage grouse occupies only half of the historic range and, therefore, 

based entirely on its merits has become a candidate for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Through the Endangered Species Act, we have seen Federal 

agencies, the largest manager of sage grouse habitat in our area, 

in collaboration with state and local partners, take very important 

steps toward conserving and saving the bird and its habitat. More 

than 1.8 million acres of Colorado’s greater sage grouse habitat is 

found on BLM lands in the Northwest District. That is almost half 

of the bird’s entire habitat in Colorado. 

The draft management plan considers four possible management 

alternatives for maintaining and increasing habitat for the greater 

sage grouse on BLM and national forest lands in northwest 

Colorado. 

By the way, as you know, this applies to Federal lands only, not 

to private lands. And, importantly, the management alternatives 

reflect local adjustments and input to national management recommendations, based on input from cooperating government agencies and the general public. This unprecedented effort to bring 

people together to save a species that is an important part of our 

11 

natural heritage in Colorado were catalyzed by the Federal recognition that the bird was a candidate species under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

But you know what? It is also about the habitat. Colorado and 

other states, alongside their Federal partners, have been and continue to invest time and resources to protect the sage-steppe ecosystem which is critical to sportsmen and Colorado’s outdoor-based 

economy. The sage-steppe ecosystem has been recognized as one of 

the most imperiled ecosystems in America. Of course, the bird is 

an emblem of it, but it has so many other important ramifications 

to protect our critical ecosystems. 

Tourism is an incredible driver of our economy. In fact, as 

Governor Hickenlooper’s executive order to preserve the sagebrush 

steppe said, in sustaining Colorado’s outdoor-reliant economy, ‘‘it 

fuels more than $3 billion in annual spending on wildlife-related 

recreation.’’ I am pleased to see that, thanks to the flexibility of the 

Endangered Species Act, efforts from Federal agencies to private 

landowners and others can have an impact and save a species to 

prevent it from going the way of the heath hen, the way of the 

dodo. 

I am thrilled that Mr. Swartout is here. Thank you for being 

here, and for your work on this important conservation initiative. 

Yours and Governor Hickenlooper’s commitment to protecting the 

sage grouse from endangerment is clear in last week’s executive 

order. I look forward to working with you, the Governor, and our 

coordinated agencies to preserve the framework of the Endangered 

Species Act, prevent forced legislative extinction of species, ensure 

that Colorado remains at the forefront of sage grouse protection, 

and to ensure that the sage grouse does not go the way of the dodo 

or the heath hen. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Polis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED POLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva. 

If the Dutch had the Endangered Species Act, would the dodo bird have gone ‘‘the 

way of the dodo bird? ’’ What about the now-extinct Heath Hen? The Heath hen, a 

coastal North American bird in the grouse family, known for its courtship displays, 

was once found from Massachusetts south to Virginia, but due to overhunting and 

habitat loss the heath hen sadly went the way of the dodo bird. 

What will the fate of the greater sage-grouse be? If the language recently tucked 

into the Defense bill is any indication, the bird could be legislated into extinction. 

And that would be a shame, because state and Federal managers on the cusp of 

a huge conservation victory if they are allowed to stay the course without congressional interference. 

I am fortunate to share my home state of Colorado with both the greater sagegrouse and the Gunnison sage-grouse. The greater sage-grouse, the topic of today’s 

hearing, is distributed in six populations in northwest Colorado. However, it is 

threatened by oil and gas development, fragmentation of its sagebrush habitat, fire, 

and invasive weeds. Due to these threats, the greater sage-grouse occupies only half 

of historic range and has become a candidate for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Through the Endangered Species Act, we’ve seen the Federal agencies, the largest 

manager of sage-grouse habitat, in collaboration with state and local partners, take 

considerable steps toward conserving the bird and its habitat. 

More than 1.8 million acres of Colorado’s greater sage-grouse habitat is found on 

BLM lands in the northwest district. That is almost half of the entire bird’s habitat 

in Colorado. Last fall, the BLM and Routt National Forest released the Draft 

12 

Management Plan Amendment for public comment. The draft considers four possible management alternatives for maintaining and increasing habitat for the greater-sage grouse on BLM and Routt National Forest lands in northwest Colorado. This 

applies to Federal lands only, not to private lands. And, importantly, the management alternatives reflect local adjustments to national management recommendations based on input from the cooperating government agencies and the public. 

These unprecedented collaborative efforts, which were catalyzed by the Federal 

recognition that the bird was in a candidate species under the ESA, have been impressive. But this isn’t all about the bird. It’s about the habitat, too. Colorado and 

other states, alongside their Federal partners, have been and continue to invest 

time and resources to protect the sage-steppe ecosystem which is critical to sportsmen and Colorado’s outdoors-based economy. The sage-steppe ecosystem has been 

recognized as one of the most imperiled ecosystems in America due to continued 

degradation and lack of protection. This habitat is a cornerstone of the West’s 

ranching industry since its inception and many rural western communities rely on 

the seasonal economic boost provided by sportsmen. As was stated by the 

Backcounty Hunters and Anglers in reaction to Governor Hickenlooper’s executive 

order, sagebrush steppe plays a crucial role ‘‘in sustaining Colorado’s outdoor-reliant 

economy, which fuels more than $3 billion in annual spending on wildlife-related 

recreation like hunting.’’ 

I am pleased to see that, thanks to the flexibility of the ESA, efforts from Federal 

agencies to private landowners can have an impact. However, I hope that the state’s 

plans ultimately provide the certainty needed for the bird’s successful recovery. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will now turn to our witnesses; 

and I am going to do another audible on this one, in figuring out 

which way to go. I will be totally chauvinistic, and allow Ms. 

Clarke to go first, and then the others I am going to do alphabetically, if that is OK with you. 

So, Ms. Clarke, we will start on this process. 

For all of the witnesses, your written testimony is included in the 

record. Your oral testimony, by our rules, will be limited to 5 minutes. If this is your first time with us, the lighting system above 

you is—if it is a green light, you are OK. When there is 1 minute 

left, you have the yellow light; and then, when it is the red light, 

I am going to do whatever I can to stop you. 

So, Kathleen, if I can turn to you for your oral testimony, we are 

happy to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, DIRECTOR, STATE OF 

UTAH PUBLIC LANDS POLICY COORDINATING OFFICE, SALT 

LAKE CITY, UTAH; FORMER DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT, 2001–2006 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you. It is good to be with the committee, and 

I find myself in somewhat a unique and interesting position today, 

having formerly served as the Director of the Bureau of Land 

Management. When I was in that position, I directed and oversaw 

the development of a sage grouse strategy for conservation, which 

was implemented throughout the BLM in 2003 and 2004. And I 

believe that that contributed significantly to the finding of notwarranted for listing that we had in 2005. 

As the current Director of the Public Land Policy Coordinating 

Office, I was given a similar assignment by Governor Herbert. I 

was asked to assemble a team of stakeholders, to do a year-long 

overview of the status of sage grouse in the state of Utah, and to 

put together a comprehensive sage grouse conservation plan for the 

state. 

13 

I believe that Utah’s work in this effort should also contribute to 

a not-warranted finding. However, despite our good work and 

tireless efforts to find common ground with our Federal land management agencies, I can tell you that, sadly, I think there is a 

dichotomy developing between the state’s collaborative approach 

and Federal unilateralism. What started out as a very promising 

partnership is becoming increasingly imbalanced and, sadly, 

adversarial. 

I want to be clear. The state of Utah is absolutely committed to 

the conservation, long-term conservation, of the sage grouse. Over 

$50 million have been invested in the last 10 years in sage grouse 

conservation, and Utah has only 4 percent of the birds. But that 

is the second-highest amount that any state has invested in the 

grouse conservation. 

In close partnership with our Federal agencies, we have restored 

over half-a-million acres of sage grouse habitat. This has been since 

2006. Significantly, that is after a not-warranted decision was 

made. So, fears that if a not-warranted decision comes out, then we 

stop conservation, are simply not true—at least not in Utah, because that put us to work at an even more rigorous pace. 

Research and groundwork have been the hallmark of sage grouse 

conservation in Utah. We have engaged in an aggressive research 

program in the state led by Utah State University and other universities, and we have probably the most robust data set on sage 

grouse of any state in the West. We have over 15 years, a very 

comprehensive data that has been collected throughout each of our 

significant sage grouse management areas. That has been done in 

collaboration with local working groups; these groups are an assemblage of Federal agencies, as well as on-the-ground partners, 

such as ranchers, farmers and sports enthusiasts, and the scientists. They have worked together to come up with a clear understanding of the needs of the bird. 

We have engaged in land management studies involving habitat 

improvement and restoration, predator control, and population augmentation. And the results, quite frankly, have been stunning and 

directly contradict the doom and gloom that we are hearing about 

the sage grouse. We have taken our scientific findings and translated them into very effective conservation practices. As a result of 

the work, populations in Utah have stabilized and trends are 

positive. 

A recent study by the Pew Foundation failed to recognize that 

fact, but it also ignored the 9- to 12-year cyclical nature of the birds 

within the state of Utah, even though the scientist that issued that 

report had previously acknowledged that cycle in a prior study on 

population viability. Our matrix for success are far simpler. Recognizing the cyclical nature of populations in Utah, we have the goal 

of stabilizing these trends by focusing on the most basic conservation need of the birds, and that is the maintenance and the creation of usable habitat for the populations of the birds. 

Our conservation plan provides a solid framework for assessing 

the needs of the birds within the state. Utah is not like Wyoming; 

we do not have a vast sea of sagebrush. And we are not like the 

Great Basin. Our most important conservation strategies address 

the major threats that the species face in Utah, and that is wildfire 

14 

and the associated invasion of undesirable grasses and the encroachment of conifer trees into the sagebrush. These natural 

events constitute 97 percent of the threat in the state of Utah, 

where development, or ex-urban development and energy, only represent 3 percent of the threat to our sage grouse populations. 

Our strategies are based upon the best-available science, and we 

rely on robust data collected for over 20 years. We analyzed every 

wildfire in our separate sage grouse management areas over a 

period of 18 years to see where those vulnerabilities were. 

The CHAIRMAN. Kathleen, I need you to summarize. 

Ms. CLARKE. OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are over, here. 

Ms. CLARKE. I am already over? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I gave you a break for the cough you had. 

I need you to summarize quickly. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. CLARKE. OK, all right. I want to emphasize that the state 

of Utah is fully committed to conserving sage grouse populations. 

We place great reliance on the substantial contributions of ranchers and other concerned landowners to conserve the species. 

And I want to state that I firmly believe that regulations do not 

conserve species. I believe that people do. And if people are going 

to work for conservation, conservation has to work for people. In 

the state of Utah, we have a plan that motivates our private landowners. We work in concert with our Federal partners and our 

state agencies, and we have a very successful program and look forward to working with all of our partners to continue that into the 

future. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clarke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, UTAH PUBLIC LANDS POLICY

COORDINATING OFFICE

I. INTRODUCTION: DICHOTOMY OF STATE COORDINATED PLANNING AND

IMPLEMENTATION AND THE FEDERAL MANDATE PROCESS

I find myself in an interesting position. As a former Director of the Bureau of 

Land Management, I have extensive insight into operations of a Federal regulatory 

and land management agency. I respect the role of the Federal Government in management of lands and natural resources and oversaw BLM’s development and implementation of a rigorous range wide sage grouse conservation strategy which helped 

to support a ‘‘non-warranted’’ listing determination for the greater sage grouse 

(GRSG) in 2006. 

As the current director of the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office for the 

State of Utah (PLPCO), I oversaw a year-long review of sage-grouse in Utah, and 

the subsequent development of a bold, science-based conservation plan, including 

clearly identified goals and objectives recognized as innovative by observers of the 

process. Based upon that work and the subsequent efforts to find common ground 

with the Federal land management agencies, I can tell you that sadly, there is a 

dichotomy developing between the state of Utah’s collaborative planning process and 

a growing Federal unilateralism. What started out as a promising partnership is becoming increasingly imbalanced and adversarial. 

Let me be clear, the state of Utah is committed to long-term sage-grouse conservation. Over $50 million has been invested in the last 10 years in sage-grouse 

conservation in Utah. The state, in a close partnership with Federal agencies, has 

restored over 560,000 acres of sage-grouse habitat since 2006, which work was funded and undertaken after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the species 

was ‘‘not warranted’’ for listing. Research and ground work have been the hallmark 

of sage-grouse conservation. The state has engaged in an aggressive research program through our universities to scientifically determine the conservation needs of 

the species. We have improved habitat and engaged in land management studies 

15 

involving habitat improvement and restoration, predator control and population 

augmentation. Results have been stunning, and directly contradict the recent gloom 

and doom predictions concerning the sage-grouse. 

As a result of all this work, populations have stabilized. A recent study issued by 

the Pew Foundation fails to recognize this fact. The recent study failed to take into 

account the 9- to 12-year cyclical nature of populations in Utah, a point which was 

clearly recognized by the same authors in their earlier work on the topic of population viability. Our metric for success is far simpler and takes into account the cycles of population. Recognizing the cyclical nature of population numbers in Utah, 

the State’s Conservation Plan sets the goal of stabilizing the population trends by 

emphasizing the most basic conservation need in Utah—the maintenance and creation of useable habitat for the populations of birds. 

II. DETAILED CONSERVATION PLANNING

The State of Utah’s Conservation Plan provides a solid framework for assessing 

the needs of the birds within the state. Utah is not a vast sea of sagebrush, such 

as found in Wyoming or the Great Basin. The most important conservation strategies address the major threats to the species in Utah—wildfire and the associated 

invasion of undesirable grass, and the encroachment of conifer trees into the sagebrush. These natural events constitute 97 percent of the threat to the species in 

Utah. Human activities, such as energy development and exurban development, are 

not major threats, representing only 3 percent of the threat. Utah’s sage-grouse conservation strategies are completely based upon the best available science developed 

over the past 20 years, and the most robust data. 

The state’s team analyzed every wildfire in our 11 separate Sage-Grouse 

Management Areas over a period of 18 years. We funded mapping of invasive conifer encroachment on the 7.4 million acres within the SGMAs. We analyzed every 

existing oil and gas well, and explored likely energy development patterns. We considered complex forward-looking models of the expansion of human towns and cities. 

We analyzed the nexus between these patterns and on-the-ground sage-grouse populations to identify the most effective tools for conservation. Finally the state developed complex, acre-by-acre planning for the next decade to ensure that the state has 

a conservation strategy to address areas where there is a nexus between the major 

and lesser threats and the birds. Implementation of these strategies by state agencies was recently fortified through a Governor’s Executive Order. 

III. RATIONALE FOR THE EFFORT

Why did the state do this? In part, this was due to invitations by Federal partners 

to produce conservation plans sufficient to support a not warranted listing for the 

species. But also because the science and other relevant information clearly demonstrate that long-term conservation of sage-grouse can be assured under sciencebased, strategic state management. In Utah, balance still matters. Developing 

solutions that protect our freedoms and private property rights still matters. 

Throughout our deliberative process, we have been able to identify and implement 

proven solutions that will conserve sage-grouse. More importantly these solutions 

also work for the people and partners who live, work and raise their families in 

sage-grouse country. These citizens were focused on the conservation of sage-grouse 

through the efforts of 10 Local Working Groups involving over 1,500 volunteers, 

long before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ever considered a petition to list. 

Long-term success of sage-grouse can be successful only if these partnerships are 

protected under state-management of sage-grouse. Top-down Federal mandates 

threaten that success. 

We are experiencing numerous frustrations as we work with the Federal land 

management agencies on proposed plan amendments which will reduce the likelihood of a listing of the species. Instead of helping cut through the red tape, Federal 

agencies are focusing most of their effort on finding new ways to regulate human 

activity. As someone representing a state which has invested decades in sage-grouse 

conservation, the relentless efforts to force more standardized and irrelevant mandates on the use of the land not only threatens the conservation of the species, but 

unnecessarily imposes hardship on the hard-working citizens of the West. 

Some examples may help you understand this. Utah’s plan and detailed conservation strategies focus agency energy and funds into wildfire suppression and rehabilitation, the elimination of conifer encroachment and the improvement of poor quality 

habitat. The science behind this work demonstrates that the birds will immediately 

use the rehabilitated lands once a project is complete. Yet, instead of this proven 

approach, the Federal land agencies are intent on the creation of unnecessary zones 

16 

of regulation, most of which will have no effect on the primary conservation issue 

(more useable habitat), or on reduction of the primary threats. 

We find the Federal resistance to implementing the conservation programs that 

matter the most to be the most frustrating. Now is the time to put aside the state 

vs. Federal electioneering that we are seeing from Federal agencies. While lip service is paid to ‘‘collaboration,’’ the focus of Federal regulators is increasingly unilateral and dismissive of state conservation actions. After months of conversation, 

states see more and more demands for regulation for issues that pose only remote 

risk and/or benefit, but threaten millions of acres with unnecessary mineral withdrawal, ‘‘no-surface occupancy’’ rules that are counterproductive, and a strong emphasis on proposed resolution of lesser conservation threats. 

The state of Utah is fully committed to conserving sage-grouse populations and 

the sagebrush landscape upon which they depend. Our efforts include a strong 

adaptive management program designed to monitor the effects of the current conservation plans, and to find solutions for future issues that may arise. The state’s 

15 year conifer removal program needs to be immediately and aggressively undertaken by all landowners, including the Federal agencies. This, and a shift in emphasis of the wildfire suppression and rehabilitation program toward sage-grouse 

conservation, will do the most to benefit sage-grouse. These efforts directly address 

the high-risk threats to the species in Utah. 

The state also places reliance upon the substantial efforts by ranchers and other 

concerned landowners to conserve the species. These folks are working hard to employ best available practices endorsed by the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, and other agencies. They are eager to participate through conservation 

easements and other legal tools. More than 1,500 volunteers participate in Utah’s 

Local Working Groups and associated conservation projects. The state’s Conservation Plan contains a specific measurable goal to this effect. Yet we are informed that 

these efforts are meaningless, because there is no ‘‘certainty’’ in the immediate 

future attached to their contributions, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s current and strongly expressed interpretation of its Policy for the 

Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (PECE). 

The state of Utah supports the efforts of Congress to allow the states the opportunity to demonstrate the robust nature of their plans, and demonstrate the 

required level of certainty required by the Service’s PECE standards. The 10-year 

time frame mentioned in legislation is firmly based in the science of sage-grouse in 

Utah, and is recognized in peer-reviewed scientific papers. We believe that congressional action is likely the only way to ensure the states have the necessary time 

to demonstrate effective conservation efforts and to secure the long-term 

sustainability of the GRSG. 

Thank you. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY ROB BISHOP TO KATHLEEN CLARKE, 

DIRECTOR, UTAH PUBLIC LANDS POLICY COORDINATING OFFICE

Question 1. The witness from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 

suggested that the state of Utah abandoned its sage grouse protection program after 

the Interior Secretary made her ‘‘not warranted’’ determination. 

If this is an incorrect statement, please provide data to the contrary. 

Answer. Since 2006, which is the year after sage-grouse were declared ‘‘not 

warranted’’ for listing, Utah did not abandon its conservation program for greater 

sage-grouse. Rather, the state of Utah, with the continued commitment and help of 

many partners, has dramatically increased its conservation efforts since that time. 

Since 2006, over 500,000 acres of sage-grouse habitats have been enhanced in Utah, 

even though more than 50 percent of the habitat in Utah is privately owned, and 

at a cost of nearly $80 million (Figure 1). So, even after sage-grouse were found to 

be ‘‘not warranted’’ for listing, conservation efforts and associated expenditures in 

Utah have not only grown, but they have synergistically accelerated through broad, 

volunteer-based partner collaboration. Total expenditures for on-the-ground conservation actions in Utah have increased since 2006, and even exceeded $10 million 

in 2008 and 2013 (Figure 2), was that trend of conservation actions and expenditures, when combined with those of other western states clearly demonstrates an 

increased commitment, not the ‘‘abandonment’’ that has been suggested, to sagegrouse conservation by Utah and other states (Figure 3). 

17 

Figure 1. Total on-the-ground greater sage-grouse conservation expenditures in 

Utah since 2006. 

Figure 2. Total expenditures in Utah on greater sage-grouse conservation projects, 

2006–2014. 


94772.002.eps 94772.003.eps
18 

Figure 3. Total estimated expenditures by 10 western states on sage-grouse 

conservation actions, 2000–2012. 

These on-the-ground conservation expenditures were made possible through broad 

collaboration, combined with local commitment to long-term conservation of sagegrouse populations in Utah. Utah’s track-record of voluntarily planning and implementing landscape-level, science-based and collaborative conservation projects is 

testimony to our commitment and resolve in protecting this species without the need 

for Federal regulation. To date, over 1,500 voluntary participants in our 10 Local 

Working Groups across Utah have been voluntarily participating in sage-grouse 

conservation efforts. Through those local collaborative efforts, all Local Working 

Groups have revised their local conservation plans since 2006. In addition, the state 

of Utah has updated the 2002 Utah Sage-grouse Strategy, and those updates were 

locally reviewed and approved by the Utah Wildlife Board and was published in 

2009. In addition, in 2013 the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, with 

support from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, finalized the Conservation 

Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah, which is designed to enhance, restore and increase landscape-scale sage-grouse habitats. 

As further testament to Utah’s most recent commitment to the long-term 

conservation of greater sage-grouse, on February 25, 2015, Utah Governor Gary 

Herbert signed Executive Order (EO/2015/002), Implementing the Utah Conservation 

Plan for Greater Sage-grouse, which directs state agencies to collaborate in the implementation of the Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah. Since that 

time, the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, through close coordination with 

the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, has executed a series of Memorandum of 

Understandings, each of which further clarify and formalize the commitments of 

each agency to the continued and collaborative conservation of greater sage-grouse 

in Utah. 

Question 2. During the hearing, the recent PEW study was referred to. Has your 

state had a chance to review the study including the methodology used? 

Do you support the study’s conclusion, and if not, why not? 

Do you have data to suggest that the conclusions in the PEW study are incorrect? 

If yes, provide any data to the committee. 

Answer. Yes, the state of Utah has reviewed the recently distributed, and scientifically flawed PEW Charitable Trust report (Garton et al. 2015). For many reasons, 

the state of Utah does not support the conclusions of the PEW report. 

