Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 28 January 2012 13:10

Written by Saige Albert

Casper – The Bates Hole/Shirley Basin Local Sage Grouse Working Group allocated $126,000 for projects to benefit sage grouse at a meeting in mid-December.  
    During its 2010 session, the Wyoming Legislature approved the Governor’s budget request for $1.2 million to support sage grouse working groups and fund conservation projects benefiting sage grouse and their habitat. This money was divided among the eight local sage grouse working groups in the state to fund and implement projects consistent with local sage grouse conservation plans, and to benefit the species and reduce the likelihood of sage grouse being listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.
    Projects were evaluated based on consistency with Wyoming’s Core Area management strategy, local working group sage grouse conservation plan, likelihood of success, project readiness, matching funds, multiple species benefits, significance at local/state/regional level, duration of benefits, and adequacy of monitoring.
    Stacey Scott, chairman of the Bates Hole/Shirley Basin Local Sage Grouse Working Group, says a lot of thought went into how the funds were allocated.
    “The group’s biggest priority is habitat, and with a limited amount of money and time we have to target where the best benefits will take place for sage grouse,” he says.
     The working group allocated funds toward the following projects:
•    $26,000 will go toward the North Laramie Range Watershed Restoration Initiative, a project designed to control cheatgrass on 6,870 acres of private, federal and state-owned lands in the Stinking Creek Drainage near Casper. The project will help restore big sagebrush communities to improve habitat for sage grouse. The entire proposed project area falls within the sage grouse core management area in Natrona County.
•    $30,000 was allocated to continue a study of the impacts of wind energy development on sage grouse populations in Carbon County. The goal of the project is to determine the effects of wind energy infrastructure on sage grouse seasonal habitat selection and demography.
•    $50,000 will go toward a cheatgrass control project in Natrona County. The Henderson Draw Cheatgrass Vegetative Treatment project will treat approximately 2,500 acres of BLM lands to benefit sage grouse. Cheatgrass invaded this area – which was good sagebrush habitat – following a wildfire. Three leks occur within or immediately adjacent to the treatment area and most of the area to be treated falls within the Natrona sage grouse core population area, which has been classified as winter habitat for sage grouse.
•    $10,000 will go toward a research project to study the response of sage grouse to treatments in Wyoming Big Sagebrush. The project is under the direction of UW Assistant Professor Jeffrey Beck and is designed to answer questions about the immediate response of sage grouse populations to a variety of habitat treatments in pre-incubation, nesting and early brood-rearing in Wyoming big sagebrush.  
•    $10,000 was allocated to Wyoming Audubon to increase education about sage grouse and sagebrush ecosystems. The money will help pay for development of a traveling education trunk containing materials about sage grouse and sagebrush ecosystems and will be aligned to state educational standards and guidelines. Education programs will be focused in Natrona, Carbon, Albany, Laramie, Converse and Niobrara counties. The money will also help fund salaries for three community naturalists who will work to deliver these education programs.
    “Many children have no idea about sagebrush ecosystems, so just giving them the basics is very important,” says Scott. “In just over a decade all these kids will be voting and making decisions so it’s important for them to understand the challenges facing sage grouse.”
    Scott says the research projects will provide much-needed information pertaining to sage grouse and the habitats they rely on.
    “We know very little about sagebrush ecosystems, which are very complex. We need to understand them better. Every time I think I know what is going on in these ecosystems I am proven wrong, and it makes me rethink what we’re doing,” he says. “We need to continue to fund habitat improvements and research projects such as these so we can continue to learn, because sage grouse are indicators of the overall health of the sagebrush habitat.”

