Debra bra W. W. Struhsacker uhsacker Enviro vironmental nmental Pe Permi mitt tting ing & G Government vernment Relations Re ions Consu sultant tant AAPL PL Mining ing and d Land nd Resource ource Insti stitute tute Marc rch h 14, 2013
Sage Grouse (“SG”) is a “landscape species” ◦ BLM estimates it administers about 47 million acres of SG habitat in 11 western states ◦ BLM lands contain over 50% of SG habitat SG conservation measures will create widespread adverse economic impacts Distinct Population Segments (DPS) ◦ Greater sage-grouse (many states), Bi-State sage- grouse (NV-CA), Gunnison sage-grouse (CO)
Bootstrap FLPMA land withdrawal authorities onto the ESA Broad land use restrictions and outright prohibitions affecting millions of acres in 11 western states Severely reduce/eliminate grazing Withdraw lands with high-priority SG habitat from mineral entry ◦ Validity exams for existing claims in these areas
Fire, e, Fire, e, Fire Wildfire is by far the worst threat ◦ Has destroyed millions of acres of habitat especially in the western part of SG range (NV, CA, OR, ID) ◦ Invasion of cheatgrass following fires establishes highly flammable fuel load - fire cycle Habitat fragmentation due to resource development is a locally significant impact ◦ Oil & gas development (especially in WY) ◦ Mining ◦ Renewable Energy/Transmission Corridors ◦ Urbanization Predation ◦ Especially ravens Livestock Grazing/Improper Grazing Pinyon-Juniper Encroachment
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html
http://www.ndow.org/wild/conservati on/sg/index.shtm
Magenta = High- priority habitat Turquoise = General habitat No seasonal use or habitat type data ◦ Breeding (leks), nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats Derived from NDOW habitat map Little ground truthing http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/wildlife/greater_sage-grouse.html
Proposed SG conservation measures would achieve land use restrictions in previous failed attempts to limit mining and other natural resource development projects: ◦ Mining Law Reform (1990s – present) Unsuitability ◦ Clinton-Babbitt 43 CFR 3809 regulations Unsuitability/Significant Irreparable Harm ◦ 2010 DOI Secretarial Order Wild Lands Policy Impairment of wilderness characteristics
2002 – 2003: Western Watersheds Project (WWP) petition USFWS to list SG as a T&E species 2005: USFWS determined listing not warranted WWP challenges not warranted determination questioning the scientific basis for not listing ◦ Idaho federal district court (Judge Winmill) 2007: Winmill remands not warranted determination back to USFWS charging agency did not use Best Available Science 2007 – Present: Numerous project-specific WWP SG lawsuits in Judge Winmill’s court
2010: USFWS responds to remand with Warranted but Precluded (“WBP”) listing determination ◦ Inadequate regulatory mechanism to conserve SG and SG habitat poses significant threat to the species ◦ SG becomes a candidate species ◦ Low Listing Priority Number - 8 out of 12 9/2011: Litigation settlement addressing numerous pending listing (WBP) decisions ◦ USFWS agrees to revisit SG WBP decision by 9/2015 12/2011: BLM and USFS launch National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy ◦ Initiate scoping for EIS documents to amend LUPs ◦ Develop new SG conservation measures
Sept. 2015 listing decision deadline has created a sense of urgency to amend BLM and USFS Land Use Plans (LUPs) Address “Inadequate Regulatory Mechanism” finding in the 2010 WBP Listing Decision ◦ Amend LUPs to create SG conservation measures that USFWS will deem as adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect SG and SG habitat BLM & USFS create National Technical Team in August 2011to develop recommendations for new regulatory mechanisms ◦ National Technical Team Report 12/2011
IM 2012- 043 “Interim Management Policy and Procedures” ◦ Outlines SG conservation measures until LUPs amended IM 2012- 044 “Land Use Planning Strategy” ◦ Outlines EIS process and schedule to amend LUPs ◦ EIS documents must evaluate NTT Report conservation measures as an alternative NV IM 2012- 056 “Revised Direction for Proposed Activities in Priority Sage Grouse Habitat (7/23/12) ◦ Sought to implement NTT Report conservation measures in Nevada ◦ Caused significant controversy Pre-decisional (use NTT Report before EIS completed) Rescinded in 9 days