First and foremost, in Garton et. al. (2011), which is a scientifically reviewed, published and widely recognized study that was led and co-authored by the same lead 

researcher as the PEW report, the authors state that sage-grouse populations in 

Utah ‘‘increased from about 6,500 males in 1965 to a peak at 14,000 males in 1970, 

followed by cycles of declines and peaks at 9- to 12-year intervals.’’ These data and 

conclusions, which again, were derived by the same lead author as the PEW report, 

were based on a robust range-wide sage-grouse lek count data that was collected 

from 1965 through 2007. That study recognizes, validates and has served as the 

scientific basis for the understanding that range-wide sage-grouse populations are 

naturally cyclical. 

Rather than adding new data from 2008 to 2013 to that existing dataset from 

Garton et al. (2011), the PEW Report is based on selective data which appears to 

incorporate only low periods (2007–2013) in the natural 9–12 year sage-grouse population cycles (see Figure 4 below). These data and conclusions clearly present biased 


94772.004.eps
19 

and misleadingly negative outcomes and conclusions about the effectiveness of sagegrouse conservation actions in Utah. Had the authors analyzed a longer-term 

dataset, including the data from 2014 and the newly collected 2015 lek count data 

in Utah, the conclusions of this study would likely have been much different. This 

is why the Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah (2013) relies heavily 

on a 10-year rolling average of population abundance when assessing population 

trends over time. 

Figure 4. The annual total and average number of male sage-grouse counted per 

lek, and the 10-year rolling average sage-grouse population trend in Utah, 1980– 

2014. 

Second, the report has not been subjected to a rigorous peer-review process, which 

is widely accepted as the most reliable process for generating the best available 

science. The state of Utah did not have an opportunity to review the PEW Report 

prior to its distribution. Had local biologists from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources been given that opportunity, they would have recommended that a longerterm dataset be incorporated into the study. 

Further, the areas that were evaluated in the PEW Report do not correspond well 

to Utah’s Sage-Grouse Management Areas (SGMAs), which are outlined in the 

Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah (2013) and provide the basis for 

state-wide sage-grouse conservation in Utah. More specifically, the Rich-MorganSummit and Uintah SGMAs are only small edges of the Wyoming Basin modeling 

area in the Pew Report, the Box Elder SMGA is only a small portion of the 

Northern Great Basin modeling area in the PEW Report, and the Ibapah and 

Hamlin Valley SGMAs are only small portions of the Southern Great Basin 

modeling area in the PEW Report. As a result of this poor spatial correspondence, 

conclusions that are based on efforts that span multiple states jurisdictions do not 

accurately represent the effectiveness of sage-grouse conservation actions in Utah. 

Finally, the authors then extrapolated the statistics based upon the decline portion of the cycle into unsupported conclusions about the effectiveness of conservation 

efforts. The authors specifically suggest that the conservation actions implemented 

since 2007 appeared to have had no effect on populations. This assertion is inappropriate and is not based upon an unbiased set of information. Such a conclusion must 

be based instead upon a comparison of sage-grouse lek count trends in areas where 

conservation actions were completed, then compared with areas where no actions 

were conducted. Such an analysis was not completed nor was it considered as part 

of this study. 

Question 3a. Please explain the activities of your state to work with private 

landowners in your efforts to create/expand habitat for sage grouse. 

Answer. Utah’s approach to sage-grouse conservation is rooted in local decisions 

that guide local conservation. To that end, the state of Utah has partnered with 

Utah State University to develop Utah’s Community-Based Conservation Program, 

whose mission is to ‘‘implement a process that enhances coordination and communication between community-based adaptive resource management working groups, 

private and public partners.’’ Through that process, 10 Local Working Groups have 

been developed, and to date they have collaboratively developed, updated and implemented local management plans for designated geographic areas in Utah that contribute to the conservation of sage-grouse. In total, more than 1,500 people have 

participated in these Local Working Groups, and even though more than 50 percent 

of Utah’s lands are privately owned, over 500,000 acres of sage-grouse habitats have 

been enhanced in Utah at a cost of nearly $80 million (see Figure 1). 


94772.005.eps
20 

The state of Utah has been actively working with private landowners and others 

on sage-grouse conservation since the mid-1990s. As part of that effort, the state 

of Utah sponsored the creation of 10 Local Working Groups (LWGs). In 2006, in 

order to evaluate if the LWG process and similar efforts in other states were meeting stakeholder needs, the CBCP coordinator initiated a 2-year study of 700 randomly selected members in 54 sage-grouse LWGs in nine western states. The 

research was supported by a Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Grant. The research project explored these core questions: 

(1) What types of LWGs have been the most successful at generating effective wildlife conservation programs on working agricultural lands, (2) What kinds of technical or institutional support can increase the potential for success among current 

LWGs, and (3) What role can LWGs play in the portfolio of NRCS efforts to protect 

wildlife on working lands? The survey research was then augmented by in-depth 

case study interviews of participants in four LWGs. A copy of the final technical 

report can be accessed at http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/ 

pub_8613439.pdf. The state of Utah also produced a guide for NRCS and other western states on how to better work with local landowners and communities to implement sage-grouse conservation actions. In this case, Utah not only worked to more 

fully engage Utah landowners in sage-grouse conservation, but also focused on how 

to better support local working groups and landowners throughout the entire range 

of greater sage-grouse. 

Question 3b. Will the draft RMP revisions enhance your efforts in that regard or 

make such tasks harder? 

Answer. The draft RMP revisions do not consider conservation measures as part 

of an ‘‘all lands’’ approach. While portions of the proposed revisions are helpful for 

the species (i.e., wildfire provisions), many of the provisions may wind up being 

counter-productive. For example, BLM restrictions concerning activities on its lands 

could simply move the disturbance to private or state land, when the least damaging option may be on the BLM lands. 

Question 4. Are the goals of Director Ashe’s October (2014) memo consistent with 

your analysis of the problems facing the sage grouse? 

If yes, please explain. If these proposals miss the mark, please explain. 

Answer. The October, 2014 memo does not represent a comprehensive solution to 

the threats faced by the greater sage-grouse. The memo has lead to the creation of 

proposed BLM and Forest Service ‘‘solutions’’ which do not reflect the best conservation measures for the species, instead the memo has caused the agencies to focus 

on peripheral matters. 

The memo identified a new category of lands—the so-called population 

‘‘strongholds.’’ No data has been provided which would allow independent review 

concerning the need for those particular areas, they are simply delineated as strongholds based upon the general reference to various studies. Several of these same 

studies were used by the states as the basis for the state plans, so the strongholds 

memo does not present any new information. The states had previously identified 

Priority Areas for Conservation, which were included in the Service’s Conservation 

Objective Team (COT) Report dated March, 2013. The strongholds memo ignores the 

advice of the Service’s own COT Report, which has been held up by Interior officials 

as the gold-standard for conservation measures for the sage-grouse. 

The identification of strongholds has directly resulted in the proposed creation of 

‘‘Sagebrush Focal Areas’’ by the BLM and the Forest Service as part of their plan 

amendment process. The proposed sagebrush focal areas feature a withdrawal from 

the mining law, no surface occupancy with no exceptions for fluid minerals, and a 

prioritization for the review of grazing. These provisions have been described as 

‘‘pivotal’’ in the discussion about a ‘‘not warranted’’ decision by the Service, which 

is forthcoming by the end of September. 

The Interior Department has informed the public that the withdrawal from the 

mining laws is required to prevent the creation of valid property rights in the hands 

of claimants. Yet all of the current mining operations in the West comprise a total 

of around 350,000 acres, and more than 9 million is proposed for withdrawal. The 

solution proposed is out of balance with the true nature of the possible threat to 

the species represented by mining. Mining is a disturbance which can be managed— 

the proposed withdrawal, which requires a separate Secretarial process, is designed 

to eliminate mining exploration. Exploration is not a threat to the species identified 

in the 2010 Service sage-grouse listing decision. 

The proposed NSO provisions have the potential to be counter-productive in areas 

with mixed ownership of lands, as it may preclude the siting of land disturbances 

in the least offensive manner to the habitat needs of the species. 

21 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Arnett. 

STATEMENT OF ED ARNETT, SENIOR SCIENTIST, THEODORE 

ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP, LOVELAND, 

COLORADO 

Dr. ARNETT. Good morning, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, and members of the committee. Thank you very much for 

the invitation to testify this morning on this very important topic. 

My name is Ed Arnett, I am the Senior Scientist with the Theodore 

Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. We are a national sportsman’s 

conservation partnership organization with 42 formal partners, 

many of those who work very extensively on sage grouse. 

I appreciated Mr. Polis’ introduction. I have been a professional 

biologist for 25 years, working with Federal agencies, as well as a 

Fortune 500 timber-industry company during the spotted owl era 

that was mentioned earlier; so I have a little bit of background on 

that particular set of issues. I also have worked with the NGO 

sector for some time now. 

The title of this hearing, ‘‘Empowering State Management of 

Greater Sage Grouse,’’ is an important one to note. The states, in 

fact—as we have already heard, and we agree with—have been extensively engaged and empowered from the very beginning. Any 

notion to the contrary would, of course, be misleading. 

Indeed, it was the state agency biologists decades ago that 

brought attention to concerns over sagebrush ecosystems, and increasing concerns about sage grouse. Since then, the states have 

been full partners with Federal managers, ranchers, and other relevant stakeholders in developing the conservation road map that 

we see today for sage grouse. 

As we have heard and will hear from the states, they have made 

very important and significant contributions that we certainly appreciate and recognize. TRCP fully supports the state management 

of all wildlife species, because this is a critical tenant of the North 

American model that is so important to sportsmen. 

There can be no doubt that the best way to maintain oversight 

of sage grouse and, moreover, hundreds of species that are dependent on this system, is to keep the bird off the Endangered Species 

List. If we can all agree that that is our shared definition of success, to sustain state management of grouse and keep it from being 

listed, then we should agree that the path forward is through the 

development and implementation of both Federal and state plans 

that are robust to preclude the need to list the species. 

This is not an either/or proposition. We need strong plans for our 

Federal lands; and we need state plans that address private lands, 

as well as the state lands that operate under different mandates. 

Of course, we also need our private landowners, and their critical 

important engagements, to round out a comprehensive strategy for 

these diverse western landscapes. 

We are confident that the conservation measures and collaboration necessary to do this are currently happening across the range 

of the species, and require no action by this Congress other than 

the allocation of appropriate levels of funding for sustained 

22 

management and conservation, so we avoid winding up in the same 

place further down the road. 

The Endangered Species Act is a tool of last resort, and one that 

certainly is not preferred by sportsmen as a vehicle for conservation; but the loss of sage grouse habitat and the drop in numbers 

is no secret, and the weight of evidence can’t be denied. It seems 

that the specter of an ESA listing has been necessary to drive this 

historic level of collaboration, at least among some, and among the 

different stakeholders that is currently taking place on behalf of 

greater sage grouse. 

The science clearly indicates that sage grouse habitat must be 

protected with durable conservation plans that will eventually 

produce habitat and more birds on the ground. Suggesting there is 

some other path forward simply serves to unnecessarily confuse the 

issue. 

We must remain on the path we are on today and finalize these 

plans and begin—as Kathleen noted that the state of Utah is implementing—we need to implement these things broadly on the 

ground and get it over the hump and moving forward. 

The vast majority of core sage grouse habitat is on Federal land, 

so strong Federal plans covering both BLM and Forest Service 

acres are close to being finalized. We are nearly there, but they 

have to be coupled with strong state plans and reflect state-specific 

approaches to sage grouse conservation. We believe this will be 

enough to thwart off the listing. 

Science-based state and Federal conservation plans implemented 

with adequate funding represent the only way to maintain state 

authority of the sage grouse plan—the sage grouse management. 

Fundamentally shifting Federal land management and decisionmaking to the states at this stage of the game, or delaying Federal 

action on a listing, are perhaps the best ways to ensure the bird 

winds up on the list. Actions like this only serve to take focus off 

what must be done. 

And, interestingly, we are only hearing from a minority about 

the delays needed to allow the state plans to develop and manifest. 

We are not hearing from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that 

they require a delay to get to a not-warranted decision. As such, 

we believe Congress should let the current process and historic 

collaboration continue, and we believe we will have a successful 

conclusion. 

I would again like to thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today, and I will be happy to answer questions after the other 

speakers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Arnett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. ARNETT, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, THEODORE

ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the committee, my 

name is Ed Arnett and I am the Senior Scientist for the Theodore Roosevelt 

Conservation Partnership, a national sportsmen’s conservation organization comprised of 42 Partner organizations, our mission is to ensure all Americans a quality 

place to hunt and fish. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on such a timely 

and important topic as sage grouse conservation. 

23 

I’ve been a professional wildlife biologist and scientist for 25 years, with experience in research, management, academia, and conservation policy. I earned my 

Ph.D. from Oregon State University in Forest Science; a Master’s degree in Zoology 

and Physiology from the University of Wyoming; a Bachelors from Montana State 

University in Fish and Wildlife Management; and an Associate of Applied Science 

degree in Natural Resources Management from Colorado Mountain College. I have 

extensive research and management experience in forest-wildlife relationships, wind 

energy and wildlife, and other aspects of energy and wildlife relationships. 

BACKGROUND

Once numbering millions and spanning 13 U.S. states and three Canadian provinces, greater sage-grouse are now extirpated in two states and one province and 

have lost 44 percent of their original range. Numerous stressors that include habitat 

fragmentation, energy development, urbanization, fire, invasive species, disease and 

poor rangeland health have contributed to declines of sage-grouse in the past several decades. Indeed, the fact that a once abundant, widely distributed and harvested game bird is now at population levels low enough to consider for listing as 

threatened or endangered should be a major concern for all stakeholders and certainly for America’s sportsmen. 

Sagebrush ecosystems are critically important to more than 350 species of plants 

and animals, including those pursued by sportsmen such as mule deer, pronghorn, 

and the greater sage-grouse. The sage-grouse in essence has become a modern day 

‘‘canary in the coal mine’’ that is telling us that sagebrush ecosystems and many 

of the species that depend on them are in jeopardy. Thriving populations of sage 

grouse are a good indicator of healthy sagebrush ecosystems. 

The TRCP supports the continued science-based management of sage-grouse as a 

game bird under the authority of state fish and wildlife agencies. We believe that 

the best way to maintain state management authority is to enact both Federal and 

state conservation plans with durable protections for sage-grouse habitat, thus enabling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to make a ‘‘not-warranted’’ decision under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) without delay. Balancing sagebrush 

and sage-grouse conservation with other land uses also is important, notably (1) implementation of sustainable grazing practices that keep working ranches in 

operation while providing habitat for sage-grouse; and (2) responsible energy development that balances with conservation and does not further impact sage-grouse 

and their habitats and mitigates unforeseen impacts once avoidance and minimization measures have been taken. 

PAST ENGAGEMENT BY THE STATES

Given the theme of this hearing, a bit of history is in order regarding the engagement of the states in the collaboration and progress that has been made the past 

decade. Any notion that the states have not been ‘‘empowered’’ or engaged is misleading. In the mid-1990s, it was state agency biologists that began expressing 

concern about declining numbers of sage-grouse, loss of habitat, and deteriorating 

conditions of the remaining sagebrush ecosystems. At that time, however, it was determined that sage-grouse did not meet requirements for listing under the ESA. As 

we all know, years later, after litigation, a ‘‘not warranted’’ decision in 2005, and 

more litigation, the USFWS in 2010 determined sage-grouse did warrant ESA protection. The USFWS is now under court order to finalize a decision by September 

30, 2015. But the stage for extensive state agency engagement and cooperation with 

the Federal agencies was set a decade earlier. 

In 2002, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

partnered with the USFWS to generate an assessment of sage-grouse populations 

and habitats (Connelly et al. 2004) and a conservation strategy (Stiver et al. 2006) 

built from the ground up that continues to serve as a foundation of the current efforts. The Governor’s Sage-grouse Task Force was later created in 2011 and chaired 

by the states (Governors Matt Mead-WY and John Hickenlooper-CO). That statedominated task force was charged with developing recommendations on how to best 

advance a coordinated, multi-state, range-wide effort to conserve the sage-grouse, including the identification of conservation objectives to ensure the long-term viability 

of the species (USFWS 2013). With the backing of this task force, the USFWS embarked on developing range-wide conservation objectives for the sage-grouse to 

define the degree to which threats need to be reduced or ameliorated to conserve 

sage-grouse so that it is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future (USFWS 2013). The USFWS recognized 

that state wildlife agencies have management expertise and management authority 

for sage-grouse; as such, the USFWS created a Conservation Objectives Team (COT) 

24 

of state and FWS representatives to accomplish this task. The COT consisted primarily of state agency biologists/representatives (10 of the 11 western states in the 

range of sage-grouse) along with five biologists and other staff from the USFWS. 

At the heart of the COT report is the foundation laid by the WAFWA conservation 

strategy (Stiver 2006). Importantly, all of the states signed off on the COT report 

and the threats to sage-grouse and strategies to reduce those threats embedded 

within the report. 

The states have continued to be engaged extensively, through the Governor’s Task 

Force, WAFWA and their Sage-grouse Executive Oversight Committee, and other 

venues. From my perspective, the coordination and work between the states and 

Federal agencies to achieve positive outcomes and ultimately a not-warranted decision, while not perfect at all levels or all the time, has been unmatched in my 25- 

year career. 

STATE AND FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT OPERATE UNDER DIFFERENT MANDATES

Nearly half of the Nation’s remaining sagebrush habitat lies on Federal public 

lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and conservation measures 

in that agency’s new resource management plans will likely carry significant weight 

in the September 2015 decision. Private and state lands, however, are also vital to 

the birds’ future, and the ESA listing decision will hinge on good state conservation 

plans and efforts from private landowners (e.g., the NRCS Sage Grouse Initiative). 

The states have done a tremendous amount of work, as evidenced by reports from 

the Western Governors Association and others, and should be commended for their 

efforts. Both voluntary and regulatory measures in the current and future state 

plans are critically important components of a broader, comprehensive Federal and 

state strategy for sage-grouse. 

However, shifting land management authority completely to the states and negating Federal land management plans, as has been proposed in several recent legislative proposals, is fundamentally flawed and problematic for numerous reasons. 

There are key differences in how state and Federal governments are mandated to 

manage their respective lands. First and foremost, states do not manage their lands 

under a multiple-use mandate, as the Federal agencies are required to by law. State 

school trust lands are under constitutional mandate to generate, and where possible 

maximize, revenues for schools, which limits their flexibility and management options in many cases. In contrast, Federal land managers operate under a multiple 

use sustained yield mandate, giving them far greater flexibility to manage for conservation values in addition to other values. Moreover, at least some states have 

limited ability to regulate private lands given their current constitutional statutes 

and in some states, counties have authority over many decisions that may affect 

sage-grouse habitat (e.g., permitting development). The management stipulations 

that states apply to non-Federal lands are far more limited in scope than the types 

of requirements that Federal land managers can apply. As a result, sage-grouse 

management plans on Federal, public lands can and should be significantly more 

conservation-oriented than the state plans insofar as development buffers and setbacks from priority sage grouse habitat. State plans, however, must work in conjunction with strong Federal plans for sage grouse conservation to be successful. 

STATES ALREADY HAVE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF POPULATIONS AND

COOPERATING STATUS

The states, primarily through their respective fish and wildlife agency, already 

have full management authority of wildlife populations. The Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (among others) sets the stage for state cooperation with Federal 

agencies, and the states have ‘‘cooperating agency’’ status under administrative rule 

set forth by the Federal agencies. For example, the BLM planning Handbook (H– 

1610 Appendix C, p. 6) requires field offices to: 

‘‘Designate priority species and habitats, in addition to special status species, 

for fish or wildlife species recognized as significant for at least one factor such 

as density, diversity, size, public interest, remnant character, or age. Identify 

desired outcomes using BLM strategic plans, state agency strategic plans, and 

other similar sources. Describe desired habitat conditions and/or population for 

major habitat types that support a wide variety of game, non-game, and migratory bird species; acknowledging the states’ roles in managing fish and wildlife, 

working in close coordination with state wildlife agencies, and drawing on state 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies. Identify actions and area wide 

use restrictions needed to achieve desired population and habitat conditions 

while maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use 

relationships.’’ 

25 

As mentioned earlier, the states have been engaged since concerns for sage-grouse 

and loss of sagebrush habitat arose years more than two decades ago. The states 

remain responsible for managing not only populations but also approximately onethird of the identified priority sage-grouse habitat into the future. Extraordinary effort and coordination has occurred for the past several years and the states are 

finalizing their plans (or already have done so and have begun implementation; e.g., 

WY, UT) that will compliment Federal efforts. While we have seen some reluctance 

and mediocre plans in some states to date, the ongoing process and negotiations 

should be allowed to play out and be finalized with the goal of a comprehensive, 

coordinated state and Federal strategy for sage-grouse and sagebrush ecosystems. 

This is happening, and requires no further congressional action on sage-grouse. 

ISSUES WITH LEGISLATING STATE MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS

Current proposed Federal legislation under consideration would: 

• Eliminate the ability of Federal public land managers to amend or modify 

Federal resource management plans whether to enable conservation or development, and seeks to retroactively nullify resource management plan amendments already made, a change in policy that would impact millions of acres 

and hundreds of species of fish and wildlife. 

• Halt Federal land-use planning efforts, costing taxpayers tens of millions of 

dollars, and delaying implementation that is needed immediately. Such action 

also would increase the uncertainty within SG range associated with this 

major change in land management policy—unintended consequences? 

• Erode the implementation of bedrock conservation statutes—such as the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, National Forest Management Act, 

Administrative Procedures Act, Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and others. 

• Eliminate judicial review on a sweeping array of long-term land management 

decision points. 

It can be argued that state management authority and practices on private and 

state lands, or lack thereof, is in part responsible for declines in sagebrush habitat 

and ultimately populations of sage-grouse. Importantly, state conservation plans 

and regulatory authority vary dramatically across the 11 states, a situation not necessarily driven by different environmental conditions or threats to the species that 

warrant flexibility and different approaches. Additionally, some populations of sagegrouse span multiple states that have different habitat designations and management approaches—this would be very problematic for managing such populations. 