Details

Last Updated on Friday, 05 August 2011 11:23

Written by Christy Martinez

The first meeting of the recently appointed BLM Wyoming Resource Advisory Council (RAC) was held in Cheyenne on June 30 and July 1.
Members of the RAC elected Paul Ulrich as chairman and Freddie Botur as vice-chairman, and they also made plans for the topics they will address in the future.
“There’s a fairly broad range of interests on the RAC, from outdoor recreation to wild horses to energy to elected officials and grazing,” says RAC member Doug Thompson, who represents elected officials as a Fremont County Commissioner. “We were told that our job is to give advice to the Designated Federal Officer, or DFO, who, in our case, is BLM Wyoming Director Don Simpson.”
The RAC will meet two to four times a year, and it can have subcommittees and take on projects, but it won’t fund any projects – two things it cannot do are provide advice on personnel issues, or spend money.
Marilyn Mackey, who ranches north of Gillette, is on the committee as a federal grazing representative.
“Based on what I’ve seen with agriculture, and the things happening at the federal level and their impacts, I’ve always been interested and concerned about where we’re going,” says Mackey, who became involved with federal lands issues as a Campbell County commissioner. “Most recently, the Campbell County commissioners appointed me as cooperating agency representative for the Buffalo Field Office Resource Management Plans (RMP), and as I’ve sat through that process it’s highlighted the importance of being involved in every aspect to keep grazing and agriculture viable.”
The first day of the RAC’s meeting was spent getting to know the other members of the Council, and the second day the group look at issues of interest to BLM throughout the state, says Thompson.
“There was a fairly wide range of issues, from sage grouse to public access roads to wild horse fertility control,” he notes, adding that they also spent time on the federal planning process and how the public can better participate, as well as reclamation and the energy industry.
Although all those topics were covered, he says sage grouse were really the issue at hand throughout the meeting’s second day.
“We had a presentation on sage grouse in general, and where the BLM is in their process, which is in the midst of drafting a programmatic for amending all the existing RMPs and the ones that are in development with the BLM’s spin on the sage grouse,” says Thompson. “In my opinion, I think they will stray from the Governor’s Executive Order.”
“We were told in the Lander RMP revision process that the BLM will adopt the Executive Order as their interim management memo, and that would be the revision into the RMPs, but there was also a slide presented that said the BLM will add new and different restrictions according to their take on things,” explains Thompson. “That tells me that we will not only have a layer of procedure and restrictions through the Governor’s Executive Order, but the BLM will also reserve the right to add new and different restrictions on top of it.”
Thompson gives timing stipulations as an example, where the BLM has “significantly expanded” what was promised to the Sage Grouse Implementation Team to a period from March 1 to July 15.
“The BLM sat right there through the whole two-year process, helped craft the order, and now they say they’ll use it, but put another layer of restrictions on top of it, at their discretion,” says Thompson. “That’s always been my concern – that, even though they’ll respect the existing regulations, they’ll add whatever they want to on top of them. That is very inconsistent in policy and regulations, but they said the federal government will not seed any of its authority to the state Executive Order. The feds will do what they want to do, and if it’s over and above the Executive Order, they will do that.”
In addition to how the BLM will relate to Wyoming’s Executive Order, the RAC also discussed what will happen in the state should the bird be listed despite its best efforts.
“The Executive Order was put in place to keep the bird from being listed as the driving factor, but if it is listed, then our conservation measures hopefully would exempt Wyoming,” says Thompson. “There was a statement made that there’s no guarantee of that. In fact, the contrary might be true – that no matter what we’re doing here, if all the other states don’t do their Fish and Wildlife Service-approved conservation measures, then the bird will probably be listed, and the Wyoming bird will be listed also.
“The order won’t be a get-out-of-jail-free card because of the efforts we’re making, which is disturbing because we’ve restricted ourselves, and it’s like the federal government is saying they won’t be bound by any of that – they’ll do what they want. The only remedy will be for private landowners and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs).”
Regarding whether or not the RAC’s advice will be taken seriously, Thompson says, “There’s a BLM guide called ‘Coordinated Community-Based Planning,’ and it includes some points that people should and shouldn’t do, and one that I brought up is that you can’t empower people, and then ignore them, because you destroy their trust. We’ll be taking our time studying the issues and giving advice, and I couched that in terms that we’d like to see some influence in the decisions that the DFO makes.”
The next topic the RAC will address at their October meeting in Pinedale will be reclamation, drill hole plugging and various mitigation efforts by energy companies. The January meeting will focus on the federal planning process.
“If there are issues out there with the BLM that folks would like to have brought forward, contact any of the members. We have the ability to become knowledgeable and see if it’s something we could take on and help resolve,” says Mackey. “We’re dealing with the governmental agencies, and sometimes they’re tied by what comes down from Washington, so sometimes the steps we take are pretty small, but my hope is that we can have a positive impact that will help Wyoming for the long haul.”
“The verdict is still out if we’ll have influence on things,” says Thompson. “That’s my concern – that if we’ll take our time and study the issues and provide sound advice, we’d like to see it used. If it’ll just be a whitewash, or some window dressing, I’m sure all of us have other things we could be doing that would be more productive. We’ll see as it unfolds if we’ll have some influence on the process.”
Christy Martinez is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 07 January 2012 13:25

