Jan. 26–TWIN FALLS — The fate of a chicken-sized bird has caused huge headaches across the West.
As sage grouse numbers and habitat shrink, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service have scrambled to create a plan to save the bird from being listed as endangered.
Understanding the alternatives in a 2,000-page, three-volume plan can be a dizzying task. But it’s critical considering the Wednesday deadline for public comment.
At stake is the management of mining, grazing, off-road travel, power lines, renewable energy and oil and gas development on more than 11 million acres in Idaho. While grazing is of primary concern locally, federal biologists don’t consider it one of the state’s top threats to sage grouse. Those are fire, invasive species and human development.
Sage grouse, known for their elaborate mating dances on areas called leks, need solitude and sagebrush-rich landscapes to survive. Their habitat has diminished 50 percent and populations have dropped 90 percent in the past century.
In 2010, federal officials said the bird warranted endangered status, but it was not listed under the Endangered Species Act because of other priority species. After a lawsuit, a federal judge ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make a final decision by 2015.
Part of Fish and Wildlife’s decision will hinge on the BLM and Forest Service’s plan, as the agencies manage 60 percent of the bird’s habitat.
The Debate
Six management alternatives are in the BLM and Forest Service’s draft environmental impact statement. They sometimes overlap.
“In the final document that we come out with, we try to pick either one alternative that best meets the needs of what we are trying to do, or we try to pick the best things from all of them or two of them,” said BLM spokeswoman Jessica Gardetto. “You can grab different pieces from different alternatives.”
The BLM prefers Alternatives D and E, Gardetto said. The agency’s Resource Advisory Council (RAC) endorsed Alternative E, a plan developed by Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter’s Sage Grouse Task Force.
A major difference between the state BLM’s plan — Alternative D — and the governor’s plan is land distribution. More land is considered priority habitat under the BLM plan, while the governor’s plan has more general habitat, twice as much medium-priority land and 100,000 fewer protected acres.
“We just felt it (Otter’s plan) was the best for overall,” said Mike Henslee, a RAC member and Hagerman-area rancher . “… This thing has to be sold to Fish and Wildlife, and if we don’t make it appealing to them, then we are back to square one. So we were hoping for a plan agreeable to all public land users.”
Jerome County Commissioner Charlie Howell said he supports Otter’s plan because it “puts the sage grouse first,” while allowing for versatile management.
“If the sage grouse gets listed, it is going to affect everyone, not just the ranchers,” Howell said.
He predicts the BLM and Forest Service will blend Alternatives D and E for their final recommendation.
That would be a “disaster,” said Katie Fite, biodiversity director of the Western Watersheds Project’s southern Idaho office in Boise. Fite said Western Watersheds isn’t sold on any alternative.
“Every time (federal agencies) fumble around and don’t take basic steps to do something positive, the crisis gets worse,” she said. “(Combining them) would make the crisis worse. What they need to do is go back to the start and put together a plan that actually works.
“They should have never put something as harmful as the state (governor’s) plan in this document as a reasonable alternative.”
All alternatives call for limiting off-road travel, which now is open across vast areas of sage grouse habitat. Most plans either close or severely limit power lines, mining and energy resource development.
All plans, except the state BLM and governor’s plans, call for “adaptive management” — variable restrictions that shift based on habitat and populations. Most of those rules would be written after the BLM’s decision, however.
Two environmentalist-submitted plans would expand the BLM’s Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and add regulations to benefit sage grouse, Gardetto said. Idaho now has 350,000 acres of ACEC.
Otter’s Plan
The governor’s plan designates 4.9 million acres of core habitat, 2.7 million acres of important habitat and 3.5 million acres of general habitat.
“Soft” adaptive management triggers come at a 10 percent loss of population or habitat, while “hard” triggers come at a 20 percent loss, Gardetto said.
“The soft is going to show you there is a concern — you are losing birds, you are losing habitat and it would kick things into action,” she said. “If it continues to decline, then you have to take more extreme actions to correct the habitat, whether it is travel, grazing, development or things like that.”
The plan calls for adaptive grazing management, such as moving cattle to other areas during lekking season where populations are declining.
It leaves mining open. Power lines and renewable energy projects in core and important areas would be avoided, but rules in general habitat would be loosened.
For oil and gas, the plan copies the Wyoming governor’s direction, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife has “largely signed off on,” Gardetto said. Wyoming has done a lot of work on sage grouse conflict with oil and gas because of the industry’s prominence there, she said.
“Fish and Wildlife is looking at their plans and saying, ‘OK, it looks like you have provided enough conservation measures to … prevent them from becoming endangered but while still providing for multiple use, such as oil and gas development,'” she said.
The State Plan
Alternative D was written by a regional team of BLM and Forest Service scientists and biologists. It would establish 7 million acres of priority habitat, 1.3 million acres of medium, and 2.9 million acres of general.
Adaptive management is triggered when 20 percent of sage grouse population or habitat is lost. Power lines would be allowed only on a case-by-case basis but would be more restricted in priority areas.
It highly restricts renewable energy in priority areas but calls only for avoiding it in lower-level habitats. It would allow only oil and gas development that does not disturb the surface within 3 kilometers of a lek. Mining would be permitted on a site-by-site basis and regulated under a strict framework.
Livestock grazing would be regulated under a detailed plan crafted by a national team of scientists, who also crafted Alternative B.
The National Plan
Alternative B was generated from a report by scientists and biologists, the “national technical team,” several years ago. It would make 8.3 million acres priority habitat and 2.9 million acres general habitat.
Mining would be mostly closed in priority habitat but open in general habitat. It would prohibit power lines through priority habitat and seeks to avoid them in general habitat.
It would not allow most renewable energy development. Oil and gas development would be closed in priority habitat and restricted to no surface disturbance in general habitat. Grazing would be allowed but regulated under a detailed plan.
The No Grazing Plan
Alternative C, written by environmental groups, is the most restrictive. It would make all 11.2 million acres priority habitat. It would close oil and gas development and exclude renewable energy, mining and power lines. It also would close grazing and call for 2.5 million more acres of ACEC.
The ACEC-heavy Plan
Alternative F, a substitute plan also written by environmental groups, would make 8.3 million acres priority habitat, 2.9 million acres medium and 500,000 acres general habitat.
It would close oil and gas development and highly restrict renewable energy, mining and power lines in all areas. It would reduce grazing by 25 percent and calls for 8.3 million acres of ACEC for sage grouse.
The No Action Plan
Alternative A would leave existing management in place. Mining and travel would stay open, while grazing, rights-of-way, renewable energy and oil and gas management would vary by area. There would be no adaptive management and no new habitat. It would keep the 350,000 acres of ACEC.