Numerous questions regarding any such shift in management authority immediately surface. How soon could we possibly expect such a shift in management responsibility to occur? It does not seem possible that halting all efforts by BLM and 

the USFS and shifting to a state-driven plan is possible in the immediate future— 

the Federal management plans are nearly finalized and ready for much needed implementation. How will states incorporate the intent of the ESA, existing Federal 

regulations, and case law into the analysis on a state by state basis? How will the 

states do their own analysis on plans, or will they employ the 5-factor analysis that 

the USFWS must employ according to the ESA? How would individual states address the range wide listing petition they are dealing with now? Perhaps most important, how will courts rule on the adequacy of state plans—will this be through 

Federal or perhaps through 11 different state courts? 

Finally, the state plans, even those produced by committees of diverse stakeholders, did not go through a broader public review and input process as the Federal 

plans have. As such, implementing such state plans on Federal lands owned by the 

American people with no opportunity to comment is fundamentally and constitutionally flawed. 

Given these issues and questions, the state plans themselves cannot stand alone 

and drive conservation efforts on Federal and state and private lands that would 

adequately conserve the species. 

CONCLUSION

Our organization and many of our partner organizations have been active in the 

sage-grouse issue and define success as keeping the bird off of the threatened/ 

endangered species list and its continued management by the state wildlife agencies. The threat of an ESA listing for sage-grouse has brought the states, Federal 

agencies and multiple stakeholders to the table in a meaningful way. The only way 

to conserve the species, avoid a listing, and sustain state management authority, is 

26 

with strong conservation plans and collaboration that is currently ongoing. We have 

seen unprecedented coordination and planning efforts across 11 western states and 

we believe the USFWS can get to a ‘‘not warranted’’ decision by the court-ordered 

deadline in September 2015, and without congressional intervention. The recent 

‘‘not warranted’’ decision on the Bi-state population of greater sage-grouse clearly 

demonstrates that a positive outcome from these current efforts can be achieved. 

However, we are deeply concerned that current legislative efforts not only represent 

an unprecedented shift of management responsibility by turning over land use and 

habitat management authority of publicly-owned, Federal lands to the states, but 

also unnecessarily delays implementation of management plans that have been 

years in the making. We need to achieve timely approval of Federal land management plans and begin implementing conservation and habitat management measures that convert ‘‘paper birds and habitat’’ into real results on the ground. 

Altering the process at this point via delay and shifts in management authority 

creates even greater uncertainty for stakeholders and virtually assures a listing 

down the road. As such, what we need from Congress is simple—adequate and sustainable funding levels that ensure conservation durability in the long term. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the TRCP I want to 

thank you for inviting me to share this information and assist you on this important 

issue. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

REFERENCES

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation 

Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. 

Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage-grouse 

Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, CO. February 2013. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY ROB BISHOP TO DR. ED ARNETT, SENIOR

SCIENTIST, THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

Question 1. You stated that after the ‘‘not warranted’’ determination was made 

in 2004, the state of Utah stopped its activities to protect the sage grouse. Could 

you provide the committee with specific data to support your statement? 

Answer. To clarify, I did not single out Utah when answering the question posed 

to me during the hearing on this issue. What I said was that after the 2005 decision, many states—perhaps not Utah given what Ms. Clarke noted regarding her 

state—slowed their activities and expenditures on sage-grouse. I confirmed with the 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) who tracked expenditures by the states from 2000–2012 on sagebrush and sage-grouse-related activities. 

They noted that leading up to the 2005 listing decision the rate of expenditures (in 

other words, the acceleration of expenditures) increased up to around 2004 and then 

declined after the 2005 decision was made. This was a short-term slowing in that 

rate of increase and the interpretation was that the urgency/importance of sagebrush and sage-grouse-related expenditures declined to some extent after the ‘‘not 

warranted’’ finding, but that was not necessarily reflective of all states. According 

to Ms. Clarke, Utah was not one of those states. WAFWA also noted that as the 

remand and 2010 decision time frame neared, expenditures began to ramp up again. 

It is worth noting that these expenditures did not include those from the NRCS 

Sage-grouse Initiative that has spent nearly 1⁄2 a billion dollars since its inception 

in 2010. 

Question 2. Your testimony argues that valid existing rights would protect existing oil and gas leases under pending FWS policy to protect the sage grouse. 

However, Director Ashe’s October (2014) memorandum proposes new restrictions on 

development. These additional restrictions constitute the creation of new, would-be 

greater sage grouse ‘‘strongholds.’’ These ‘‘strongholds’’ will essentially prevent any 

surface occupancy on approximately 16.5 million acres of land across several states. 

Please explain how this fact squares with your statement? 

27 

Answer. First, the language in the current EISs and what I have heard from DOI 

indicates that the overlap with fluid and locatable minerals is low (e.g., ∼84 percent 

of oil and gas reserves are located outside of priority habitat)—this would include 

the focal areas or ‘‘strongholds.’’ That percentage is even higher in many of the 

state-specific EISs. 

I’m interpreting the question as having to do with some overlap of existing leases 

and SFAs, or with the need to develop roads to access leased areas with valid and 

existing rights. The BLM generally has to balance impacts to other resources while 

honoring valid existing rights and so has experience handling this situation. To that 

end, there is explicit language in the current, final draft RMPs that address valid 

and existing rights. For example, from the Hi-line, MT plan: 

‘‘Existing roads, or realignments, would be used to access valid and existing 

rights. If valid and existing rights cannot be accessed via existing roads, 

then any new road would be constructed to the absolute minimum standard 

necessary with appropriate BMPs and mitigation (Appendices C and M; 

p. 199). 

From the Buffalo EIS (p. 138): 

‘‘Where a proposed fluid mineral development project on an existing lease 

could adversely affect Greater Sage-Grouse populations or habitat, the BLM 

will work with the lessees, operators, or other project proponents to avoid, 

reduce and mitigate adverse impacts to the extent compatible with lessees’ 

rights to drill and produce fluid mineral resources. The BLM will work with 

the lessee, operator, or project proponent in developing an APD for the 

lessee to avoid and minimize impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse or its habitat 

and will ensure that the best information about the Greater Sage-Grouse 

and its habitat informs and helps to guide development of such Federal 

leases.’’ 

From the Buffalo EIS (p. 199): 

‘‘In cases where Federal oil and gas leases are or have been issued without 

stipulated restrictions or requirements that are later found to be necessary, 

or with stipulated restrictions or requirements later found to be insufficient, 

consider their inclusion before approving subsequent exploration and development activities. Include these restrictions or requirements only as reasonable measures or as conditions of approval authorizing APDs or Master 

Development Plans. Conversely, in cases where leases are or have been 

issued with stipulated restrictions or requirements found to be excessive or 

unnecessary, the stipulated restrictions or requirements may be appropriately modified, excepted or waived in authorizing actions. Both the application of reasonable measures or COAs and the modification, exception, or 

waiver of stipulated restrictions or requirements must first be based upon 

site-specific analysis including necessary supporting NEPA.’’ 

These are just a few examples where the EISs clearly honor valid and existing 

rights while attempting to work with operators to minimize adverse effects. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF DUSTIN MILLER, ADMINISTRATOR, STATE OF 

IDAHO—OFFICE OF SPECIES CONSERVATION, BOISE, IDAHO 

Mr. MILLER. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee. Thank you for holding this important oversight 

hearing on empowering state management of greater sage grouse. 

My name is Dustin Miller, and I am the Administrator for Idaho 

Governor C.L. Butch Otter’s Office of Species Conservation, an 

agency charged with balancing the conservation and recovery of 

federally listed and candidate species with the economic vitality of 

the state. It sure is a pleasure to be here before you this morning. 

In Idaho, we are blessed with abundant natural resources, which 

is why we take conservation over fish and wildlife populations very 

28 

seriously. People in our state care deeply about these issues and 

have a certain tenacity to roll up their sleeves and develop grassroots, proactive solutions to complex natural resource issues; and 

that is exactly what Idahoans have been doing on the greater sage 

grouse front. 

In 2011, then-Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar invited 11 

western states to partner with the Federal Government and develop state-based conservation plans to preclude the need to list 

greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act. In March 

of 2012, Governor Otter took the Secretary up on his offer, and created an executive task force charged with developing recommendations on actions needed to accomplish this goal. 

The Governor’s sage grouse task force was comprised of a diverse 

group of stakeholders, advised predominantly by our local sage 

grouse experts and policy advisors. This group worked diligently 

under a compressed time frame to develop meaningful recommendations leading to the development of a Governor’s Sage 

Grouse Conservation Plan, which was subsequently incorporated as 

an alternative within the Federal land use planning effort. 

In Idaho, we have focused the majority of our conservation planning efforts on addressing the primary threats to greater sage 

grouse, which are wildfire and invasive species. As such, the 

Governor’s plan centers on an innovative approach to dealing with 

those primary threats through the application of a three-tiered 

habitat conservation system and an associated adaptive management strategy. The Governor’s plan also implements proactive actions that aim to protect key sage grouse habitat through greater 

emphasis on wildfire prevention, suppression, and restoration. 

The conservation efficacy of the Governor’s plan is significant, as 

it truly is a landscape approach that takes into account the entire 

life history of greater sage grouse. In fact, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has stated in writing that the foundational elements of the strategy are scientifically sound and consistent with 

the Service’s desired conservation objectives. The Idaho BLM has 

also given great credence to the Governor’s plan, by including it as 

a co-preferred alternative within the Federal land use planning effort in Idaho. 

Months of collaborating with our Federal partners to refine the 

co-preferred alternatives led us to genuinely believe that our state 

and Federal collaboration was going to be a success. However, recent top-down direction from the national BLM office has presented 

us with some unique challenges that, without resolution, stand to 

undermine our collaborative sage grouse conservation efforts. 

The Department of the Interior and the national BLM office are 

well aware of our concerns, and have engaged us in an effort to resolve these concerns. However, while we have made some progress, 

we still need a genuine commitment from the Federal Government 

to work toward a mutually agreeable solution concerning the application of sagebrush focal areas on 3.5 million acres of our core sage 

grouse habitat in Idaho. 

Two years ago, a significant milestone in the collaborative effort 

initiated by Secretary Salazar was achieved when states, in partnership with the Service, developed a set of objectives for addressing the threats to greater sage grouse. The resulting report titled, 

29 

‘‘The Conservation Objectives Team Report,’’ represents the goalpost for achieving success. One of the cornerstones of this report is 

the flexibility to tailor conservation actions to local ecological and 

socioeconomic conditions. Unfortunately, the last-minute, standardized Federal direction erodes this flexibility. 

Our sage grouse conservation planning efforts in Idaho demonstrate our commitment to conserving this species across the 

landscape, balanced with preserving the custom, culture, and economic opportunity in Idaho. 

Given that the Federal Government manages 74 percent of the 

habitat in Idaho, the majority of our efforts have been focused on 

the Federal lands planning process. However, the state recently 

completed a conservation plan for state endowment lands that complements the Governor’s plan for Federal lands. 

Additionally, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

through the sage grouse initiatives, continues to make significant 

investments in Idaho by working with private landowners and 

ranchers on voluntary sage grouse conservation actions. 

The state of Idaho holds the notion that local collaboration, local 

ideas, and local efforts garner the greatest results. The people in 

Idaho wish to see this iconic western species continue to thrive on 

the sage-steppe landscape for generations to come, and we believe 

that our collaborative planning efforts ensures that vision. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DUSTIN T. MILLER, ADMINISTRATOR, STATE OF IDAHO— 

OFFICE OF SPECIES CONSERVATION

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for holding this important oversight hearing on ‘‘Empowering State Management for Greater Sage-grouse.’’ My name is Dustin Miller and I am the Administrator for Idaho 

Governor C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter’s Office of Species Conservation. The Office of Species 

Conservation is charged with coordinating and implementing policies and programs 

related to the conservation and recovery of species listed as Threatened, Endangered 

or Candidate under the Federal Endangered Species Act in Idaho. Our mission enables us to engage partners in conservation actions that strike the appropriate balance between providing for the needs of native fish and wildlife species in Idaho 

while ensuring that predictable levels of land-use activities continue. 

In Idaho, we are blessed with abundant natural resources, which is why we take 

conservation of our fish and wildlife populations very seriously. People in our state 

care deeply about these issues and have a certain tenacity to roll up their sleeves 

and develop grassroots proactive solutions to complex natural resources issues; and 

that’s exactly what Idahoans have been doing on the greater sage-grouse front. After 

all, robust and durable conservation actions developed at the local level provides 

greater assurances that the species will be protected, as those living closest to the 

resource are typically the most invested in conservation. 

In 2011, then-Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, invited the 11 western states 

across the range of greater sage-grouse to partner with the Federal Government to 

address the shortcomings identified within the Service’s 2010 warranted but precluded finding. The states were tasked with developing and implementing conservation actions across the landscape that would be adequate to avoid an ESA listing 

of the species. In March of 2012, Governor Otter took the Secretary up on his offer 

and created an executive task force charged with providing the Governor recommendations on policies and actions necessary for developing a state-wide regulatory mechanism to preclude the need to list greater sage-grouse. The Governor’s 

Sage-Grouse Task Force was comprised of a diverse group of stakeholders representing industry, sportsmen and conservation interests, local sage-grouse working 

groups, and elected officials. The task force was advised predominantly by our local 

sage grouse scientists at the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, along with other 

state, Federal, and academic advisors. This group worked diligently to develop a 

30 

number of meaningful recommendations for inclusion as an Alternative within the 

Federal sage-grouse planning effort. Mr. Chairman, a statement from the Governor’s 

Sage-Grouse Task Force is included with my testimony as part of the official record. 

In Idaho, we have focused the majority of our conservation planning efforts on addressing the primary threats to greater sage-grouse, which are wildfire and invasive 

species. With that in mind, the Governor’s plan centers on an innovative approach 

to dealing with those primary threats through the application of a three-tiered 

habitat conservation system and an associated adaptive management strategy. This 

approach allows the state to elevate the level of conservation on medial sage-grouse 

habitat if an adaptive regulatory trigger becomes operative in our Core habitat 

areas, regardless of land-ownership. The Governor’s plan also implements proactive 

actions that aim to protect key sage-grouse habitat through a greater emphasis on 

wildfire prevention, suppression and restoration. The creation of Rangeland Fire 

Protection Associations by the Idaho Legislature, for example, has already proven 

to be an effective tool in decreasing the response time to wildfires in remote areas 

of sage-grouse habitat and thus helping to prevent catastrophic wildfire. 

The conservation efficacy of the Governor’s plan is significant, as it truly is a 

landscape approach that takes into account the entire life history of the species. In 

fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildfire Service has stated in writing that the foundational 

elements of this strategy are scientifically sound and consistent with the Service’s 

desired conservation objectives. This letter from the Service to Governor Otter is included with my testimony as part of the official record. The Idaho BLM has also 

given great credence to the Governor’s plan by including the plan as a ‘‘Co-preferred 

Alternative’’ within the Federal planning effort. 

Months of collaborating with our local Idaho BLM Office and others over the refinements of the co-preferred alternatives led us to genuinely believe that our stateFederal collaboration was going to be a success. The type of collaborative employed 

for the conservation of sage-grouse in Idaho mirrored that of the Idaho Roadless 

rule collaborative, where industry groups, conservation organizations, counties, and 

state and Federal agencies came together to craft a locally derived solution to a topdown one-size fits all approach. Ultimately, that collaborative prevailed. However, 

top-down direction from the Washington BLM Office in January of this year has 

presented us with some unique challenges that without resolution will undermine 

the fragile coalition we’ve built that is necessary for sustaining long-term and meaningful sage-grouse conservation. The Department of the Interior and the 

Washington BLM Office are well aware of our concerns, and have engaged us in an 

effort to resolve those concerns. While we have made some progress, we still need 

a genuine commitment from the Federal Government to work with us on a mutually 

agreeable solution concerning the application of Sagebrush Focal Areas on 3.5 million acres of our Core sage-grouse habitat in Idaho. 

Two years ago, a significant milestone in the cooperative effort initiated by 

Secretary Salazar was achieved when the states in partnership with the Service developed a set of objectives for addressing the threats to greater sage-grouse. The resulting report titled the Conservation Objective Team Report, or COT Report 

represents the goalposts for achieving success. One of the cornerstones of the COT 

Report is the flexibility provided to create solutions that meet the needs of the species and the local ecological and socioeconomic conditions and thus allowing each 

state the ability to tailor their own state-specific plans to achieve the COT Report 

objectives. The state of Idaho has worked in good faith with our stakeholders and 

our Federal partners to use this framework to reach the identified goalposts. Unfortunately, the last minute range wide standardized requirements imposed by the 

Washington BLM office deviates from the flexibility afforded by the COT report. 

Our sage-grouse conservation planning efforts in Idaho demonstrate our commitment to conserving this species across the landscape balanced with preserving the 

custom, culture and economic opportunity in Idaho. Given that the Federal Government manages 74 percent of the habitat in Idaho, the majority of our efforts have 

been focused on the Federal lands planning process. However, the state recently 

completed a conservation plan for state endowment lands that complements the 

Governor’s Plan. Additionally, the NRCS through the Sage-Grouse Initiative continues to make significant investments in Idaho by working with private landowners 

and ranchers on voluntary conservation actions that provide benefits to greater 

sage-grouse, as well as certainty for ranchers and landowners. 

The testimony submitted for the record by Katie Kalinowski of the Western 

Governors Association provides additional information on landscape sage-grouse 

conservation actions occurring in Idaho and other western states. The information 

contained in that testimony serves as a summary of the Western Governors Association 2014 Sage-Grouse Inventory Report. Mr. Chairman, Governor Otter wishes to 

31 

have this Western Governors Association report and its Appendix entered into the 

official hearing record. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the state of Idaho holds to the notion that local collaboration, local ideas, and local efforts garner the greatest results. We have a lot of 

pride in our state, and we are especially proud of our western heritage and abundant natural resources. The people in Idaho wish to see this iconic western species 

continue to thrive on the sage-steppe landscape for generations to come, and we believe that our planning efforts ensures that vision. Right now, we are close to having 

a complete state-based conservation package that provides for the conservation of 

sage-grouse; but as you’ve heard, some of the recent top-down directives from 

Washington, DC have the potential to derail years of positive collaboration. It is our 

sincere hope that we can come to an agreeable resolution, where the state of Idaho 

is truly the architect of its own destiny relative to greater sage-grouse conservation. 

Attachments: 

U.S. Fish and Wildfire Service letter to Governor Otter 

Statement from the Governor’s Sage-Grouse Task Force 

ATTACHMENTS 

April 10, 2013 

Hon. C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter 

Governor of Idaho 

State Capitol 

Boise, Idaho 83702 

Dear Governor Otter: 

Thank you for your letter of March 14, 2013 requesting U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) ‘‘concurrence’’ in regards to Idaho’s Greater sage-grouse (GRSG) 

conservation strategy (Strategy). Before the Service responds to this request, we 

would like to express our continued appreciation for your leadership in guiding the 

collaborative approach in which your staff in the Governor’s Office, the Office of 

Species Conservation and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game has worked with 

us to refine the State’s approach to conserving GRSG in Idaho. 

The Service remains impressed with and supportive of the science-based adaptive 

conservation strategy for GRSG you have crafted collaboratively in Idaho, for Idahospecific needs. In brief, the foundation of the Strategy and most of the specific elements that complete it, are solid and are grounded in scientific concepts and 

approach important to both the Service and Department of the Interior. While there 

is much about the current draft that the Service supports; there remain elements 

that need refinement, clarification, or need to be incorporated into the Strategy for 

the Service to conclude the entire strategy is consistent with the Service’s Greater 

sage-grouse Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report. 

A detailed response to your inquiry is attached. In summary, the integrated nature of the Strategy makes it difficult to ‘‘concur’’ with specific elements as most are 

interrelated and depend on other elements of the Strategy to function effectively. 

Nonetheless, our review revealed that the 4 foundational elements of the Strategy 

(Habitat Zones, Conservation Areas, Population Objective and Adaptive Triggers) 

are consistent with the COT as is the Livestock Grazing Management element. 

Therefore, this determination of consistency with the COT reflects ‘‘concurrence’’ for 

these elements, with the necessary elements noted in our detailed comments (see 

attachment), for the purpose of BLM IM 2012–043. This ‘‘concurrence’’ should not 

be construed as being automatically implementable by the BLM. The Service looks 

forward to working with your Task Force, and BLM as appropriate, to refine, clarify 

and add aspects of the Strategy as needed for similar support of, for example, the 


94772.001.eps
32 

Wildfire Management and Infrastructure elements; and the Implementation Team/ 

Commission. The latter, while an element of the Strategy that that needs clarity 

and refinement is an issue the Service believes is easily addressed. There are numerous examples of such bodies, including as the State has verbally referenced, the 

process used on the Idaho Roadless Rule. The Service looks forward to assisting the 

State craft such a process for the Strategy. 

Conservation of GRSG is a challenge. It is a challenge due to the geographic scale 

of the issue; the need of the species for large intact undisturbed geographies of habitat; the difficult nature of the threats in the Great Basin portion of the range; and 

the relevance of the habitat in questions to myriad conservation and economic needs 

and interests. Long-term conservation of GRSG will require a strong and sustained 

commitment by stakeholders across multiple jurisdictions to work together collaboratively. It is for these reasons that the Service commends the State of Idaho for 

acknowledging and crafting a Strategy that on one hand details proactive conservation actions to address the threats on the landscape, but equally important embraces the uncertainty of how those threats will play out on the landscape and how 

they will affect GRSG over time by crafting a robust, outcome based scientific strategy that is collaborative and adaptive. This balance between proactive conservation 

design/actions based on empirical data and assumptions, with a feedback loop from 

monitoring to inform adaptation in design/action, with stakeholders in the decision 

loop as an integral part of that process, is a fundamental component of the both 

the Strategic Habitat Conservation approach the Service employs, and Adaptive 

Management that the Department of the Interior employs. 

We hope this review is helpful. The Service looks forward to continuing our role 

in this process of on-going refinement of the Strategy, its implementation over time, 

and as part of the adaptive process it embraces. 

Sincerely, 

BRIAN T. KELLY, 

Idaho State Supervisor. 

Enclosure 

Purpose of the Service’s Comments 

We want to be clear regarding the purpose of our comments. First, our comments 

serve to continue the collaborative and iterative process we have been engaged in 

with you. We see this review as an important ‘‘check-in’’ and continuation of that 

process to ensure the Strategy is ultimately best positioned to contribute to a future 

where listing GRSG under the ESA is unnecessary. 

