By Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert
Utah takes its obligations concerning the management of the wildlife resources entrusted to its management very seriously, and has always worked diligently to provide adequate protection for those species that may be adversely affected by development of natural resources. The greater sage-grouse is a species that lives in the vast sagebrush habitat found in eleven states in the West, including Utah. The grouse’s habitat ranges from the flat prairie lands in Wyoming and Montana, to the high-altitude terrain in California, to the naturally fragmented islands of habitat found on the Colorado Plateau. Given this geographical diversity, the protection and management of the greater sage-grouse cries out for solutions specifically tailored to the local situation, and for solutions that are not blind to the character and the needs of local communities. States are in a much better position than the federal government to manage wildlife and habitat.
Utah began finding such solutions 15 years ago for greater sage-grouse by empowering local working groups composed of state and local officials, private landowners, and federal agencies to determine the factors affecting the species locally, and to generate solutions. Utah has invested millions of dollars for habitat restoration and rehabilitation work which has demonstrably improved the status of the bird in Utah. In addition, Utah, like other western states, has been working hard to formalize a state-specific Conservation Plan for the species. Utah’s planning effort was advised by a Governor’s Working Group composed of many stakeholders, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Utah’s Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse was finalized in April of 2013, and contains a balanced suite of protections which are designed to encourage a cooperative spirit of conservation, yet allow economic conditions to thrive as well. The state’s Conservation Plan provides protection for 94 percent of the birds in Utah, and contains clear objectives and goals designed to not only stabilize population trends in Utah, but to also seek an increase in the population trends.
Unfortunately, this vast amount of work and progress appears to be of little importance to the FWS and the BLM. The Service’s 2010 decision, set to be reviewed in 2015, did not mention the 15 years of on-the-ground efforts to find solutions. Instead the FWS focused solely upon scientific literature conducted in other parts of the range of the species, and failed to analyze the applicability of the scientific literature upon the local conditions found in Utah, in order to determine if the status of the Utah populations varies from those found elsewhere. The BLM, meanwhile, is refusing to use more recent habitat information prepared by the state because it is claimed there is no time to stop and review new information and meet the deadline of the Service’s impending review.
In the rush to find a solution, the BLM, the Forest Service, and the FWS have issued reports which purport to evaluate the science, and suggest appropriate conservation measures. The BLM’s effort, called the National Technical Team report, contains a series of one-size-fits all restrictions on use of the land, many of which constitute a total ban on any use of the land. These proposed restrictions would be devastating to sensitive rural economies throughout the West and illustrate, once again, how federal rules, procedures, and policies often impede balanced and reasonable state solutions to challenging policy problems.
Despite these challenges, the State of Utah has begun the implementation of its Conservation Plan. Utah continues to seek a partnership with the BLM, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service and the FWS in this effort. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the drive to finish the BLM plans by an arbitrary date is driving the BLM to use outdated information, among other fundamental flaws, and will not allow for a reasoned review of population trends and other information by the Service in 2015.
Congress should consider legislating an extension of time to allow the states, the FWS, the BLM and the Forest Service, to rationally conclude this conservation planning and species status review process and allow states to demonstrate their ability to manage wildlife resources.