Regional EIS documents to amend BLM and USFS LUPs with new SG conservation measures that will qualify as adequate regulatory mechanisms ◦ 68 BLM Resource Management Plans ◦ 9 USFS Land & Resource Management Plans Draft EIS documents anticipated in June 2013 ◦ NV and eastern CA combined EIS document Final EIS documents anticipated Sept. 2014 ◦ In time to influence USFWS 9/2015 listing decision Several alternatives will be based on conservation measures recommended in NTT Report State SG Conservation Plans will be an alternative evaluated in each EIS
One-size fits all approach to SG conservation ◦ Inadequate recognition of local and regional conditions, habitat characteristics, threats, and solutions Prescriptive restrictions on allowable cumulative surface disturbance in priority habitat areas ◦ Limits surface disturbance to 3% in priority habitat areas Focuses on regulated community (permittees) ◦ Restrict or deny permits to use public lands with high- priority SG habitat No regulatory mechanism to address wildfire – the biggest cause of declining SG habitat in the western part of the habitat (NV, CA, OR, ID)
Mining ◦ Withdraw lands in high-priority SG habitat from mineral entry ◦ Subject existing claims to claim validity exams Grazing ◦ Don’t renew grazing permits or restrict grazing use ROWs ◦ Restrict to approved and existing corridors ◦ No new ROWs in priority habitat areas Energy ◦ Exclude from high-priority habitat areas ◦ Limit surface disturbance to <3% for VERs
WY develops first State Conservation Plan ◦ USFWS and BLM accept as Interim Management Plan Other States follow WY and develop plans ◦ Seek BLM/USFWS approval for their plans as Interim Management Plans To date, BLM has not accepted any other state plans as Interim Management Plans State plans will be an alternative evaluated in the regional DEIS documents ◦ Viability of these plans as a Preferred Alternative in EIS documents is in jeopardy if BLM won’t accept as Interim Management Plans
Governo ernor Sando andoval al appoin pointed ted a mult lti-discipl disciplin inary ary Sage ge- Grou ouse se Adviso visory ry Com ommittee ittee to develop velop reco commen endat datio ions ns for a Ne Nevada vada Sage ge-Grou rouse se Conserv onservatio ation Plan n http://sagegrouse.nv.gov/
No prescriptive approach restricting acres of development in priority SG habitat areas Key principle: avoid, minimize, mitigate impacts to SG habitat Mapping exercise to identify Sage-Grouse Management Areas Identifies key threats to SG habitat Suggests State Legislature create and fund: ◦ Sagebrush Ecosystem Council ◦ Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team Recommends creation of a mitigation bank
Wildfire – invasive species (cheatgrass) cycle 1. Pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush 2. ecosystems Predation (especially eggs & chicks by ravens) 3. BLM’s problematic wild horse & burro 4. management Improper grazing 5. Mineral development 6. Renewable & other energy, transmission lines 7. Off-road recreation 8.
State te Authori horize zed Plan Boundary ary and BLM Public c Land Acres Notice ce Acres ( L LR 2000) 00) AZ 4,033 12,200,000 CA 23,708 15,300,000 CO 1,455 8,300,000 ID 10,483 11,600,000 MT 18,193 8,000,000 NV 148,741 47,800,000 NM 1,765 13,400,000 OR 4,450 16,100,000 UT 4,190 22,800,000 WY 43,104 18,300,000 Total 260, 0,122 122 173, 3,800 800,000 ,000 BLM Administe nisters rs Ro Roughl hly y 47 47 Million ion Acr cres es of SG Hab abita tat
Ignores FLPMA’s multiple use mandate ◦ Makes SG conservation the highest and best use of the land subordinating all other land uses Bootstraps FLPMA land-use planning and withdrawal authorities onto the ESA Achieves widespread land use restrictions and prohibitions for a candidate species through amendments to LUPs in 11 western states More onerous than the project-specific controls in critical designated habitat for a listed species Conservation measures may not prevent a listing
Recommend
More recommend