Our comments also provide the requested feedback regarding ‘‘concurrence’’ as referenced in BLM Instructional Memorandum 2012–043. While the Service and BLM 

are both Department of the Interior Agencies, and we together with the State of 

Idaho and other partners, are collaborating in the conservation of GRSG; the BLM 

and Service have different legal authorities and policy requirements. As such, any 

‘‘concurrence’’ we may offer on elements of the Strategy should not be construed a 

priori as being implementable by the BLM. That is a determination BLM must 

make. The Service acknowledges and respects BLM authority in this regard. The 

Service stands ready to assist the State and BLM in BLM’s approval process where 

appropriate (e.g., Service review of elements of the Strategy that are modified to be 

implementable by BLM). Our comments on the Strategy at this juncture are not 

part of the on-going BLM process to amend and or revise various Resource Management Plans across the range of GRSG. That review process will be completed 

separately. 

Service support of the Strategy in part or whole should not be interpreted as a 

decision by the Service commensurate with a listing decision under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). That determination will be made when the Service formally reviews the status of the species in 2015. However, our purpose in developing the COT 

report was to guide the States in the development of conservation actions and strategies so that when we review those efforts in 2015 they would contribute to the conservation of the species in a manner that collectively would address threats such 

that listing would not be necessary. It is for this reason, our review of the Strategy 

herein is provided in the context of the COT report. 

Components of the Strategy 

We frame our review in the context of the three primary elements of the strategy: 

(1) Foundational Elements, (2) Specific Elements, and (3) Implementation Team/ 

Commission. Foundational elements of the Strategy are those that transcend specific management and conservation actions or reactive adaptive processes once popuVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:13 Feb 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\05-19-15\94772.TXT DARLEN
33 

lation or habitat triggers are tripped. We refer to four Foundational Elements: 

Thematic Approach, Conservation Areas, Adaptive Triggers, and Population 

Objective. Specific Elements identified in the Strategy are those that target specific 

threats including: wildfire, invasive species, and infrastructure, as primary threats; 

and recreation, West Nile virus, improper livestock grazing management, and livestock grazing infrastructure as secondary threats. The Implementation Team/ 

Commission referenced in the Strategy is meant to ensure proper action is taken 

when a trigger is tripped. As such, for the purposes of our review, we will evaluate 

the Implementation Team/Commission as a separate operational element of the 

strategy. 

Foundational Elements 

Our review of the Strategy revealed a thoughtful, science-based and outcomedriven adaptive management approach to the conservation of GRSG in Idaho. This 

approach is consistent with the COT report. The Thematic Approach, Conservation 

Areas, Adaptive Triggers, and Population Objectives are consistent with the COT 

report and the Service strongly supports these aspects of the State’s Strategy. 

Examples of how the four Foundational Elements of the Strategy are consistent 

with the General Conservation Objectives and Specific Conservation Objectives 

related to Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) in the COT report include: 

1. The designation of a Core Habitat Zone (CHZ) of approximately 5.5 million 

acres which by itself is currently home to approximately 73% of the male 

GRSG in Idaho. The CHZ captures the COT report intent of avoiding development in priority areas for conservation (PACs). The Strategy reflects that the 

development of infrastructure (a primary threat to GRSG) is prohibited in 

CHZ; with a process for limited exceptions. The Service commends the State 

for ensuring that any exceptions to the prohibition to infrastructure in CHZ, 

must meet the conservation standard in the Important Habitat Zone (IHZ; see 

discussion in next paragraph). While we support the configuration and intent 

of the CHZ, we look forward to working with the State to clarify how exceptions are determined and specific mitigation strategies if exceptions occur are 

implemented (see Specific Elements and Implementation Team/Commission 

headings, below). 

2. The designation of an Important Habitat Zone (IHZ), of approximately 4 million acres which by itself is currently home to 22% of the male GRSG in 

Idaho. The IHZ also captures the COT report intent of stopping the population decline in that while infrastructure is permitted; it is permitted in a 

way that must demonstrate it will not affect the population trend for the Conservation Area in question. IHZ serves an equally important role in the Strategy as it can serves to buffer loss of habitat due to fire (see #5). 

3. The Strategy’s use of a measureable population objective, and utilizing monitoring to ensure that objective is met; and setting metrics that trigger 

changes in practices or review of current practices to ensure the Strategy’s 

conservation objective is met long-term. 

4. The use of four separate Conservation Areas in which the adaptive triggers 

are individually applied adds an increased level of sensitivity to change, that 

we expect to translate to more timely changes in management if necessary, 

which will translate to an enhanced ability to ensure the population objective 

of the Strategy is met state-wide (the Service appreciates and concurs with 

the State’s desire to have additional peer review of the adaptive triggers). 

5. The use of a ‘‘hard trigger’’ that, if tripped, requires IHZ be managed as CHZ, 

with infrastructure development subject to the same standards in both zones. 

In essence, if applied to all Conservation Areas, the CHZ would almost double 

in size. This would add the conservation benefit of CHZ to IHZ until no longer 

necessary. 

6. The COT report also references the importance of incentive-based conservation actions in developing a conservation strategy. The foundational elements 

of the Strategy provide a context for incentivizing actions to maintain population numbers and intact habitat; and help ensure the conservation and restoration of GRSG in Idaho. The structure of these foundational elements of 

the Strategy (and specific elements consistent with the COT report and others 

as they are refined) will help provide stakeholders predictability with regard 

to GRSG conservation needs. 

34 

Specific Elements 

Livestock Grazing Management: This specific element of the Strategy is consistent 

with the COT report. The Service supports this aspect of the Strategy because it 

requires Idaho Rangeland Health Standards (IRHS) be met and it does so in the 

context of the Strategy. The COT report identifies that if the riparian (IRHS 2) and 

upland (IRHS 4) rangeland health standard is met, that is the minimum needed to 

address the threat of grazing on GRSG based on our expertise under the ESA. To 

achieve this, the Strategy provides an adaptive management process by which adjustments in grazing based on ecological site potential and habitat characteristics 

would be prioritized as needed outside of normally scheduled permit renewals based 

on population triggers and cause of declines within each Conservation Area in the 

Strategy. Additionally, the adaptive management approach the Strategy provides an 

important framework for deciding what, in addition to IRHS 2 and 4, might be required under IRHS 8 (Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive Species) for GRSG 

conservation. 

As noted above, the COT also references the importance of incentive-based conservation actions in developing a conservation strategy. The Service believes the 

Livestock Grazing Management Element address the conservation needs of GRSG 

while providing an important incentive to permitees to be good stewards. 

An additional important benefit to the Service of the Livestock Grazing Management element is that the regulation of improper grazing as a threat to GRSG when 

permits had not yet been analyzed by BLM to meet IRHS for GRSG (IRHS 2, 4; 

and 8 as needed) would be accomplished through the Strategy on an as needed basis 

based on population status. This approach is in contrast to requiring all individual 

permits be conditioned to meet IRHS 2. 4 and 8 (as needed), by the time the Service 

makes its listing determination—a goal that is likely not achievable. To be clear, 

the Service supports adherence to IRHS. Our support for the approach of this element is due to it being a wise approach for regulating the appropriate conservation 

action for the secondary threat of improper grazing to GRSG where needed, until 

IRHS necessary for GRSG conservation are achieved at the management area scale. 

This adequacy of regulatory mechanisms under ESA is an important consideration. 

Pending more clarity in how the Implementation Team/Commission is staffed and 

operates once a trigger is tripped; the Service would expect to fully support this element of the Strategy. While we would defer to the BLM on their permit-specific 

application of these triggers in the context of requirements to enhance and restore 

rangelands under Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Service 

supports the Livestock Grazing Element in the interim as long as no triggers have 

been tripped within a Conservation Area. 

Infrastructure: The specific actions in the infrastructure element are consistent 

with the COT pending a clearer understanding how the Implementation Team/ 

Commission operates to determine exceptions to CHZ development, development in 

IHZ, and how referenced mitigation of impacts will work. 

Mitigation: Mitigation is referenced in multiple elements in the Strategy but there 

is no explanation of the how mitigation for impacts in CHZ, IHZ and potentially 

GHZ will work. The Service is aware of preliminary work by your Task Force and 

the work of the Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Council and this element and encourages the State to build on these efforts for this element of the Strategy. 

Restoration: The Service recognized in our letter of August 1, 2012, that one of 

the many strengths of the Strategy is that habitat in need of restoration was included in and adjacent to CHZ as a priority commitment for restoration and to 

expand Core habitat. However, the Strategy is largely silent on the important relationship between mitigation and restoration for restoration to occur; what constitutes habitat that is lost versus gained back; and restoration monitoring. The 

need for how direct and indirect loss of habitat is quantified and what constitutes 

restored habitat is a missing component of the habitat trigger as well. 

Wildfire Management: Wildfire and invasive species associated with fire are the 

greatest threat to long-term persistence of GRSG in the Great Basin and the threat 

most difficult to manage. The Strategy has been refined to help manage this threat 

in a significant way. The addition of legislative changes and funding to support the 

creation of Rural Fire Districts (RFDs) is a significant addition to the Strategy and 

one the Service supports and that is consistent with the COT report. Viewing wildfire management in the context of Prevention, Response and Restoration and tailoring actions within each is likewise an important refinement. The Service looks 

forward to working with the State and other partners to help establish more RFDs; 

and to identify more specifics actions under each category of Prevention, Response 

and Restoration. 

35 

One aspect of the strategy that is not a specific fire management action but that 

the Strategy notes and the Service likewise acknowledges as one of the strongest 

attributes of the Strategy is how the overarching construct of the Strategy is designed with fire in mind. The conservation objective of maintaining between 95% 

and 73% of the males on leks, the establishment of refined habitat triggers that 

catch declines and adapt practices earlier and by Conservation Area, the identification of areas in need of restoration, the commitment to IRHS are all mechanisms 

to reduce fire, buffer the effects of fire, and provide for refinement in management 

in an adaptive construct to reduce the effects of fire in the long term. 

Management on non-Federal Property: The Strategy to date has focused on 

Federal properties. This is understandable due to the ongoing Resource and Land 

Use Management Plan revisions and amendments underway by BLM and the U.S. 

Forest Service. The Service looks forward to working with the State to ensure the 

Strategy applies where necessary and appropriate to all properties with adequate 

state or local regulatory mechanisms. 

Implementation Team/Commission 

Many of the specific elements of the Strategy are in the Service’s view conditionally consistent with the COT pending more clarity how the Implementation 

Team/Commission is staffed and operates; and how it interacts with scientific support. Because the Strategy is an outcome-based, adaptive strategy, its efficacy is 

achieved through a balance between proactive actions and reactive steps to adapt 

and or change actions if necessary. Therefore, the Service needs to understand in 

more detail how the Implementation Team/Commission functions to evaluate data 

and inform decisions to adapt management that ensure the Strategy objective is met 

(e.g., see Infrastructure, above). 

Summary 

In summary the Strategy is a robust approach to conserving GRSG in the Great 

Basin. Many components of the Strategy are strong, in particular the underlying 

foundational elements and grazing management; with wildfire and infrastructure 

similarly strong pending additional clarity and refinement as noted. The State of 

Idaho and the stakeholders on the Governor’s Task Force have done remarkable 

work in a compressed timeframe as these aspects of the plan address threats to 

GRSG in the Great Basin in a way that gives the Service more regulatory certainty, 

stakeholders more operational certainty, and provides for the conservation of GRSG 

and sage-brush in Idaho that helps ensure more resiliency to large wildfires. The 

elements of the Strategy that the Service would welcome more conversations with 

the State to refine, add or clarify in the Strategy include non-federal properties, restoration, mitigation, and the operation of the Implementation Team/Commission. 

**** 

Three Cs for Sage-grouse 

Cooperation, Collaboration, and Conservation the Keys to Saving Sage-grouse 

The State of Idaho has shown itself to be a leader among the western states in 

conserving the greater sage-grouse. The State and its stakeholders have been 

proactively working on sage-grouse management and conservation efforts since the 

early 1950s. As the timeline for the sage-grouse listing decision became clear, 

Governor Otter established a 15-member task force in early 2012 to take an even 

closer look at addressing both short and long-term solutions to the threats to the 

species and its habitat. The task force was comprised of a wide cross-section of 

Idaho’s public including ranchers, sportsmen, conservation groups, energy representatives, interested public, and federal and state agency officials. Our assignment was 

to develop a detailed, science-based strategy for conserving the species alongside 

land uses aimed at avoiding the need to list sage-grouse under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). We involved and incorporated the advice of top sage grouse biologists and sagebrush habitat scientists. 

As members of the Idaho Sage-grouse Task Force, it has been our mission since 

inception to ensure the species’ long-term viability in Idaho. We were brought together to develop a regulatory plan to address the priority threats to the species’ 

welfare. The intent of our efforts was that this plan could become a standard for 

36 

resource managers as they sought to wisely manage habitat in a way that facilitated 

a more secure, resilient sage-grouse population. 

The Idaho sage-grouse plan was quickly recognized as a worthy effort. Two years 

ago, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), the federal agency charged with determining whether or not the species would be listed, wrote a letter to Governor Otter 

stating that the foundation of the Idaho Plan was ‘‘solid and grounded in scientific 

concepts . . .’’ Further progress was made last year when the Bureau of Land 

Management and U.S. Forest Service listed the Idaho strategy as a co-preferred alternative in their draft land use plan amendments. In the months that followed, the 

state worked intensively with the federal agencies to narrow the remaining issues 

and ensure that our strategy both meets the needs of the species and federal requirements. It was acknowledged by the federal agencies that not only did the state 

plan address the correct threats but it also put forward a strong, collaborative, and 

meaningful effort toward conserving sage-grouse. 

Our plan contains three elements most essential to conservation of the species: 

collaboration, cooperation, and conservation. Importantly, this was done collaboratively with a majority of interested parties represented on the task force so the 

product could be embraced and implemented by all. This has been the hallmark of 

the sage-grouse conservation work done in Idaho, since the inception of the first 

local working group in the 1990s. Working together in an organized collaborative 

and cooperative way, we believe, is the only avenue for success in a situation as 

huge and complex as this. 

Though the work has been difficult, the federal agencies engaged with the State 

of Idaho in a productive effort to reach a consensus conservation plan. However, in 

the last four months, the Department of Interior (DOI) appears to have advanced 

positions that depart significantly from earlier federal input. U.S. Senator James 

Risch recently asked Secretary Jewell in a Senate committee hearing why the ‘‘goalpost was being moved’’ when we were so close to finalizing our plan. We are very 

concerned that these recent shifts will diminish the broad support for the Idaho 

Plan that we worked so hard to achieve. When collaboration fails, we believe that 

efforts to conserve the species will suffer. 

We recognize that contentious issues remain between the federal agencies and the 

State of Idaho. We call on the Department of the Interior to resolve these remaining 

issues in a way that conserves sage-grouse and fits Idaho’s all lands-all hands approach. The work of the Idaho task force gives witness to the fact that, all of us, 

collectively, are the best hope for sage-grouse. Working together we can get this 

done. 

Many of us are very concerned about the severe impacts that an Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) listing could have on our industries and on land uses in the state. 

We also firmly believe that conservation efforts are most effective when they are 

based on sound biological principles and applied with support of people at the local 

level. We ask that the federal agencies recognize the creativity and cooperative spirit that we demonstrated through our task force efforts as positive elements to build 

upon, not deficiencies. We as Idahoans are ready to take the actions needed to conserve sage-grouse and the rangelands upon which we all rely. 

37 

Members of the Idaho Governor’s Sage Grouse Task Force: 

Will Whelan Gene Gray 

The Nature Conservancy Local Working Group Rep. 

Brett Dumas Rochelle Oxarango 

Idaho Power Public at Large 

John Robison Russ Hendricks 

Idaho Conservation League Idaho Farm Bureau Federation 

Richard Savage Jerry Hoagland 

Idaho Cattle Association Owyhee County Commissioner 

Chuck Jones Dr. Robert Cope 

J.R. Simplot Co. Lemhi County Commissioner 

Randy Vranes Bill Meyers 

Monsanto Renewable Energy 

Scott Bedke Jack Oyler 

Idaho House Speaker Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife 

Senator Bert Brackett 

Idaho State Senate 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY ROB BISHOP TO MR. DUSTIN MILLER, ADMINISTRATOR, IDAHO OFFICE OF SPECIES CONSERVATION

Mr. Miller did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 

deadline for inclusion in the printed record. 

Question 1. During the hearing, the recent PEW study was referred to. Has your 

state had a chance to review the study including the methodology used? 

Do you support the study’s conclusion and if not, why not? 

Do you have data to suggest that the conclusions in the PEW study are incorrect? 

If yes, please provide any data to the committee. 

Question 2. Please explain the activities of your state to work with private 

landowners in your efforts to create/expand habitat for the sage grouse. 

Will the draft RMP revisions enhance your efforts in that regard or make such 

tasks harder? 

Question 3. Are the goals of Director Ashe’s October (2014) memo consistent with 

your analysis of the problems facing the sage grouse? 

If yes, please explain. If these proposals miss the mark, please explain. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Now we will turn to Mr. Swartout. Not that you are last, but you 

have the last letter in the alphabet that we have here today. So, 

you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN SWARTOUT, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, 

OFFICE OF GOVERNOR JOHN HICKENLOOPER, STATE OF 

COLORADO, DENVER, COLORADO 

Mr. SWARTOUT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity 

to provide our perspective on how the state of Colorado has worked 

to conserve and protect the greater sage grouse. I thank you and 

your colleagues for your thoughtful consideration and your efforts 

to gather the information necessary to properly evaluate these 

matters. 

Colorado has a proud record of collaboration with landowners, 

wildlife managers, ranchers, conservation groups, and state and 

38 

Federal agencies; and together we have made stewardship of the 

species a priority. The state’s wildlife management agency, 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife—we call it CPW—has exceptionally 

strong in-house capabilities to develop research and science. 

Colorado puts an enormous amount of resources into that development of research and capabilities for the agency, and they have developed site-specific science regarding the greater sage grouse. 

Relying on that expertise, CPW has collected and analyzed 

Colorado-specific data to assess habitat quality, threats to habitat, 

and the impacts of various changes to habitat for greater sage 

grouse. In 2008, working with landowners, stakeholders, Federal 

agencies, and other state agencies and conservation groups, our biologists developed a comprehensive management plan for the greater sage grouse, which was designed to increase the abundance and 

viability of the species and its habitat. 

In 2013 and 2014, Colorado updated the plan. Additionally, 

Colorado’s regulatory framework for energy development 

proactively engages our important oil and gas industry in helping 

to protect the greater sage grouse and its habitat. The Colorado Oil 

and Gas Conservation Commission’s 1200-series rules require consultation with CPW whenever an operator seeks to develop energy 

resources in sensitive wildlife habitat. 

Concerted cooperation among our agricultural producers and our 

wildlife agency has resulted in the ‘‘Ranching for Sage Grouse’’ program. This program provides landowners with the best-available 

science and management tools for grazing in habitat areas, and 

protecting the greater sage grouse populations. The effectiveness of 

these broad-based conservation efforts are borne out by data. 

Since 2003, Colorado Parks and Wildlife has protected over 

80,000 acres of sage grouse habitat through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement at a cost of just over $52 million. 

Additionally, the land trust community in Colorado has protected 

an additional 154,000 acres of private land in greater sage grouse 

habitat areas through conservation easements, including some of 

the best sage grouse habitat and largest leks in the state. 

Since 2005, CPW has expended more than $9.2 million to 

conduct annual operations in support of greater sage grouse 

conservation. 

Just last week, the governor of Colorado issued an executive 

order that calls on state agencies to take further actions to reduce 

impacts on greater sage grouse. 

I must say that the Western Governors continue to work with 

each other and Interior Secretary Jewell within the National Sage 

Grouse Task Force to create robust state and Federal plans that 

protect the greater sage grouse. It has been a tremendous effort, 

and we want to thank Secretary Jewell and her team for 

partnering with us and working on these plans. It hasn’t been easy. 

In closing, let me just stress this point: Colorado has worked 

closely with many partners across the spectrum, including local 

governments, landowners, conservationists, and my friend, Ed 

Arnett, sitting next to me. A decision by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to list the greater sage grouse puts all this cooperation at 

risk, and threatens to pull apart the coalitions that we built in 

Colorado. 

39 

To close, I would just like to say that despite all of the above and 

despite our concern about a listing, the governor of Colorado thinks 

that congressional action at this time, to delay a listing, doesn’t 

provide the state with the kind of regulatory certainty that we 

need. 

And we continue to work with Secretary Jewell and her team. 

There are difficulties—this is a negotiation—but we continue to 

work with them, and we think we are very close to reaching an 

agreement that will allow us to get to a not-warranted decision, 

that will justify a not-warranted decision by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. It has been a difficult effort. There are issues that 

the states have, but we continue in earnest to work with the 

Secretary and her team. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swartout follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN SWARTOUT, SENIOR ADVISOR TO GOVERNOR JOHN W. 

HICKENLOOPER, STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to provide our perspective on how the 

state of Colorado has worked to conserve and protect the greater sage grouse. I 

thank you and your colleagues for your thoughtful consideration and your efforts to 

gather the information necessary to properly evaluate these matters. 

Colorado has a proud record of collaboration with landowners, wildlife managers, 

ranchers, conservation groups and state and Federal agencies, and together we’ve 

made stewardship of this species a priority. All of us have worked tirelessly, using 

the best available, site-specific science to protect both the species and its habitat. 

Today I want to briefly describe to you what we’ve accomplished. 

The state’s wildlife management agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), has 

exceptionally strong in-house research capabilities, and its biologists have played a 

critical role in developing and updating state-specific science regarding greater sagegrouse. 

Relying on that expertise, CPW has collected and analyzed Colorado-specific data 

to assess habitat quality, threats to habitat, and the impact of various changes in 

habitat on greater sage-grouse populations. In 2008, working with dozens of stakeholders from state and Federal agencies, as well as private landowners and conservation groups, CPW biologists developed a comprehensive management plan 

(Conservation Plan) for the greater sage-grouse which was designed to increase the 

abundance and viability of the species and its habitat. 

Following feedback from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in 2013 CPW 

completed the ‘‘Colorado Package,’’ a comprehensive update and status review to the 

Conservation Plan. The state updated the Conservation Plan once again in 2014 in 

its ‘‘Synthesis Report,’’ providing additional information on the implementation and 

effects of conservation efforts. These conservation efforts have been designed to address the threats initially identified by CPW in its analyses of Colorado-specific 

data, and subsequently mirrored in the Federal Government’s Conservation 

Objective Team and National Technical Team reports. 

Additionally, Colorado’s regulatory framework for energy development proactively 

engages our important oil and gas industry in helping to protect the greater sagegrouse and its habitat. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s 1200- 

series rules require consultation with CPW whenever an operator seeks to develop 

energy resources in sensitive wildlife habitat. Typically, where greater sage-grouse 

habitat has been implicated, these consultations lead to site visits and detailed, sitespecific recommendations. An independent study of the consultation process showed 

that industry has complied with recommendations received from CPW 97 percent 

of the time when seeking to develop projects in sensitive wildlife habitat. 

Concerted cooperation among agriculture producers and CPW has resulted in the 

‘‘Ranching for Sage-grouse’’ program, which provides landowners with the best 

available science and management tools for grazing in habitat areas and protecting 

greater sage-grouse populations. Local efforts to conserve the greater sage-grouse 

have also been robust, as detailed in the Colorado Package and the Synthesis 

Report. For example, local governments in northwest Colorado have reviewed their 

zoning regulations to better accommodate greater sage-grouse habitat conservation 

objectives. With 164 grazing and multiple use leases in habitat areas, the Colorado 

40 

State Land Board (SLB) has management authority over 393,269 acres of greater 

sage-grouse habitat. Currently, SLB is pursuing a detailed inventory of state trust 

lands located in greater sage-grouse habitat, and will apply site-specific adjustments 

to its management regime based on the results of the inventory. The effectiveness 

of these broad-based conservation efforts is borne out by the data. 

Since 2003, CPW has protected over 80,600 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat 

through fee title purchase or conservation easement at a cost of approximately $52.8 

million. 

Additionally, the land trust community in Colorado has protected an additional 

154,181 acres of private land in greater sage-grouse habitat areas through conservation easements, including some of the best sage-grouse habitat and largest leks in 

the state. CPW has completed four Wildlife Mitigation Plans with oil and gas operators covering a total of 57,697 acres in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan greater sagegrouse population, incorporating avoidance measures and best management 

practices for minimizing impacts. 

Since 2005, CPW has expended more than $9.2 million to conduct annual 

operations in support of greater sage-grouse conservation. 

Just last week, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper issued an executive order 

that calls on state agencies to take further actions to reduce impacts to the greater 

sage grouse. Those actions include: increasing coordination with Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife, launching a market-based habitat exchange, taking inventory of—and 

improving habitat within—state lands with grouse populations and strengthening 

the role of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 

It’s also worth mentioning the same kind of collaborative work we’ve conducted 

for the Gunnison sage grouse, a sub-species with a narrower habitat range than the 

greater. CPW has invested more than $40 million on conservation and management 

of the Gunnison sage grouse since 2005. Our partners have contributed an additional $10 million. 

Since 2003, state wildlife managers have protected more than 30,000 acres of 

Gunnison sage grouse habitat (primarily via conservation easements). About 68,000 

additional acres are managed by other conservation interests such as The Nature 

Conservancy. 

Between lands in public ownership and private lands secured by conservation 

easements, about 55 percent of Gunnison sage grouse’s mapped range has some 

level of protection from development. Despite our proactive and extensive and ongoing range-wide conservation measures to protect greater sage-grouse, in 2010, FWS 

determined that the species was ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) throughout its entire 11-state range. 

FWS must determine by September 30, 2015 whether the sage-grouse still warrants protection under the ESA and if so, whether to propose an ‘‘endangered’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened’’ listing for the species. 

Western Governors continue to work with each other and Secretary of the 

Interior, Sally Jewell, within the National Sage Grouse Task Force to create robust 

state and Federal plans to protect the greater sage-grouse. It has been a tremendous 

effort on everyone’s part. We want to thank Secretary Jewell and her team for their 

efforts. 

Colorado firmly believes that state-led efforts provide the most effective approach 

to protecting and conserving the species and its habitat. The listing of the greater 

sage-grouse under the ESA would have a significant and detrimental economic impact on the state. Given the limited resources available to the Federal agencies 

charged with managing a federally listed species, the state is concerned that the 

health and vitality of the greater sage-grouse population may also decline as a result of a listing, setting back the conservation gains made to date under the our 

Conservation Plan. 

In closing, let me stress this point: Colorado has worked closely with many 

partners across the spectrum, including local governments, landowners and 

conservationists. 

A decision by Fish and Wildlife to list the greater sage grouse puts at risk all this 

cooperation and threatens to pull apart the very coalitions that—to date—have 

made enormous progress is conserving the sage grouse and its habitat. Our partners 

will be left wondering: What was the point of all this effort? We’ve taken enormous 

steps to avoid a listing and the accompanying Federal intervention only to have our 

efforts answered with a listing. That kind of outcome not only jeopardizes our 

progress with the sage grouse, but any other work we’re doing to conserve these 

treasured species in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain West. 

41 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY ROB BISHOP TO MR. JOHN SWARTOUT, 

SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, OFFICE OF GOVERNOR HICKENLOOPER, STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. Swartout did not submit responses to the Committee by the 

appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record. 

Question 1. During the hearing, the recent PEW study was referred to. Has your 

state had a chance to review the study including the methodology used? 

Do you support the study’s conclusion and if not, why not? 

Do you have data to suggest that the conclusions in the PEW study are incorrect? 

If yes, please provide any data to the committee. 

Question 2. Please explain the activities of your state to work with private 

landowners in your efforts to create/expand habitat for the sage grouse. 

Will the draft RMP revisions enhance your efforts in that regard or make such 

tasks harder? 

Question 3. Are the goals of Director Ashe’s October (2014) memo consistent with 

your analysis of the problems facing the sage grouse? 

If yes, please explain. If these proposals miss the mark, please explain. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will now turn to the committee 

for questions. I will always go last, in an effort to make sure that 

Rep. Hardy actually gets to ask some questions here today. Stick 

around, we will see what happens. 

Turning to Mr. McClintock, do you have any questions? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first question 

I have relates to an experience I had a few years ago on the 

Klamath, where they are trying to tear down four perfectly good 

hydroelectric dams because of a catastrophic decline on the salmon 

population. I asked them, ‘‘Well, why doesn’t somebody build a fish 

hatchery? ’’ 

Well, it turns out somebody did build a fish hatchery. It produces 

5 million salmon smolts every year. Seventeen thousand return as 

fully grown adults to spawn in the Klamath. The problem is, they 

don’t let us include them in the population counts. I, for the life 

of me, don’t understand why we don’t allow such things as captive 

breeding programs to meet the ESA requirements. None of us want 

to see a species go extinct because of human activity, but there are 

so many more flexible ways of accomplishing that. 

Ms. Clarke, what are your thoughts? 

Ms. CLARKE. I am somewhat familiar with the predicaments on 

the Klamath, and have great empathy for those who have been impacted by the listings that are involved there. 

I believe we have to find better ways to do things; and I think, 

as the Chairman said, part of what we hope to accomplish in this 

hearing is to consider innovation and new ideas to break some of 

the traditional fixes that have not proved to be effective. I don’t 

think we have to sacrifice human activity—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I hate to interrupt, but my time is short. That 

is precisely my point. To add insult to insanity, when they tear 

down the Iron Gate Dam, the Iron Gate fish hatchery goes with it; 

then you do have a catastrophic decline. 

Ms. CLARKE. That is right. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Miller, aren’t there better ways of doing 

things than what we are doing to achieve the ESA goals? 

42 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Congressman, there are, and that is through 

our state-led planning efforts. We are closest to the ground, sir. 

Our local biologists and scientists know more about the species 

than our Federal partners do. So I believe, really, in the state-led 

effort to implement our conservation strategies on the ground. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I don’t have a lot of sage grouse in my district, 

but in our region, in the Sierra Nevada, we have had similar experiences with critical habitat designations. 

For example, sound forest management practices were prevented 

over vast tracts of our forests to preserve spotted owl habitats. The 

irony of that is the forests, because of that, became dangerously 

overgrown and ultimately were incinerated by two catastrophic 

wildfires that also took out nearly 50 spotted owl habitats. It reminds me of the Vietnam War maxim, ‘‘We have to destroy these 

habitats to save them,’’ and that is exactly what these policies have 

done. 

We now have 2.2 million acres of the Sierra declared critical 

habitat for the Yosemite toad and the Sierra yellow-legged frog, despite the fact that the national Fish and Wildlife Service admits 

that human activity is not the principal reason for the decline in 

these populations—it is non-native predators that just love to eat 

the little things, and a virus that is decimating amphibian populations throughout the Southwest. It is not human activity, and yet 

2.2 million acres of the Sierra—essentially, the entire footprint on 

that range—is now subject to additional restrictions that make 

forest management all the harder, and are setting the stage for another catastrophic event. 

What would the states do differently, Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Obviously there are things, Congressman, that are 

concerning to us about the current implementation of the 

Endangered Species Act. We do need to see some modifications to 

that statute to ensure that state-led efforts are a priority. Again, 

I can’t emphasize enough the local science and the local actions 

from our stakeholders are very important in driving forward sound 

policies that balance the appropriate level of conservation of our 

fish and wildlife populations with maintaining economic 

vitality—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Let me ask you this question. How much of 

the problem is the law, and how much of it is ideological zealotry 

by those who are currently administering the law? 

Mr. MILLER. Congressman, I feel that, obviously, there are—we 

do need to see some changes to the Act; but I think the courts have 

interpreted the Act in a fashion that is contrary to what the writers of the Act back in 1974 intended. I think we have gone too far 

from the original intent of the Endangered Species Act. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Do you want some sage grouse in 

your area? 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We can arrange that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. As long as there aren’t any strings attached. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you can’t get that one. 

All right. Mrs. Dingell. 

43 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all 

of our witnesses today. 

I want to take a step backward from the discussion that we have 

been having, because I think despite some of the tension in the 

room, I really think that there is some agreement about the importance of protecting the greater sage grouse and the significant role 

that the bird plays in local ecosystems and economies. 

I, like you, have never seen the sage grouse; but I am married 

to a man that has, and knows its importance. So, I think I want 

to go back, if I can get through my questions, to ask you a question 

about the original intent of the Endangered Species Act. But first, 

I would like—because we do have different views and ideas about 

how to get there—I would like to explore that a bit further. 

Dr. Arnett, I found your testimony very interesting, at 2:00 a.m. 

this morning, as you tried to bring the Federal and the state level 

together. I think everyone in this room wants to avoid a listing of 

the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act. What 

do you think the best way to accomplish that is? 

Dr. ARNETT. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I believe, in both the written testimony and in my oral comments, we 

think this is a comprehensive view of Federal and state collaboration and strong conservation plans on both Federal and state lands, 

in conjunction with these voluntary efforts and, quite frankly, easements, which are contractual agreements with private landowners 

to conserve habitat and manage their lands differently. 

Again, it is not an either/or. We need all of the above in managing the landscapes. These are diverse landscapes across a wide 

range of conditions, and it requires all of the above approach, in 

my opinion, with multiple tools—that includes mitigation and some 

pretty creative mitigation tools in the toolbox these days that have 

been brought forth in the form, not only of the traditional conservation banking, but also in these exchange programs. These are all 

tools that we need to put collectively forward. 

But the science is clear that we do need the habitat, first and 

foremost, and we need to manage that habitat. That has been 

brought out very clearly, quite frankly, with my state colleagues, 

as well. 

Mrs. DINGELL. So your testimony, your written and your oral 

here, talks about the partnership between the state and the 

Federal level. Yet the testimony and discussion we have heard this 

morning—and in the written last night—alleges the states have 

not been involved in the process. 

Can you give us background, and maybe expand a little on the 

role that state agencies have played in that effort? Again, as you 

just said, the critical role of both of them playing together, can the 

Federal not be involved in any way? How would that work? Do you 

agree that the states haven’t been, and that they are the best in— 

it is really a difference of opinion between the two of you sitting 

next to each other. 

Dr. ARNETT. I am not convinced we are that far apart. But I 

think, clearly, it has been stated by everyone that the states have 

been engaged. 

And a little bit of history—this is nothing that just popped up 

last month or 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. This is something 

44 

that has been of concern to biologists, wildlife professionals in the 

state agencies and the academic world, and those that are out on 

the ground for some number of years—decades, quite frankly. 

WAFWA established a monitoring program back in—Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; my apologies for the 

Acronese—the WAFWA group led efforts back in the 1950s, put together monitoring to track sage grouse, and started some of the research endeavors. 

Back in the 1990s, the concern began to increase. And, actually, 

it was state biologists that were considering the petition to list. 

This didn’t come from the green groups; this came from biologists 

that were really concerned about a number of different things: loss 

of habitat, declining numbers of birds. The states have led many 

of these efforts—the state biologists, as Dustin pointed out very 

clearly, have direct authority of wildlife populations. They always 

have had authorization to manage populations, whereas the state, 

the overall state governments, manage state lands, state-owned 

lands, and the Federal Government manages the habitat. 

The states have always had cooperating agency status. They 

have always been engaged. I am not going to try to speak, especially for the three states here, or any other state, as to what that 

cooperation has looked like or if it could have been better—my 

guess is I suspect it can, it can always be better in terms of collaboration; but the states have always been at the table. In my opinion, 

the wildlife agencies have, in fact, been there. Their advice hasn’t 

always been heeded, necessarily. 

So, the biologists have had concerns for some time. They put 

together the original strategy—whoops, am I over? Sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are. 

Dr. ARNETT. It is a 5-minute response to each question, isn’t it? 

I just realized that. 

So, I think my conclusion is that the states definitely have been 

engaged, they have cooperating status, and they have been 

partnering with the Feds, and we are very close to getting to a 

consensus. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Benishek. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here this morning. I appreciate your questions, Mrs. 

Dingell—my colleague from Michigan, by the way. 

I would like to ask you all about the working relationship that 

you have with the Federal Government on conservation issues. 

Now, we have talked about the state’s efforts to do this management; and, frankly, I agree with you, because I think that the Feds 

just don’t have the intimate knowledge of the states that local conservation people do. They know the areas that are involved, so I 

am on board with you. 

But I want to know what level of cooperation exists at this point 

in time? Could maybe each of you kind of clue me into that briefly, 

so that I could ask another question? 

Ms. CLARKE. Would you like me to go? 

Dr. BENISHEK. Sure. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you for the question. We have had a very 

good working relationship with our Federal partners in the state 

45 

of Utah. It started out, I think, as a real partnership. We worked 

closely together. We had a task force of higher-level officials that 

met periodically, and we continued to meet. 

But at a couple of different stages in the process in the evolution 

of this we started getting top-down directives which seemed to contradict the conservation objectives that we had all agreed to. Most 

recently, we have had some additional ones that are very—— 

Dr. BENISHEK. What do you mean by a top-down directive, then? 

Ms. CLARKE. Well—— 

Dr. BENISHEK. Explain that to me. 

Ms. CLARKE. We are getting a new overlay of constraints that are 

going to be imposed upon the land use plans that, at least in the 

case of Utah, we believe do not address the threats. What they do 

is constrain human activity, and they threaten the economic stability of our state, and our educational incomes to support our students; so it is troublesome. 

Dr. BENISHEK. I appreciate that answer. Mr. Miller, could you 

give me an answer? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Congressman, real quick. To echo Ms. Clarke’s 

statement, we, in Idaho, have engaged with our local Federal partners at a very high level. I mean this has been a collaborative from 

the start—with the Idaho BLM office, the local Fish and Wildlife 

Service office, and the Forest Service. We built a really good, cohesive strategy together by blending our two co-preferred alternatives: the Governor’s alternative with the internal BLM and 

Forest Service alternative; a solid plan that addresses the needs for 

greater sage grouse, but balances that with maintaining predictable levels of land use activity in our state. 

And, again, to echo Ms. Clarke’s statements, the frustration lies 

with this recent top-down direction from the national BLM office 

that occurred in January for insertion of additional requirements 

into these specific land use plan amendments, environmental impact statements. There are things within that national direction 

that are very concerning to the states. 

We have engaged with the Department of the Interior to resolve 

those issues, and I truly believe that there are folks at Interior and 

the national BLM office that want to find a solution to some of 

these complex remaining issues, one being the sagebrush focal area 

map and associated rule set. That was never vetted with the 

state—— 

Dr. BENISHEK. Let me ask Mr. Swartout if he agrees with that 

assessment, that there is some top-down directive in changing the 

plan that doesn’t seem to be effective in the management of the 

grouse. 

Mr. SWARTOUT. Thank you for the question, Congressman. In 

Colorado we have been dealing with these issues for a long time. 

And I think the real issue, where the Endangered Species Act becomes adversarial to some degree, is in the structure of the role 

that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where they are required to 

measure regulatory measures, right? 

They have to take those regulatory measures, and they are often 

litigated. And that is their primary focus, whereas states have put 

enormous value on cooperation and partnerships. We work with the 

46 

Cattlemen and the Farm Bureau and local landowners, conservation groups, industry; and states put the weight on those activities. 

The key issue is finding the balance between those two things 

within a listing decision. So, have things been added as Idaho and 

Utah described? Yes. But that is a part of what we deal with, with 

the Endangered Species Act, is that—trying to find the balance between regulatory measures and state cooperative partnerships is 

really what the struggle is all about; and we are hopeful to get that 

balance right and get to a not-warranted decision. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Thank you. Well, we are out of time. Thank 

you—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Polis. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I want to begin by thanking our friends 

at the American Museum of Natural History for the wonderful preserved heath hen, which, again, used to commonly roam from 

Virginia to Massachusetts. They are now extinct. They are a related species to the greater sage grouse, and, of course, we hope 

that Congress itself does not cause the greater sage grouse to go 

the way of the heath hen and the dodo. 

I want to go to Dr. Arnett. Two legislative proposals have recently emerged that would delay an Endangered Species Act listing 

decision on the greater sage grouse through legislative action. 

What, from your perspective and expertise, would a 6- or a 10-year 

delay in listing mean for the greater sage grouse? And do you think 

the bird would be in better shape or worse shape? 

Dr. ARNETT. Well, of course, being a scientist, I have to say it 

depends on what actions that are taken. 

In 2005, during the not-warranted listing decision, Utah may 

have taken a lot of progressive, proactive steps and continued that 

conservation effort. But my colleagues, the Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, have noted to me that a lot of those 

proactive conservations came to an end; and I think that, without 

a little bit of crisis involved here to push the effort, I am not sure 

that the foot would stay on the gas, personally. 

Quite frankly, this is a concern, if we get to a not-warranted, 

which is what we define as success, and I think everyone here defines as success, is that we need long-term sustainability for the 

management—— 

Mr. POLIS. In your opinion, if the listing was legislatively delayed 

10 years, do you think a listing at that time would be even more 

likely, given the likely state of the bird and the withdrawal of some 

of the state efforts that they are engaging in? 

Dr. ARNETT. We think it is likely, and keep in mind that the bird 

is still—is warranted, but precluded. That would seemingly give a 

lot of uncertainty to a business owner or someone else trying to 

plan out into the future. I think we are better off getting the plans 

done now, with some long-term commitment goals and objectives, 

and giving them more certainty than waiting 6 years to see what 

happens. 

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Swartout, you spoke about the significant success 

Colorado has seen in sage grouse habitat conservation through the 

efforts of state, local, and private players. You also mentioned how 

important site-specific variables are in management of the grouse. 

47 

That being said, what are your thoughts on attempts made by 

this body, here in Washington, to give national directives through 

bills like the Defense bill, in terms of how sage grouse is managed? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. Thank you, Representative Polis. As you know, 

we have invested enormous resources, but these issues concern all 

of our constituents in the 11 states; and Congress certainly has the 

freedom to intervene as they choose, because they also represent 

those constituents. 

But we have, as I mentioned in my testimony, we have been 

working very diligently with Secretary Jewell, her team, the BLM, 

on trying to come to a successful conclusion in our BLM plans and 

our state-led conservation efforts to protect sage grouse. We continue to focus on that, and we have a path forward to get there. 

It is difficult, and it has been difficult, as described by Utah and 

Idaho in their testimony; but the Governor’s goal is to still find a 

path forward to get to a not-warranted decision. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

Dr. Arnett, as you know, last month the Fish and Wildlife 

Service announced it would not list the bi-state population of the 

greater sage grouse in Nevada and California under the ESA because adequate safeguards to conserve the species were put in 

place by the state and Federal managers. Do you see any reason 

why a similar outcome can’t be reached for the range-wide 

population of greater sage grouse, and is that a good model? 

Dr. ARNETT. We do not. We believe that we can get there. We believe there are investments that have been put forward by the 

states, strong conservation plans that complement those state efforts on Federal properties, and private landowner engagement 

that is unprecedented. 

Mr. POLIS. And do you think that Congress not politically or artificially delaying or taking this out for 10 years and making sure 

that that pressure exists is an important part of reaching the kind 

of arrangement that was done in Nevada and California for the 

greater sage grouse? 

Dr. ARNETT. Our position is that a delay is not necessary, unless, 

and I will say this again—if the Fish and Wildlife Service came to 

us and said, ‘‘There is some timeline that we know we will get to 

a not-warranted’’—I suspect we can support that; but we haven’t 

heard that yet. 

Mr. POLIS. Great. Well, I—— 

Dr. ARNETT. And just real quickly, sorry to interrupt you—— 

Mr. POLIS. Yes. 

Dr. ARNETT. The track record issue is an important one, because 

track records have to be established by all of these players. But, 

again, that should be driven by the Service saying that we don’t 

have it, and if we had this amount of time to see it. I don’t know 

that we need the life cycle of the species to see—one cycle of a 

generation to see that happen. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, and thanks again to the American 

Museum of Natural History. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Too bad they didn’t breed that thing for you. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just real quick, I think 

what I hear and what I read is that wildfire and invasive species 

48 

are the largest threat. But it seems like the environmentalist 

movement is wanting to threaten the development of energy, oil 

and gas, in the sage grouse region. I have concern about that. How 

do we address that wildfire and invasive species ought to be the 

focus. 

I don’t have a dog in the fight. I am going to yield my time to 

the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Zinke. 

Mr. ZINKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the collaborative 

process is an enormous effort. It takes experts sitting together at 

a table, and when the Federal Government, or a higher authority, 

intervenes and say they know best, it concerns me. It concerns me 

in Montana that I have talked to the Director of the BLM. 

Nowhere do I see what a healthy population number is in 

Montana, and we are talking about Montana, where the CMR is 

larger than most states. 

So, when I don’t know what a target number is, when the plan 

doesn’t have anything constructive, other than habitat, when it 

doesn’t address wildfire, it doesn’t address predators, and yet, locally, the farmers, the ranchers, the people that live on the land 

have expressed a considerable desire to save the species in a constructive manner that looks at predators, looks at wildfire, looks at 

weather—and so, I guess my question to Ms. Clarke is that you 

have been around this process. Other than perhaps a taxidermy, or 

the Smithsonian Institute, is there an example of the sage grouse 

within the DC area, living? 

Ms. CLARKE. I am not aware that there are any sage grouse in 

the DC area. 

Mr. ZINKE. Well, why then would Washington, the bureaucracy, 

given there are no sage grouse here—in your view, why would they 

decide what is best for Montana or the western states, that have 

a deep, traditional concern for wildlife management? Why would 

the bureaucracy here think that they have a better management 

plan than the western states? 

Ms. CLARKE. I think it is the culture in Washington. I think not 

just the agencies at Interior, but so much of Washington gets removed from reality. I think it is a matter of respect, and showing 

the due respect to the local people out in the West. Sometimes it 

is the farmers and the ranchers, who aren’t scientists, that get it 

the best. They understand the land and the resources, and what is 

going on. 

Mr. ZINKE. So we agree. We need more scientists and less 

lawyers out in the field. 

But also, what is the effect? You have gone through this process 

much more than I. And I am a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist. I 

love the land, and I think species are absolutely critical that we 

maintain; but what is the effect of going through a collaborative 

process, and then disrupting that? What is the frustration and 

what is the effect of not having the value in respecting the process 

of a collaborative effort in the state? 

Ms. CLARKE. Well, I think part of the response is what you are 

seeing from Congress. There are those who say that collaboration 

is not working, it is becoming heavy-handed, the state’s input is 

being devalued, and so we have to find another solution. 

49 

We hope we can find a workable solution with or without 

congressional intervention. We do not need a listing. The states are 

incredibly capable and committed to conserving the sage grouse, 

the habitat. These are our homes, this is where we live. We want 

it taken care of, not just to avoid a listing, but because we want 

that land and those species to be viable for our children and our 

grandchildren. 

Mr. ZINKE. You are an expert in this area. Would you not say 

that predator control, wildfire management, as well as habitat 

should be a part of the solution, other than just concentrating on 

habitat? 

As an example, I sat down with the Director, and I asked him, 

‘‘Why is the population—Why is it down in Montana? ’’ He mentioned oil and gas exploration. Now, Montana is a pretty big state. 

In this committee I have often said Montana is between 

Washington, DC and Chicago, plus 2 miles. 

Now, I went and reviewed how many active-duty oil rigs we have 

in the great state of Montana. We had one at the time. Now we 

have zero. So I don’t think oil and gas exploration has been a 

significant cause of the diminishing stock. But, again, you go out 

to the farmers, the ranchers, those who live on the land, it is 

predators. 

So, do you agree that we should be looking at predators, rather 

than cutting down juniper trees? 

Ms. CLARKE. I think predators are an important issue. In Utah, 

they certainly are. And I do think we need better stewardship of 

Federal lands. 

Mr. ZINKE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Doctor Arnett, something that I think we need to clear up in this 

hearing. Is it true that activities relating to existing energy leases, 

mining claims, grazing permits, and other existing legal arrangements will not be affected in any way by Federal land management 

plans now under consideration for the sage grouse conservation, 

particularly even in the strongholds? It has caused all this unnecessary consternation at this point. Can you explain to the 

committee that point? 

Dr. ARNETT. That is correct, Congressman. Valid and existing 

rights do not apply to the conservation efforts that are ongoing. To 

my knowledge—and I have not had the luxury of seeing the final 

Bureau of Land Management plans, but the focal areas in question, 

I would assume, have been developed without—in areas that do not 

have certain valid and existing rights, I would assume. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. One quick question, Mr. Miller. Mr. 

Swartout mentioned that a delay is unnecessary, and that adequate conservation measures could be put in place to reach a nonwarranted decision for the greater sage grouse. Do you agree that 

a delay is unnecessary? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, Congressman, as I indicated in my statement, 

we still have remaining issues that we are trying to work through 

Interior to get to a mutual agreement on what our final conservaVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:13 Feb 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\05-19-15\94772.TXT DARLEN
50 

tion strategy between the state and the Federal Government 

should look like. 

We, obviously, are running out of time. The final environmental 

impact statements are slated to be released later this month or 

early June. We don’t want to sell ourselves short on time, and our 

ability to negotiate further with the Interior Department on these 

remaining issues. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. So, you don’t know if a delay is necessary or 

not. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, Congressman, Governor Otter is definitely 

supportive of an extension if we need more time to resolve these 

remaining issues. And, like Dr. Arnett said, if there is a need to 

demonstrate a track record here, there has been a delay with the 

release of these Federal EISs. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Would you consider significant progress as also a 

part of the criteria for an extension? 

Mr. MILLER. We have made significant—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. No, I am asking. Would that be part of the 

criteria? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. Dr. Arnett, early on, the comparison was 

made between the northern spotted owl and the sage grouse, and 

how that comparison is valid or not. How fair is this comparison? 

Dr. ARNETT. I think there are definitely parallels. But it is also 

a very different situation. One parallel of interesting note, the biologists that I worked with for years in the timber industry warned 

the timber industry of the northern spotted owl in the 1970s, and 

it took a long time for that to manifest, until the bird was actually 

listed—getting back to the point about having the specter of ESA 

in front. 

It is a different situation. Obviously, covers a broader range of 

conditions. And one of my feelings is that a failure in the spotted 

owl plan wasn’t relied too heavily on a system of Federal reserves, 

and needed to better integrate with private lands and state 

lands—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. The collaboration issue that we have been talking 

about today, states and the Federal agencies, how did that nexus 

work with regard to the spotted owl, or—— 

Dr. ARNETT. Well, it was driven by President Clinton, his forest 

plan and the forest summit. It came from that. Again, that generated the forest plan that was then later applied in that late successional reserve program, and then the states managed private 

lands. But I think there needed to be a better integration of the 

private sector and state lands in a broader, comprehensive strategy. That would have been helpful. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Would you compare the job, in terms of collaboration on the sage grouse process as we are now, better than or—— 

Dr. ARNETT. I don’t think we have seen anything like what we 

have seen with the sage grouse issue in my career. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this. This 

is also very critical in my northeast California district that borders 

51 

Nevada and Mr. Amodei’s district, where the sage grouse, or otherwise known as sage hen, is quite an issue. The bi-state situation 

was a good sign. 

The problem is, with the threat of any kind of list, some are referring to it as a good pressure. But what we have are Federal 

agencies that are unable to keep up with the management of their 

lands, whether it is BLM or the Forest Service. So, we have this 

proliferation of juniper, big-time, in our area here, and a listing 

just takes options off the table. I imagine the juniper eradication 

is going much more slowly because we are pussy-footing around. 

There might be sage hen habitat out there that is a problem, but 

we don’t nearly keep up with the juniper or—Mr. Zinke mentioned 

predators, too. That is a bigger consideration we ought to be looking at. Maybe not as much in my area as his, but—all the options. 

What are the things that you would actually do to really improve 

the situation? We move so slowly with EISs and studying and talking, and all this, when it is the farmers, the ranchers, it is the people that live in the area that actually know and understand what 

it takes, where the species is, what it would take to help make it 

a little better, you know? 

I mean the regulation, the threat of listing, has gotten 

everybody’s attention. Farmers and ranchers are willing. These 

landowners, the ones that are adjacent to the Federal lands, they 

are willing to do things. Maybe in the past there were some stiffnecked folks, I certainly get that. But they are willing to step forward and do it. 

When we have these listings—as Mr. McClintock mentioned with 

the Yosemite toad, yellow-legged frog and all that, 2 million acres 

are—who knows? By the time they are done implementing their 

plan, their proposal, it will probably mean people can do less things 

in the area to manage timber, to manage the lands, to do things 

that would dovetail well with the species and its recovery. It will 

just be off limits, instead. The whole forest will burn. In the case 

we are talking about here, more and more juniper grows because 

we are afraid we might disturb a nesting grouse, instead of doing 

things that are going to improve it. 

It is a big frustration. So, I don’t think any more pressure to go 

through with a listing, especially since so many listings these days 

come from a deal cut by government with a bunch of environmental 

groups that have a long Christmas wish list of species they want 

to list, and there is no time to go through all those processes, because they take so long, so they get sued, they just cut a deal, list 

them anyway. That is the great frustration I see out in districts 

like mine and neighboring ones. 

So, Ms. Clarke, again, up there in Utah, have you seen that the 

sage grouse are actually using the treated areas that the state is 

creating? Is it something—— 

Ms. CLARKE. It is amazing. They absolutely are. Often, they 

move into them almost immediately. Within months we see sage 

grouse moving into restored habitat. So, absolutely, it is effective. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Because you have had the ability to move a little 

more quickly and efficiently in getting these areas set up. 

Ms. CLARKE. That is right. We have a 10-year plan to go out and 

remove pinyon juniper throughout the state in sage grouse 

52 

management areas. We need to get past the timely problems of getting an EA done, so that we can do that on Federal land, as well. 

We want to work with the Feds as well as private landowners to 

move quickly and remove that PJ and improve habitat. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So, are the Federal folks, do you feel like they are 

just hand-tied to be able to move things as quickly as—efficiently 

as—— 

Ms. CLARKE. Our local players in the BLM and the Forest 

Service are so eager to participate because they like the vision and 

the capacity they see in the state of Utah, but sometimes they are 

hog-tied by regulations. And they—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. So they want to do it, but they don’t—— 

Ms. CLARKE. They are not nimble. 

Mr. LAMALFA. They don’t have the ability. Washington is not 

giving them the ability to do that by—— 

Ms. CLARKE. They are constrained. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, OK. That has to be highly frustrating for 

everybody wanting to do that. 

Mr. Miller, in Idaho—coming back to the wildfire piece there— 

I imagine you have a pretty big problem with that, as well. What 

success is the state of Idaho having on addressing wildfire and lessening that? 

Mr. MILLER. Congressman, thank you for the question. And, real 

quickly here, I would say one of the most significant actions we 

have taken in the state of Idaho has been the creation of rangeland 

fire protection associations, comprised of landowners and ranchers 

in very remote areas of sage grouse habitat that play a crucial role 

in initial attack in keeping fires—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Now, as we are running out of time, how is this 

interfacing with Federal lands, or Federal agency cooperation, or 

lack of? How is that going? 

Mr. MILLER. Congressman, there is a lot of collaboration with 

these range and fire protection associations—Federal resources and 

state resources. These members of these RFPAs are trained pursuant to Federal and state wild and fire-fighting protocols. 

Mr. LAMALFA. The Chairman is using some timber up there. I 

thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. About to throw it at you all. 

Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Looking at the photograph here of the sage grouse, it is obviously a very beautiful 

bird, much like the heath hen. We don’t have any of those in 

Arkansas. Matter of fact, if we were to see one, someone might assess that a bobwhite quail got too friendly with a dominecker hen. 

But, although we don’t have sage grouse, we do have endangered 

species. 

Ms. Clarke, you mentioned in your testimony that people manage 

species and regulations manage people. Do you feel that the threat 

of a listing is being used to micro-manage state policies and land 

use decisions? 

53 

Ms. CLARKE. At this point I feel like it is—that the motivation 

is more to manage land, and to restrict human uses of land, rather 

than to manage species. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Are these efforts directed to avoiding the threat 

of extinction, or based on the actions of Federal regulators? 

Ms. CLARKE. Well, I think it is the Federal regulators. What 

their motivations are, I am not going to pretend to know. But at 

this point, the way we assess the threats in Utah, this latest round 

of land management restrictions do not address the threats that 

the sage grouse face in the state of Utah. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And you referred to this earlier, but I have 

seen the same instance in my state, where the Federal employees 

who work for the Forest Service or Fish and Wildlife are really 

there on the ground, wanting to do the right thing, but yet it is regulations out of DC—— 

Ms. CLARKE. That is right. 

Mr. WESTERMAN [continuing]. That are—— 

Ms. CLARKE. And sometimes it is policy out of DC. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. All right. Mr. Miller, your state has been the 

jurisdiction of choice for groups who prefer to manage sage grouse 

through Federal court decisions. Has it been your observation that 

the litigation is making a positive difference on the ground? Or is 

it just more paralysis by analysis? 

Mr. MILLER. Congressman, I would agree with the latter. The 

volume of litigation in our state regarding land use activities is 

high. It is significant, and oftentimes the problem is that the resource suffers as a result. When those land managers that should 

be out there working with the resource users and working to ensure a balance is struck between conservation and multiple-use 

activities, when they are stuck in their offices working on FOIA requests or trying to figure out how to address these litigation challenges, the resource suffers and the users of our public lands suffer. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. As we have talked about a little bit, the Idaho 

sage grouse habitat is particularly vulnerable to wildfire and 

invasive species. Does the Governor’s plan recognize and address 

these threats? 

Mr. MILLER. Absolutely, Congressman. And, in fact, that is 

where our task force put the majority of their effort. 

Wildfire and invasive species are the primary threats in Idaho 

and other Great Basin states. If we did nothing to address those 

threats, then this bird would be in trouble; but we do have a suite 

of robust conservation actions within our strategy to adequately 

deal with those threats. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So is it your assessment that the sage grouse 

is doing better on state-controlled lands or federally-controlled 

lands? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, the majority of the habitat in Idaho is managed by the Federal Government, about 74 percent. And another 6 

percent is on our state endowment lands. It is tough to tell you 

which—you know, the majority of the populations are on Federal 

land, as a result. So that is a difficult question to answer. 

Our state lands are managed differently than the Federal lands. 

We have a constitutional mandate to maximize revenue generation 

on those state lands, which includes utilizing livestock grazing. Our 

54 

plan also utilizes and recognizes livestock grazing as part of the solution, from a fuels reduction standpoint. So, that is a difficult 

question to answer, how the populations are doing on state lands, 

compared to the Federal lands. But again, the user groups are part 

of the solution in Idaho on dealing with our threats. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Ms. Clarke, do you have any data in Utah on 

the state versus Federal lands? 

Ms. CLARKE. No. In Utah, about half of our sage grouse habitat 

is on private land. And, interestingly, I don’t think the Feds can 

conserve sage grouse on Federal lands alone, because the settlers 

in Utah were smart folks, and they settled prime lands that are 

now a critical part of the habitat of year-round live habitats for the 

grouse. So we have to have a landscape-level integrated plan to 

make it work. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being 

here. I appreciate you offering testimony and perspective. 

Ms. Clarke, I apologize that I missed your oral testimony, but I 

did have a chance to read through your written testimony, and I 

see a number of statements here regarding frustrations. 

Let me ask. Do you think the sage grouse—and I am sure I am 

asking you to repeat yourself—is worth protecting? 

Ms. CLARKE. I think the sage grouse is worth protecting. I—— 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Miller? 

I am sorry. 

Ms. CLARKE. Go ahead. 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Miller, I assume—— 

Mr. MILLER. Absolutely. Without question. 

Mr. GRAVES. OK. All right, I—— 

Mr. MILLER. No question. 

Mr. GRAVES. Great, thank you. In reading this, it seems that 

there appears to be some frustration. I don’t want to put words in 

your mouth, but the disconnect, perhaps, between the Federal 

Government coming in and taking a one-size-fits-all approach, as 

compared to giving you the ability to develop more prescriptive 

plans in your states to manage these species. 

Ms. Clarke, in your written testimony, there is a dichotomy developing between the state of Utah’s collaborative planning process 

and growing Federal unilateralism. It is becoming increasingly imbalanced and adversarial. Results have been stunning and directly 

contradict the recent gloom and doom predictions concerning sage 

grouse. Of course, that is pertaining to the efforts that Utah has 

undertaken. 

Then, last, you are experiencing numerous frustrations working 

with the Federal land management agencies. Federal agencies are 

focusing most of their effort on finding new ways to regulate 

human activity, relentless efforts to force more standardized and irrelevant mandates on the use of land not only threatens the conservation of species, but unnecessarily imposes hardship on the 

hardworking citizens of the West. 

You have indicated your willingness and your belief that the species should be protected. It sounds like, in this case, that the state 

believes that it can develop a more prescriptive approach that may 

55 

result in better results than, again, the one-size-fits-all approach of 

the Federal land management agencies. Is that accurate? 

Ms. CLARKE. That is absolutely true. 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Miller, do you care to offer any additional comments in regard to that line of questioning, and the ability of the 

state to develop a tailored plan, based on your actual habitat, as 

compared to having the Federal Government come in? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Congressman, and I will read the first sentence 

of my closing paragraph. 

Mr. GRAVES. Yours is a little thicker; I didn’t get all the way 

through it. 

Mr. MILLER. ‘‘The state of Idaho holds to the notion that local collaboration, local ideas, and local efforts garner the greatest results.’’ We believe that we have done that through our collaborative 

planning effort. Our local scientists have done one heck of a job in 

Idaho on providing us with the necessary data and the conservation actions necessary to conserve this species in concert with our 

multitude of land use activities in the state. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. Ms. Clarke, your perspective is unique, 

in that you have had both Federal and state experience. I am sure 

that must be very helpful in your efforts here. 

Mr. Chairman, I can’t help but think I have seen this before, and 

I am not real sure where, but a situation where the states and the 

Federal Government probably have the same objective in regard to 

the sustainable management of species, where the states can 

develop more tailored plans that are better equipped, based upon 

their constituents and the habitat that they are specifically facing, 

yet the Federal Government is coming in and managing 

unilaterally. 

Mr. Chairman, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate you having 

this hearing today. I can’t tell you how much I agree with you that 

this is exactly how species should be managed. And I just want to 

congratulate you for your great work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Graves. As you leave, maybe we 

can get some sage grouse down in Louisiana, so you can complement that with the red snapper. Is that what you are talking 

about? 

Mr. GRAVES. That is right. For those that aren’t drawing the 

parallels, that would be with red snapper. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I got it, yes. OK. 

Mr. Newhouse. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. We did draw the parallel, thank you. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here this morning. Very interesting testimony, and appreciate your taking the time to enlighten us. 

Particularly, Ms. Clarke, I found your testimony interesting, considering your background, your work at the Federal level and now 

at the state level. I think I could get from your testimony the feeling of being burdened by regulations toward your efforts at saving 

the greater sage grouse. 

I live in central Washington. In my district we have the Yakima 

Training Center, which is a 327,000-acre training site for our 

56 

military. Of that, there are 77,000 acres that are currently designated sage grouse protection area. The Army has already taken 

various steps and spent a lot of money to operate in a manner that 

minimizes its impact on these species, things like seasonal management and habitat protection. 

If ESA further, under a listing, would further impact and, really, 

take a lot of the training center out of being operable, and very severely limit its ability to carry out its mission. So, with that kind 

of a perspective for me, I would like you to elaborate, Ms. Clarke, 

a little bit further on your testimony that Federal regulators’ focus 

is increasingly unilateral and somewhat dismissive of the state conservation action. 

Ms. CLARKE. I think it goes back to my statement that I really 

don’t believe regulation is going to conserve the species, and that 

is at the core of the listing. It is a very severe regulatory move. I 

appreciate the members of the panel here and their general agreement that we don’t have to go there. 

But we are starting to see this regulatory heavy hand on the 

plans of our Federal partners, and that is the BLM and the Forest 

Service. I have great concerns that those plans may become so detrimental to our ability to access, enjoy, and utilize the lands in our 

states, such as Yakima, that the plans may be, in fact, more dangerous than a listing. 

So, what we are all struggling for right now—and it is what I 

have heard from my companions here—is that we are holding out 

hope that we can negotiate with the Department of the Interior 

and with the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service to 

get to a point where the plans are responsible, that they acknowledge that the states have a very significant role in conservation, 

and that, together, we don’t need to list; but we don’t need to shut 

down the public lands, either. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I appreciate that. And I was trying to scribble 

down your quotations, if I can use that at some point, with your 

permission. 

So, further question for you, Mr. Miller. I think everybody on the 

panel has brought up in some reference to wildfire prevention, suppression, restoration as keys to protecting the greater sage grouse. 

You may or may not know that this committee has been working 

hard to spearhead efforts, legislation that will help support states 

in targeting wildfire prevention. So, in your view, what is the ideal 

role of the Federal Government in wildfire mitigation? And how do 

these efforts tie in with supporting ongoing state-level sage grouse 

protection measures? 

Mr. MILLER. I appreciate that question, Congressman, and it 

truly comes down to a collaborative, and recognizing where we can 

come together to do the most good on the wildfire front in Idaho 

and other Great Basin states. 

I do appreciate the Secretary of the Interior releasing a 

Secretarial Order on wildland fire in, I believe, February of this 

year that redirects resources and prioritizes activities in sage 

grouse habitat. Of course, human life and property is always a priority. But now, the Interior Department has allowed sage grouse 

to be a priority within their wildland fire-fighting system. 

57 

So, it truly is a partnership with the Federal Government. We 

have a vast landscape in Idaho, predominantly managed by the 

Federal Government. So I do appreciate the Interior Department 

taking that step forward to reprioritize their actions in sage grouse 

habitat on Federal lands. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you very much. Too short a time. So, 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Cresent, we did it. 

Representative Hardy. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I almost feel guilty going 

ahead of Mr. Tipton. In Nevada, 15 of the 17 counties are—sage 

grouse is involved in those areas. I guess this would both go to Ms. 

Clarke and Mr. Miller. With the process of knowing that, let’s see— 

165 million acres of land are basically sage grouse range throughout the West, and 64 percent of that is Federal lands. In the state 

of Nevada, it is 17.6 million acres, and 87 percent of that—— 

Ms. CLARKE. Is Federal. 

Mr. HARDY. From my standpoint, I have some real challenges. I 

grew up in Nevada my whole life, and have watched what has happened throughout the state with the growth of the pinyon juniper 

and the lack of—or the mismanagement of what I call the Federal 

Government and what they are doing. 

Ms. Clarke, in your testimony you talked about you guys actually 

clearing the pinyon juniper. That is on state or private lands, is 

that correct? 

Ms. CLARKE. That is on whatever lands need the treatment. We 

look at the landscape and we work with all partners and 

landowners. 

Mr. HARDY. You were able to clear Federal lands? 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes, where they have the appropriate NEPA, we 

have gone ahead and cleared lands. 

Mr. HARDY. Where they had the appropriate NEPA. Have you 

had any challenges being able to clear Federal lands? 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes. If they are not NEPA-cleared, we can’t touch 

them. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. In Nevada none of that land has been 

touched with any type of clearing process, to my knowledge, to 

date. And I have been over that state many times throughout my 

life—hunted sage grouse. Do you see any correlation between these 

clearing areas and your private areas? Because what I see when I 

travel throughout the state—and even Utah—hunting, I see that 

these private lands actually hold greater amount of sage grouse 

than the so-called Federal lands, public lands. Do you see any of 

the same—— 

Ms. CLARKE. Absolutely. The Deseret Land and Livestock is a 

beautiful example in northern Utah. That is a privately managed 

area. Sage grouse populations thrive; they have robust grazing. It 

is an area that has had oil and gas activity. So, it is land that is 

stewarded. We need more stewardship on public land. 

Mr. HARDY. I agree. With that being said, another place I have 

been a number of times is the Kennecott Copper Mine. 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes. 

Mr. HARDY. Which is, without question, I think, one of the largest mines in the United States. It has large amounts of wildlife: 

58 

sage grouse, deer, all kinds of elk, everything; and it is because it 

is managed. It is mined, but it is managed, and they do well there. 

A question I have for you, Ms. Clarke, with your experience 

being in the state and the Federal level, is there anything that has 

changed in this Administration from when you were there? 

Ms. CLARKE. I have found that this Administration has curtailed 

access to public lands in a pretty dramatic way. Early on in this 

Administration there was a paper that was leaked that suggested 

that they wanted about half of the BLMs in conservation status, 

about half of the acreage. Through various means, it seems we are 

getting there. 

I am concerned that a listing would certainly take more of that 

land out of play, but so would severe land use plan restrictions. So, 

it is a troubling pattern that I have seen. 

Mr. HARDY. Is there anything you see that we can do, legislatively, to fix the problem between the states and the Federal 

Government? 

Ms. CLARKE. I would love to see the Federal Congress take a 

good, hard look at the regulatory process in the agencies. I think 

right now they run pretty much with a free hand; and I think some 

of these regulations that have such tremendous impact should have 

to come before Congress and be approved, rather than be allowed 

to be adopted by the agency. 

Mr. HARDY. OK. Mr. Miller, just one quick question for you. Can 

you elaborate on your rural fire districts in Idaho, and how that 

was established to fight wildfire on the range, sage grouse habitat? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. There was legislation by the Idaho State 

legislature that set up these rangeland fire protection associations, 

and for years there had been problems, mainly a liability issue 

with having ranchers and other landowners on the fire line on 

Federal land. Through a partnership with the Federal Government 

now, we do have ranchers that are trained pursuant to these protocols, that can play an active role in initial attack and anchor these 

fires a whole lot better and a lot faster, oftentimes, than the 

agencies can. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be with the committee. I would like to thank our panel 

for taking time to be able to be here. Great to see a fellow 

Coloradoan, Mr. Swartout, here, as well. 

Incredibly important issue, I think, for the state of Colorado and 

for the western United States. A blanket question for all four of 

you: What is the number that the Department of the Interior has 

established as recovery for the greater sage grouse? 

Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. I am not aware that they have given us a population number. The state itself has objectives, but we have not been 

given a goal. 

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. We have not seen a population objective from the 

Federal Government. 

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Arnett? 

59 

Dr. ARNETT. That has not been established by the Federal 

Government. It should be established by the state agencies. Some 

have population objectives and some don’t. 

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Swartout? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. No, we haven’t seen a number from the Federal 

Government; but our biologists work on thresholds of what they 

think the carrying capacity of the land is, trying to improve that, 

and move trend line numbers up in an upward direction for the 

sage grouse. 

Mr. TIPTON. Well, you are joined by Secretary Jewell. Before this 

committee, when I asked her the question, they don’t have an identifiable number. Wouldn’t it be a good idea, if we are going to actually have recovery, to be able to have a number when we know that 

we win? 

But I have a greater problem, as well, and I think that you have 

spoken to this in some of your testimony, when we have 11 states 

that are going to be included in designation of the sage grouse for 

critical habitat. If we have full recovery, Mr. Swartout, in the state 

of Colorado, if we had a number—which we do not, because the 

Department of the Interior has not established that—but if we did 

have full recovery, would we still be listed in the state of Colorado? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. Congressman Tipton, I am not sure I understand 

the question. Would—— 

Mr. TIPTON. With an 11-state listing, where we are all grouped 

in with 11 states, if we get full recovery in the state of Colorado, 

if we had a number—which we don’t—we wouldn’t be taken off listing, would we? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. No, not likely. 

Mr. TIPTON. Does that make good sense to you? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. No. But I would say, Congressman Tipton—and 

I compliment you on your long efforts on these issues in working 

with the Governor and our two great Senators from the state of 

Colorado in a proactive way on these issues—that the key to this 

is our landowners in Colorado, many of whom are your constituents, as you know. These landowners have taken unprecedented 

amount of effort to allow our scientists from Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife to come on their property and actually track these birds, 

so that we have a good sense of the management actions that are 

most effective in dealing with trying to bring these species back. 

Mr. TIPTON. At the state and at the local level. 

Mr. SWARTOUT. Right. 

Mr. TIPTON. Let’s talk a little bit about science, since you 

brought that up. You went and did a scientific survey. Did you expand or decrease the estimated acreage that the Federal Government is suggesting becomes critical habitat? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. I think, as we went from the national models 

that measure vegetation and other things, and developed through 

an enormous investment from the state of Colorado in science, we 

have been able to actually—— 

Mr. TIPTON. So was it greater or less than what the Federal 

Government was—— 

Mr. SWARTOUT. It is less, Congressman. 

Mr. TIPTON. It is less. That has been supplemented, hasn’t it, in 

counties like Garfield County, to where they actually make massive 

60 

reductions in what was going to be critical habitat, simply because 

the terrain wouldn’t support the population? Is that accurate? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. Yes. Our Colorado Parks and Wildlife—— 

Mr. TIPTON. So the Federal Government has faulty science that 

they are trying to use when they are getting ready to try and impose a listing of the sage grouse. 

Mr. SWARTOUT. I wouldn’t call it faulty science, Congressman. 

Mr. TIPTON. Aspirational science? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. I would say that they are taking a broader 

model; and what the state does, often in partnership with them, is 

put it on the ground and actually measure what the behavior of 

these—in this case, sage grouse—to better inform our management 

decisions on what actions have the highest leverage to keep the 

trend line moving up for the species—— 

Mr. TIPTON. But there seems to be pretty much consensus on this 

panel that those local conservation efforts, the state conservation 

efforts—Ms. Clarke, you were pointing specifically, I think, in some 

of your comments also, we are seeing private property rights now 

being infringed on in regulatory fashion by the heavy hand of government coming in. 

But we ought to be able to give these an opportunity to be able 

to succeed. We have some legislation that I am co-sponsoring. Mr. 

Stewart on this committee is carrying a companion piece by Cory 

Gardner out of Colorado to be able to allow our state efforts, our 

local efforts, to be able to develop over a 6-year period, to be able 

to actually revive the species. Would that, just in a conceptual 

basis, would that be an admirable goal for us to really reach for, 

when we are talking about legislative solutions? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. As I said earlier, Congress has every right to 

pursue working with their constituents. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are out of time. Say yes in 2 seconds. 

Mr. SWARTOUT. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Mr. Hice. 

Dr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this hearing. For each of the witnesses again, I, as my other colleagues, thank you for being here. 

I am a Member from the state of Georgia. And, obviously, my 

district is not directly impacted by the sage grouse, but certainly 

all of us are impacted in various ways from the Endangered 

Species Act and so forth. 

Ms. Clarke, let me begin with you. You have provided some contrast between natural threats and the human impact of rural development, oil, gas, some of these other things, drilling. As it 

relates to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management, do you believe that the focus has been on the 

most important challenges of the sage grouse conservation? 

Ms. CLARKE. In Utah, I do not believe the Federal plan is focused 

on the most important issues. More importantly, it is not focused 

on solutions to deal with those threats—the main ones in Utah, fire 

and invasives, pinyon juniper and sagebrush—or, excuse me, not 

61 

sagebrush—grass, cheatgrass. Cheatgrass is terrible, problematic, 

terribly problematic. 

Dr. HICE. OK. So are you saying then, the natural threats are 

the greatest threat? 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes, absolutely. 

Dr. HICE. OK. What significance would you say is human threat? 

Ms. CLARKE. Well, in the state of Utah we did a very careful 

analysis, and it is about 3 percent. 

Dr. HICE. OK. So a fairly insignificant—— 

Ms. CLARKE. Very insignificant. 

Dr. HICE [continuing]. Amount, all together. All right. Let me 

expand this to each of you a little bit more. 

One of the legal requirements of NEPA is that participation by 

the states and the public must be meaningful in order to provide 

the Federal Government the best information possible that they 

need for actions that impact the environment. 

With that in mind, do you believe that your states have had the 

best chance to have meaningful participation in land use under 

NEPA? And we will just kind of go down the line with this. 

Ms. CLARKE. We have had a lot of participation, a lot of exchange. I think sometimes we are heard, but nothing changes as 

the Feds listen to our perspective. So we have had some very good 

experiences and some very disappointing ones. As this has evolved, 

we feel like it is becoming much more federally driven, and less of 

a partnership. 

Dr. HICE. OK, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Congressman. I believe that our collaborative 

effort has been very, very strong in Idaho, and we have had that 

high level of participation with the Idaho BLM, local Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. We have been at the table, 

as cooperators, with our cooperating agency status. As a result, we 

have built a pretty robust and solid plan to conserve this species. 

Dr. HICE. If we can go rather quickly, I have another question 

I want to put out to you. 

Dr. ARNETT. Well, very quickly, I don’t represent any one of the 

states. But, broadly, I would say that the vast majority of the state 

plans that I have personally reviewed have been developed with 

stakeholder input, but without public review process, as is NEPA, 

and that is a little bit of a different situation. 

Dr. HICE. OK, good point. All right, thank you. 

Mr. SWARTOUT. Congressman, I would call the effort unprecedented with our local governments and other stakeholders, and 

with the two Federal agencies. It has been unprecedented, in terms 

of the amount of work and effort that our folks have put into it, 

working with the Federal Government. 

And, as I said in my testimony, are these processes difficult? 

Absolutely, they are; but we feel that we have been given adequate 

ability to comment and work with the Federal Government toward 

what we hope is a balanced solution. 

Dr. HICE. OK. I think my time is going to expire here real 

quickly. I will go back, Ms. Clarke, to you. 

As far as the flexibility between state plans and the Federal 

plans, what is the comparison? 

62 

Ms. CLARKE. I think the states can be much more nimble and adjust quickly. Federal plans, once in place, are very, very difficult to 

modify. Going through plan amendments can take years. 

Dr. HICE. Can they override the state plans? 

Ms. CLARKE. On Federal land, absolutely. 

Dr. HICE. OK, thank you very much. 

I see my time is about to go, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I 

yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. All right. I get to ask some questions 

now, and they have to be brief answers. I have to get out of here, 

too. 

So, just simply yes or no. Ms. Clarke, does the Utah plan deal 

in some way with wildfire? 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Idaho plan? Does it deal with wildfire? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Colorado plans, do they deal with wildfire? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. All right. So, Ms. Clarke, in the Utah 

plan, does it maintain the status quo or actually increase the 

amount of habitat? 

Ms. CLARKE. It increases habitat and populations. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. So, even the Secretary and the Interior 

Department say they don’t want to list the sage grouse; so none of 

us are talking about listing as the goal. 

There is also some kind of concept here, when we are talking 

about delaying listing. I just want to be very clear that the legislation that was actually passed by the House the other day doesn’t 

delay listing of the sage grouse. It actually implements the state 

management plans of the sage grouse. It is an entire difference. 

There is also a difference here. Mr. Miller, you mentioned this, 

too. If, indeed, it is listed or not, if BLM or the others come up with 

a regional management plan that has this criteria for the sage 

grouse, whether it is listed or not, that is a moot issue, then, isn’t 

it? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And your concern is that they are going forward 

with this without consultation. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, at a high level, sir, the top-down directives 

still need to be vetted and worked out with the state. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, if those regional management plans were 

then taken into account, it wouldn’t matter whether the bird was 

listed or not. It would be the same net effect, which is the concept 

of why we are dealing with those issues, especially in the NDAA. 

Mr. Swartout, last November Governor Hickenlooper called the 

sage grouse Gunnison listing ‘‘discouraging, and complicates our 

good-faith efforts to work with local stakeholders on locally driven 

approaches.’’ What did Colorado do about that issue? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. We have continued to work with our coalition of 

counties and—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, come on. What did you do? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. Oh, I am sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. You sued. 

Mr. SWARTOUT. We filed litigation. 

63 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. You sued. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SWARTOUT. Sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is the concern I have. Gunnison sage 

grouse—if the hope is that eventually the Federal Government will 

actually work with the states and work fairly—the Gunnison sage 

grouse does not give me a whole lot of warmth that that actually 

will take place. 

Ms. Clarke, a 6- or a 10-year period of time to try and evaluate 

the effectiveness of the state plan, do you need time to see if these 

plans work or not? 

Ms. CLARKE. Given the cycle of the bird, absolutely. You are not 

going to see the total effectiveness for a period of—— 

The CHAIRMAN. So, in Utah, at least, from 2007 to 2013, there 

was a decline in the population of the bird, we say, which has been 

quoted by a lot of special interest groups. But if you go back to 

1968 and use that as the base, our population is—— 

Ms. CLARKE. It is on the rise. 

The CHAIRMAN. Like about 350 percent higher than it was—— 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes, absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Back in 1968? 

Ms. CLARKE. It is stunning. 

The CHAIRMAN. Which is one of the reasons why, in the plan, 

once again, in the NDAA, to allow the state plans to have 10 years 

to work, so you find out if it does work without BLM putting other 

regional management plans and taking away the actual application 

of litigation. 

Ms. CLARKE. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. I am running down here as quickly as I can. 

Since my language in the military bill has been called into question by a few people, let me state that for you, the states who don’t 

think the Federal Government has been in consultation with you, 

feel yourselves lucky they have done what you had, because the 

military is stating that they do have a problem with the potential 

listing of sage grouse on their ranges. And they will clearly tell you 

the Fish and Wildlife Service has done no consultation at all with 

the military, which is why they are caught unaware. Mr. Newhouse is correct. His range is spending $1.5 million a 

year to conserve and protect 250 birds, 80 of which were brought 

in from Idaho. And that is why every branch of the military said 

this is a concern. It is a military issue. There has been no consultation with Interior as to what will happen on the military issues, 

even though it was supposed to take place. So, if you compare yourselves to the Department of Defense, you guys have been blessed 

with all sorts of consultation. 

But the question is, where do we go forward? Is there a possibility that the Federal Government will supersede your plans? And 

that is the question, and that is why you are here to talk about 

what the states can do. I think each of you has shown, in your individual states, the states are prepared, they are ready to move up; 

and, if we are going to be successful on this issue, we have to think 

things differently than we have done in the past, and that is why 

it is extremely important that the states be allowed to go forward 

with their plans. I appreciate your testimony here. 

64 

I am showing you how to do this. I have 26 seconds left, and I 

yield back my time. A second round of questioning for anyone who 

has it. 

Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me, if 

there is no objection, place into the record this statement from the 

Department of Defense. Mark Wright, their spokesman, essentially 

indicates, ‘‘While some of the management actions we have instituted have necessitated changes in when and how we use certain 

areas of our installation—especially during breeding season—none 

have resulted in unacceptable limits on our military readiness 

activities,’’ and it goes on. 

[The remainder of the statement from Mark Wright, DoD submitted for the record by Mr. Grijalva is as follows: ‘‘Because we 

have already undertaken these actions voluntarily, and expect to 

need to manage for the sage-grouse indefinitely, we do not believe 

the listing decision—regardless of the outcome—will affect our 

mission activities to any great degree.’’] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I want to ask Mr. Arnett. Some of the comments 

that were made, maybe you could comment quickly on them. Is the 

heavy regulatory hand of the Federal Government, some of the conclusions, the lack of cooperation with states, and human development not a threat to the sage grouse, only natural threats. State, 

Federal, and local have worked on collaborative efforts. Do they 

take into account other threats? If you could, sir. 

Dr. ARNETT. Certainly. The depiction of wildfire and invasive 

species being a major threat in the western portion of the range is 

true. There is no question. But there definitely are threats from anthropogenic disturbance, and that is a primary threat in the eastern portion of the range. That has been very well documented with 

a strong body of science on impacts of energy development and 

other disturbance. 

But it can be managed. There is no question that this can be 

managed. We think the development of these conservation plans, 

by defining where conservation areas need to occur, and development areas need to occur, it can be managed. In fact, some of these 

focal areas and the core habitats are mostly outside of oil and gas 

reserves, to the best of my knowledge. 

I would like to point out one thing that I have heard a lot about, 

the top-down approach and the last-minute nature of this. Keep in 

mind that these were draft plans that we all commented on 

through a public process. The Federal Government has addressed 

those comments, and they are addressing it based on the science. 

So, whether some of these things were vetted with the states, and 

at what point in time, I am not clear on; but there was a public 

review process, and the BLM has yet to release final plans. They 

have to address those public plans, and ultimately, they have to address the science. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Arnett, it seems the underlining theme, the 

efforts, legislative proposals, both at the Federal and state level, 

would give away the authority to manage U.S. public lands to the 

states. Do you believe it is sound policy to go in that direction? Do 

the states have the resources to adequately manage such land, that 

65 

much land? And how would such a policy set back the topic today, 

which is the sage grouse and other species, in terms of the future? 

Dr. ARNETT. Well, another thing to keep in mind, the state plans, 

again, were developed under the mandates of state plans. Most 

states can’t regulate private lands, and they have a mandate, as 

Mr. Miller pointed out earlier, to maximize revenues on state 

lands. So, they were developed in a different context. I agree that 

the states can be more nimble, but they were all developed under 

a different context. 

I think the Federal plans are an important component of this. As 

I said, it is not one or the other, it is all of the above. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, my experience back home in Tucson, where I was a county commissioner, 

was the pygmy owl. It was listed as a threatened species. A lot of 

pressure. Everybody in the community was screaming that the sky 

was going to fall, and that this pygmy owl was the end of growth, 

development, and ruining the economy of the county of Pima. 

With collaboration with Fish and Wildlife, Forest, and other 

Federal agencies, a management plan was developed with the 

county and accepted. The consequence has been that you have 

managed growth, and detailed managed growth, as to how the 

county grows. You have two bond elections that have been passed 

overwhelmingly by the public to continue to pursue and purchase 

open space to continue to preserve the corridor, the habitat corridor, for the pygmy owl. 

I mention that because it was a collaborative effort, but that 

there was a regulatory guidance and a listing that prompted local 

government and state government to begin to work in earnest with 

the Federal Government to come up with an acceptable plan. That 

was the impetus; and, without an impetus, I don’t see this happening. Thank you, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Before I recognize Mr. Tipton and ask Mr. 

LaMalfa if he will take the chair for a second—let me, because I 

have to run here, thank all four of you for actually being here and 

taking the time to testify. 

Mr. Grijalva asked for unanimous consent for a statement by a 

DoD spokesman. Anybody is a DoD spokesman—I even have a 

military fellow here who could qualify as a DoD spokesman. And 

I won’t put in the slides that the Army, Air Force, and Navy gave 

us when they told us this is a problem, nor will I put in the record 

the statement on the Army in which they asked not to have this 

provision taken out of the NDAA. But that is beside the point, isn’t 

it? 

Before I actually—let me thank you for being here one more 

time. I apologize for leaving you very quickly, but I am late for another engagement. I just appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. LaMalfa, you will take over. And, Mr. Tipton, you are 

recognized for questions. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did appreciate, by the 

way, your amendment to the NDAA. Statistics show we have 35 

different Army installations that are going to be impacted. The Air 

Force, Navy, Marine Corps have a combined 12 installations, and 

they are continuing to work to be able to actually resustain that 

habitat, and be able to grow the population of the sage grouse. 

66 

When we look at the Yakima Training Center, they have significantly improved the numbers and genetic diversity in the Columbia 

Basin, based off of their own studies. 

I just have just a couple of follow-up questions. I think Mr. 

Swartout can probably have some empathy for this. In the state of 

Colorado, we have two very diverse economic situations. We have 

pockets of prosperity in our metropolitan areas; but in the third 

congressional district that I represent, we continue to see a real 

unemployment level that, in far too many of our counties, happens 

to be double-digit. 

But we also have responsible energy development. I put forward 

legislation, ‘‘Planning for America’s Energy Future Act,’’ which literally calls for all of the above. 

Mr. Arnett, a statement that you have made caught my attention, saying that all valid and existing rights in regards to responsible energy development will be respected with a listing. Does that 

imply that there will be no expansion? 

Dr. ARNETT. Expansion of? 

Mr. TIPTON. Of any other development rights. 

Dr. ARNETT. My understanding, as part of the development of 

these conservation plans, any existing valid and—— 

Mr. TIPTON. But no new ones. 

Dr. ARNETT [continuing]. Will be honored. 

Mr. TIPTON. If it hasn’t already been identified, or somebody 

hasn’t filed, nothing new will be added. Is that correct? 

Dr. ARNETT. It would be managed according to what the—— 

Mr. TIPTON. So if something is withdrawn, then that is lost. 

Dr. ARNETT. Something has been withdrawn—— 

Mr. TIPTON. Nothing new? 

Dr. ARNETT. I can see some of those kinds of stipulations. There 

will be stipulations as part of the plan. 

Mr. TIPTON. So that—— 

Dr. ARNETT. For non-existing valid—— 

Mr. TIPTON. That could potentially have a very negative impact 

in a suffering economic region in the third congressional district. 

Couldn’t it, Mr. Swartout? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. This is part of the balance that we are trying to 

achieve by having local government participation in these plans, 

and many of the counties that you represent, as part of your congressional district, as you know. 

I think the more critical issue is the interplay of both Federal 

and state and private lands. One of the things we worked really 

hard on with the BLM in our plan was to make sure that if they 

weren’t allowing the activity on Federal land, we weren’t pushing 

it onto private land, where it would have even a bigger impact on 

the grouse. So we worked tirelessly with Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife and our counties to figure out a mosaic—a holistic approach that avoided areas with sage grouse, and tried to put the 

impacts where it would have the least impact on the sage grouse. 

That is what we are struggling to maintain in these plans that we 

sent to Washington, DC, and that is where the tension is. 

Mr. TIPTON. I do want to let you know I appreciate your efforts 

and the Governor’s efforts in regards to standing up for these rural 

areas, and understanding a lot of the challenges that we face. 

67 

I would like to extend this out. Ms. Clarke, maybe you can speak 

to this. When we start talking about regulating private land—I 

think Mr. Arnett had just noted that states don’t have the right to 

regulate private land. Thank God. If we have this plan implemented, let’s say we have a resource that we can responsibly develop on private land. If we have listing, private land is encompassed in on this. Could that resource, that family’s fortunes, and 

the jobs that could be created, could those be perhaps unintended 

consequence of not being able to be developed? 

Ms. CLARKE. They certainly could be, depending on the way the 

critical habitat is designated; but once listed, they are listed on private and public lands. So doesn’t matter. 

Mr. TIPTON. Well I appreciate, again, all of you taking time to 

be able to be here. I think that our common ground is this: We 

would like to make sure that the right thing is done, that we are 

able to rehabilitate the species. I appreciate very much the comments that were being made, that the efforts like we are seeing in 

Colorado, the private-public partnerships on the ground, are yielding some of the best results. We hope and encourage the Department of the Interior to be able to recognize that, and to be able to 

work with us, and to be able to protect our private-sector jobs in 

communities right now that are suffering. 

Thank you so much, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMALFA [presiding]. Thank you, gentleman from Colorado. 

The gentleman from Idaho. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We started this hearing, I guess, talking about the dodo bird. Does anybody know when 

the dodo bird became extinct? 

Dr. ARNETT. Long time ago. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Long time ago. It was, I think, late 1600s, early 

1700s. And, apparently, society has not been able to thrive since 

the dodo bird became extinct, right? We have had no progress in 

life or in humanity since then. Obviously, I am being a little facetious; but this is a very important hearing today. I want to thank 

you all for being here. 

Mr. Miller, in 2011, when Secretary Salazar invited western 

states to partner with the Federal Government to work on solutions related to sage grouse, how did Governor Otter respond? 

Mr. MILLER. Congressman Labrador, Governor Otter is a states 

rights advocate. So he said, ‘‘This worked very well with our Idaho 

Roadless collaborative; I am going to do the same thing on sage 

grouse.’’ So he set up a very diverse, 15-member task force to advise him on recommendations necessary for incorporation into a 

plan that would address the needs for sage grouse, balanced with 

the economic vitality of our state. 

Mr. LABRADOR. What are the Governor’s concerns about the recent top-down direction that has come from the BLM’s national 

office? 

Mr. MILLER. Congressman, for quite some time we were moving 

down a very good path with our local Federal partners. We developed a very strong strategy blending the two co-preferred alternatives, the Governor’s alternative and the BLM’s internal 

alternative. 

68 

We thought we were about to cross the finish line together, until 

in January of this year, the national BLM office imposed national 

direction on all BLM planning units that included the carve-out of 

sagebrush focal areas across 16 million acres of priority habitat in 

the West, of which 3.5 million acres are in Idaho. It is a carve-out 

of our core habitat areas. The Interior Department included a new, 

more restrictive rule set for management of land use activities in 

those focal areas. 

What is concerning to the Governor is that that was never negotiated or vetted with the state or his task force. We thought we 

were there, like I said, Congressman, but this last-minute top-down 

directive on these sage grouse focal areas stands to erode this 

strong partnership that we have developed. 

We are hopeful we can get there with Interior. As I said earlier, 

there is a willingness from individuals in the Interior Department 

and the national BLM office to continue working through these remaining elements with us. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So were you under the impression from the 

Federal agencies that you were working with, that if the state produced a thoughtful plan, that it would be a preferred alternative? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. OK. In 2013, Fish and Wildlife Service’s Idaho 

State Supervisor Brian Kelly wrote a letter to Governor Otter in 

which he stated that, ‘‘Our review revealed that the four foundation elements of the strategy—habitat zones, conservation areas, 

population objective, and adaptive triggers are consistent with the 

conservation objectives team, as is the livestock grazing management element.’’ What were your expectations after seeing this 

letter? 

Mr. MILLER. Congressman, that further validated our conservation planning efforts. The COT report does represent the goalpost, 

what we are shooting for. It contains a suite of conservation objectives that allows the states and the local planning units to develop 

those strategies to achieve the goalpost there. That letter from the 

Fish and Wildlife Service was an indication that we were almost 

there, that we were developing a—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. So your expectations were that your plan would 

be approved, correct? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And have those expectations been met? 

Mr. MILLER. They have been met at the local level, sir, with 

Idaho BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service in Idaho; but not at the 

national level. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So a final decision, you are not sure it is going 

to go along with what you expected. 

Mr. MILLER. That would be accurate. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Does the state of Idaho have the capacity to 

manage sage grouse? 

Mr. MILLER. Absolutely, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do Fish and Game and OSC have the proper 

biologists, scientists, and other policy staff? 

Mr. MILLER. Absolutely. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do Fish and Game and OSC have the support of 

the Governor and the legislature to properly manage the species? 

69 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, they do. 

Mr. LABRADOR. OK. So what would you like—as your last opportunity to tell the Federal Government, what would you like us to 

know? 

Mr. MILLER. I can’t emphasize enough the value of the collaborative and the partnership used in building our strategy. We had 

industry, conservation partners, local and state-elected officials advising the Governor, along with state and local Federal agencies on 

developing a robust strategy for conserving the species. 

We feel we are there. We just need to overcome these last-minute 

obstacles with the Interior Department. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right. Thank you, gentleman from Idaho. I ask 

unanimous consent to enter into the record the testimony of the 

Western Governors’ Association. 

[No response.] 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. 

[The prepared statement of the Western Governors’ Association 

follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES D. OGSBURY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

submit written testimony on behalf of the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) 

in connection with the oversight hearing on ‘‘Empowering State Management of 

Greater Sage-Grouse.’’ My name is James D. Ogsbury and I am WGA’s Executive 

Director. WGA is an independent, non-partisan organization representing the 

Governors of 19 western states and 3 U.S.-flag islands. 

Western Governors support implementation of reasonable management efforts to 

conserve species and preclude the need to list species under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). Western states proactively work on species conservation and possess 

knowledge and experience to manage species within the region. This is particularly 

true with the greater sage-grouse, a bird found in 11 western states—California, 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington and Wyoming—that is a candidate for listing under the ESA. 

All 11 greater sage-grouse states have developed state conservation plans for the 

bird and invested millions of dollars in conservation and research. Western 

Governors appreciate this forum for states to highlight what has been accomplished 

through state leadership of greater sage-grouse management and to explain why 

states should continue in this leadership role going forward. 

WGA has released an annual report of the voluntary conservation measures that 

states and local governments have implemented for greater sage-grouse since 2011. 

Our fourth annual report (http://westgov.org/images/dmdocuments/2014_WGA_ 

Sage_Grouse_Inventory_Final_lo_res.pdf) includes conservation efforts of 

Federal agencies, conservation districts, industry and nonprofits, as well as states. 

The report’s appendix (http://westgov.org/images/dmdocuments/2014_WGA_Sage_ 

Grouse_Appendix_lo-res.pdf) is a compilation of all state and local government efforts reported over the last 4 years. 

I commend your attention to the following highlights from the 2014 report: 

• Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota and South Dakota either completed or 

updated state plans for sage-grouse conservation during 2014. 

• Montana Gov. Steve Bullock issued an Executive Order in 2014 establishing 

a statewide greater sage-grouse habitat conservation program and requiring 

state agency compliance. 

• Colorado, Idaho and Montana have collectively protected nearly 350,000 acres 

of greater sage-grouse habitat through purchase or conservation easements. 

• Idaho wildlife and land agencies have spent $4 million improving and 

restoring habitat. 

• Utah has completed nearly 85 percent of a 560,000-acre project to ameliorate 

conifer encroachment in sage-grouse management areas. 

70 

• Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and Idaho Gov. C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter are directing 

almost $6 million toward greater sage-grouse conservation, and Wyoming’s 

legislature awarded approximately $2 million for additional greater sagegrouse research. 

Western Governors helped create a state-Federal Sage-Grouse Task Force in 2011 

that has fostered a dialog between states and Federal land management agencies 

regarding management strategies, conservation tools and related policies. At task 

force meetings, states have clearly stated that, while conservation plans may differ 

from one state to another to reflect primary threats to greater sage-grouse and institutional dynamics, taken collectively the plans provide the comprehensive structure 

needed to conserve greater sage-grouse and their habitat. The Federal agencies on 

the task force have acknowledged that a diverse but cohesive approach that achieves 

the desired conservation outcomes can, if structured carefully, meet the requirements of ESA for a ‘‘not warranted’’ decision. 

Conservation easements are one mechanism states are using to protect habitat on 

private lands. The permanency and durability of easements render them a vital part 

of successful sage-grouse conservation. Private landowners are central to voluntary 

conservation efforts, and their contributions should be given full consideration by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in determining whether to list the greater 

sage-grouse under the ESA. A great amount of land is being protected at a substantial cost. In Colorado, for example, over 80,600 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat 

has been protected by Colorado Parks and Wildlife through either fee title purchase 

or conservation easements at a cost of approximately $52.8 million. The states’ significant contribution to permanent conservation is in addition to parallel work being 

performed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) through its Sage 

Grouse Initiative on private lands. NRCS has put more than 450,000 acres of conservation easements into place in the last 5 years. NRCS invested $165 million, 

with another $85 million in partner match, for a total conservation easement investment of $250 million. 

State conservation leadership also comes in the form of people power. Montana, 

South Dakota and Colorado hired staff that cooperate with the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service’s Sage Grouse Initiative to promote private land conservation. 

Nevada hired a new rangeland health program coordinator to assist landowners 

with rangeland health assessments and monitoring. 

Moving from planning to implementation, states have invested heavily in habitat 

improvements beneficial to greater sage-grouse and other species dependent on 

sagebrush habitat. They have spent millions on improving riparian habitat, restoring habitat burned by wildfires, and removing invasive conifer trees that crowd out 

sagebrush. 

Investments also extend to research and education. The legislatures in Idaho and 

Wyoming contributed $2.5 million toward research and lek monitoring. Utah is 

studying lek use after juniper removal and Colorado has a research unit working 

on multiple research efforts. 

Innovative management tools are also being utilized by states to bolster sagegrouse habitat. Nevada’s Sagebrush Ecosystem Council adopted the Nevada 

Conservation Credit System to offset impacts from human-caused disturbances 

through enhancements and protections that result in a net benefit for greater sagegrouse habitat. Extensive fence-marking and fence-removal work has been performed by states and their partners, reducing collision risk and eliminating perches 

for predators. 

A major threat to greater sage-grouse is rangeland fire. Burned sagebrush areas 

take decades to recover. Utah updated its conservation plan to address wildfire and 

Nevada created a Wildland Fire Protection Program to provide improved access to 

firefighters and implement pre-suppression activities. Idaho increased its number of 

Rangeland Fire Protection Associations from three to five. These associations facilitate coordination between public and private partners to improve initial attack on 

wildfires, with faster response times translating into reductions in acres burned. 

All of this is only what states have accomplished through the end of 2014; much 

more is planned for 2015 and beyond: 

• Montana Gov. Steve Bullock recently signed into law the Montana Greater 

Sage Grouse Stewardship Act. The bill establishes an oversight team and 

calls for conservation easements and a conservation fund. The state is hiring 

five new employees to oversee its sage grouse program. 

71 

• Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval requested legislative approval in his FY15–17 

biennial budget for over $5.1 million for Sagebrush Ecosystem Program 

efforts, including a commitment of $1 million each year for critical habitat 

protection and restoration projects in sage-grouse management areas. 

• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is working with the FWS and 

agricultural and livestock operators to develop a Candidate Conservation 

Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) for greater sage-grouse. 

• Idaho is conducting numerous research projects and adding another 

Rangeland Fire Protection Association. 

• North Dakota will complete a fully funded cooperative monitoring project and 

provide recommendations on best management practices for grazing livestock 

in greater sage-grouse habitat. 

The success of collaborative, locally led conservation is illustrated by the recent 

determination that the bi-state distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse 

in California and Nevada does not require protection under the ESA. Interior observed that a key factor in the decision not to list the bird was the development 

of the Bi-State Action Plan, a conservation plan developed by partners in the BiState Local Area Working Group over the past 15 years and secured with 

$45 million in funding. Western Governors encourage support for similar efforts 

throughout the sage-grouse range. 

As captured in WGA’s 2014 Sage-Grouse Inventory report, the efforts described 

here represent just one piece of the greater sage-grouse conservation puzzle. Over 

60 percent of greater sage-grouse habitat is on Federal lands. Federal agencies, as 

partners, should do their share by proactively addressing habitat needs such as 

invasive species control, rangeland fire preparedness, and site restoration and rehabilitation. Implementing such measures allows Federal agencies and others to better 

protect the landscape under a range of circumstances and conditions. 

This is a significant point. The states have taken substantial actions, at significant cost, to protect and enhance greater sage-grouse habitat. These actions, however, affect only that portion of the greater sage-grouse’s habitat over which states 

have authority. States cannot compel the Federal Government to protect and enhance habitat on federally owned lands. That is a management decision left to the 

Federal Government. 

It is important to note that the states view several areas of Federal action—or 

lack of action—as counterproductive to the protection of greater sage-grouse habitat. 

For example, Western Governors have been very concerned that the budgetary tactic 

of ‘‘fire borrowing’’ redirects funding from activities that would otherwise mitigate 

fire hazards in greater sage-grouse habitat, among other areas. Western states are 

also concerned about the insufficiency of Federal action to combat invasive species. 

Invasives can have a dramatic impact on sage-grouse habitat and the severity of fire 

in rangeland areas. The Federal Government has a responsibility to: properly maintain Federal lands; protect and enhance forest health; minimize the severity of catastrophic wildfire; and provide a vibrant habitat for the greater sage-grouse and 

other important species. 

FWS should fully recognize the voluntary conservation efforts of states together 

with local governments, Federal agencies, conservation districts, private landowners, industry and nonprofits. These efforts, if allowed to run their course, will 

provide greater sage-grouse with the necessary habitat to live and thrive. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony. Please feel free to 

contact me if you have any questions about the content of these remarks or require 

further information. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I will just have one last bit of questions here, and 

I think that will be it for today. 

So, Mr. Miller, listening to Mr. Labrador and your exchange, do 

you really need the Federal Government in partnership with you 

at all? 

Mr. MILLER. Well—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. I mean, really. Do you really need the help? If it 

was completely put back to your state, do you think you would 

have a more successful program of recovery and maintenance of 

sage grouse, as well as other species? 

72 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, the state of Idaho is the manager of 

all fish and wildlife in the state. Of course, that is why we jumped 

out ahead of this and said, ‘‘We have the best scientists, the best 

biologists, at the state level to drive this conservation strategy.’’ 

This is an issue of state sovereignty over wildlife, and we intend 

to maintain state sovereignty over the species. 

Because of the majority of sage grouse habitat in Idaho being 

managed by the Federal Government, about 74 percent, we needed 

to engage with BLM on the habitat portion of our conservation 

strategy. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Of course. They have the jurisdiction; but if they 

turned it over to you, do you think you would see a better result? 

‘‘Listen, hey, we are going to contract with you. You manage it for 

us, we will just stay in Washington.’’ What do you think the result 

would be? 

Mr. MILLER. Well—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. I mean, obviously, you would have to set aside 

NEPA and other types of things; but just in the realm of what is 

good for the creature. 

Mr. MILLER. I think, if managed by the state, those resources 

would continue, or would be managed in a more appropriate fashion to address the needs for sage grouse. 

Fuel loading in Idaho is significant, and we want to implement 

tools through our strategy to deal with fuel loading on public lands. 

That is why our industry groups are a huge, huge partner in this 

endeavor. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK, thank you. 

So, Mr. Arnett, during today’s hearing, I have heard you kind of 

take a position that is more defending of the Federal role, where 

the others on the panel have kind of expressed—you know, Ms. 

Clarke, Mr. Miller—that they have had more success at the local 

level. 

So, what looks to me is like a much slower, much more difficult 

process to get through and even—as was testified; that once the 

Federal Government makes a law, makes a decision on it, it is 

much, much harder to wade through that in order to try and tweak 

that, or go in a different direction. How do you defend this current 

process, versus some of the success stories we have heard here 

today with local state-level input and control? 

Dr. ARNETT. Well, again, I would like to start with the fact that 

Federal lands are owned by the public, the American people. And 

they are managed by these Federal agencies under a variety of 

bedrock—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Managed being a pretty loosely used term 

from—— 

Dr. ARNETT. Fair enough. I understand the frustration from the 

states. We have seen that, in terms of the expeditious nature of 

getting things permitted. We would like to believe that once we get 

these conservation strategies—both state and Federal—in place, we 

will have some certainty and some understanding of where energy 

can be developed and where habitat can be managed. 

Mr. LAMALFA. It is the year 2015. Where have these strategies 

been for the last 30 or 40 years? 

Dr. ARNETT. That is a very good question. 

73 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. 

Dr. ARNETT. I mean the states have been engaged in this for a 

long time. And I think—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. It is a moving target for the states, though, too. 

It is a moving target for the private landowners that have to live 

next to these areas. So, well, thank you. 

Mr. Swartout, I will finish up with you here. Do you think a listing of the sage grouse under the ESA would have helped or hindered the establishment of sage grouse conservation easements? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. I think that, in the status before a listing, it has 

created pressure that has actually helped us to develop and work 

with private landowners. 

Mr. LAMALFA. How about an actual listing, though? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. What would an actual listing—what effect would 

that have? It would have a detrimental effect, without question. 

Mr. LAMALFA. What is the impact you have seen with alreadylisted Gunnison sage grouse, on willingness of landowners to enter 

into the conservation agreements now? 

Mr. SWARTOUT. In some degrees it has made it more difficult. 

But Colorado’s 30-year history working with landowners and building that partnership between agriculture and our Department of 

Wildlife in Colorado is fairly robust, and it is stretched. It has been 

stretched by the Gunnison listing, but it hasn’t broken because of 

the governors—the last three governors of Colorado have had this 

commitment to—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. So it hasn’t broken because of a previous momentum and engagement and strategy to do so, but it has put a damper on it, you would say. 

Mr. SWARTOUT. It has made it a little more difficult. 

Mr. LAMALFA. A little more difficult. OK. Well, I appreciate it. 

To everybody on our panel here today, thank you for your travel, 

for your valuable testimony. We do appreciate what it takes to get 

here and be part of this. 

Since there are no other members of the committee left, I will 

say there might be additional questions that committee members 

may submit, and we would ask you to respond to those in writing. 

Under Committee Rule 4(h), the hearing record will be held open 

for 10 business days after these responses. 

So, if there is no further business, without objection this 

committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for holding this hearing before the Full Committee 

on Natural Resources. I regret that I was not able to attend due to a prior family 

commitment. 

Right now, there are unprecedented and proactive partnerships throughout the 

West working to conserve sage brush habitat, encourage predictability for economic 

development, and prevent listing of the greater sage grouse as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act. There exists tremendous momentum 

to complete the Federal land management plans and strengthen state conservation 

efforts. 

74 

These significant investments by Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land 

Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, 11 states, and 

private partners including sportsmen, ranchers, farmers, and conservationists, are 

making a difference in sage-grouse conservation and in preserving the rural character of key western landscapes that strengthen the economies of farms, ranches, 

and forests, which are all threatened by ongoing urbanization and suburban sprawl. 

Rather than helping communities, legislation that delays conservation actions and 

prohibits the Fish and Wildlife Service from making an Endangered Species Act determination creates uncertainty and only undermines the immense progress already 

underway. 

There is no denying that states do work hard and have been serious and engaged 

partners in the effort to prevent the sage grouse from being listed under the 

Endangered Species Act, but states do not have the right to unilaterally set policy 

on public lands that belong to and are managed on behalf of all Americans. It is 

great that they have been key partners and we would like to see a situation in 

which state agencies and Federal partners continue to work hand-in-hand. 

This type of collaborative approach has been shown to work. The Secretary of the 

Interior, Sally Jewell, recently announced that the bi-state sage grouse, a distinct 

population of the bird that lives on the California-Nevada border, will not need to 

be listed on the endangered species list thanks to the work of Federal, state, and 

private partners. As Secretary Jewell stated in the announcement, ‘‘the collaborative, science-based efforts in Nevada and California are proof that we can conserve 

sagebrush habitat across the West while we encourage sustainable economic 

development.’’ 

Republican Governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval stated that ‘‘this approach can coexist in both the bi-state area and across the range of the greater sage grouse.’’ So 

as you can see, there is bipartisan support for this collaborative, science-based 

approach. This is the kind of work that can keep the greater sage grouse off the 

endangered species list, which is what we all want to see happen. 

The time to address the threats to sagebrush habitat is now—not 5 or 10 years 

from now, when the West is more fragmented, wildfires are more intense, or 

invasive species have gained more ground. Federal agencies, states, ranchers, 

sportsmen, and industry stakeholders are all working together with the shared goal 

of keeping the greater sage grouse off the Endangered Species list. We should give 

the ongoing collaborative partnerships the opportunity to succeed and provide muchneeded certainty for all stakeholders. 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

—Letter from the Specialty Equipment Market Association, 

Diamond Bar, CA, June 2, 2015, in response to the hearing. 

—Statement from Dr. Clait E. Braun, Grouse Inc., Tucson, AZ, 

responding to the hearing testimony by Kathleen Clarke. 

—Statement of John W. Connelly, Ph.D. and Edward O. Garton, 

Ph.D., responding to written testimony of Kathleen Clarke. 

Æ