Written by Saige Albert

With the appearance of two new instructional memorandums (IMs) issued by the BLM on Dec. 27, wildlife biologist Chris Keefe of the Wyoming BLM says Wyoming is in good shape in terms of regulatory mechanisms.
    “We feel like we have the necessary guidance right now in terms of regulatory mechanisms that have been developed for conservation of grouse in the core areas,” says Keefe. “We have a state level BLM IM that adopts that strategy, and we feel like we are pretty covered.”
    The first of the two IMs addresses interim management policies and procedures for sage grouse conservation while resource management plans (RMPs) are being updated, stating that the policies described for interim management are designed to minimize habitat loss and to allow the maintenance or restoration of habitats.
    “The Interim Management IM is guidance that is intended to protect decision space,” says Keefe.
    “The BLM doesn’t want us to approve any actions now that would limit alternatives, in the hope that these decisions will be made through the appropriate channels,” he continues, referencing the RMP revision process. “They don’t want to foreclose on the ability to select a different alternative.”
    A BLM press release noted that this guidance will not apply in Wyoming, with the exception of grazing, as a Wyoming IM has been approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service and adopted by BLM.
    The second IM was attached to a National Technical Team report that Keefe described as the “state of the science.”
    “A number of scientists from different agencies and states got together to fully understand what the science tells us we should do in a perfect world to turning around sage grouse populations from declining to increasing,” explains Keefe. “The Planning Direction IM tells us what should be done or could be done.”
    Keefe continues that the guidance allows the BLM to analyze how management alternatives affect sage grouse. It provides protection measures to be incorporated into the alternatives when updating RMPs.
    For example, if a measure proposes to limit protection to three percent of sage grouse habitat protected from five percent, Keefe says the IM looks at what the measure would do in terms of socio-economic impacts and allowable development, as well as how it would affect sage grouse.
    “This is what it says with strictly sage grouse blinders on,” says Keefe. “It doesn’t mean that we should select the alternative, but it is one of the alternatives.”
    “The IM says we should consider these things, but what we select is going to be based on all of the pressures and thoughts revolving around the various factors,” explains Keefe. “Some of those factors are socio-economic impacts and the competing interests of other wildlife. Just because an action is good for sage grouse doesn’t necessarily mean it should be the objective.”
    “As usual, we are walking the middle ground to conserve sage grouse,” he continues, “but we also have a responsibility to conserve livelihoods and working landscapes.”
    “The aim of these science-based measures is to maintain and restore flourishing populations of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat,” BLM Director Bob Abbey said of the IMs in a BLM press release. “We are working to do this in a way that protects the health of our land, while also facilitating safe and responsible energy development and recreational opportunities that power our economy. By proactively addressing sage grouse conservation concerns on BLM lands, we also hope to maintain the widest possible range of options for our neighboring landowners.”
    The IMs are attached to the BLM’s National Greater Sage Grouse Planning Strategy, and Keefe notes that the Wyoming BLM will continue both amending and revising RMPs around the state as part of the strategy.
    The process for amending and revising RMPs is different, with amendments only involving changes for sections of the plans related to sage grouse management. Pinedale, Kemmerer, Rock Springs, Rawlins, Casper and Newcastle field offices will be amending their plans, while the remaining planning areas, including Buffalo, Cody, Lander and Worland, are undergoing a revision of their land use plans.
    “The revision is a much greater effort,” explains Keefe. “A revision looks at revising the entire plan and management of all resources.”
     All amendments and revisions are scheduled to be completed by the end of 2014, at which point the interim measures would expire.
    “By the summer of 2014, all of these actions should be complete, and the interim period should end,” adds Keefe.
    During the interim period, Keefe notes that Wyoming will continue to follow the core area strategy for managing the species.
    Some opposition to the IMs has arisen, marking that the measures aren’t adequate, but Keefe says, “Some groups feel like it doesn’t go far enough to protect sage grouse during this interim period, and some think it goes way too far. It is wholly dependent of who you are talking to whether this direction has gone too far or not far enough.”
    Keefe adds, “We are still absorbing this guidance, so it is a little unclear what kind of changes might occur.”
    While Keefe anticipates that Wyoming is prepared to comply with the IMs and any change would be minor, he says, “There could be some unforeseen changes that are necessary as we work through this and observe further.”
    Saige Albert is editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 03:54

Written by Christy Hemken

Casper – On Sept. 11 the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission came together in Casper to discuss, among other things, the production of sage grouse in captivity.
In a background of the Wyoming legislation passed in 2008, Assistant Wildlife Division Chief for the Wyoming Game and Fish Bill Rudd says the Chapter 60 Sage Grouse Bird Farm Regulations are different from the regulations offered in Chapter 40 that deal with all other game birds in Wyoming.
    “The regulation proposes they must be physically separated from wild birds for disease concerns and the enclosures must include live sage brush and natural vegetation,” said Rudd. “The regulation for capture of native sage grouse does not propose to allow the importation of sage grouse, and capture provides for collection of 75 eggs for three consecutive years by game bird farms attempting to raise sage grouse.”
    Not more than 10 nest sites would be disturbed, and egg collection could only take place April 25 through May 15, with the idea that’s early enough in the season for a sage grouse hen to establish another nest. “All the eggs must be taken from any individual nest, and they must be collected at the time of year when females may successfully reinitiate nesting,” outlined Rudd.
    The regulation only allows for the release of sage grouse by game bird farms into areas not already occupied by sage grouse.
    “Our group is adamantly opposed to the regulations,” said Bruce Lawson of the Shirley Basin/Bates Hole Local Sage Grouse Working Group in the Commission’s public comment period. “Our biggest concern is what the regulation will do to the native bird population from a genetics and disease standpoint. Why would we take a genetically pure native species and subject it to the possibilities of genetic dilution from captive sage grouse?”
    Lawson said so many things are going on that negatively affect the sage grouse, but if sage grouse farms are allowed he says they will be the biggest threat.
    “I grew up in Wyoming, and one of the greatest things in my life was when my dad would take me hunting. My earliest and fondest memory of hunting with my dad was hunting sage grouse,” noted Lawson. “I hope you can ensure future generations have the opportunity to hunt genetically pure wild sage grouse.”
    Cheryl Sorenson of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming told the Commission that at this point industry has no interest in bird farm investment. “We’ve seen little evidence to support the scientific approach to bird farming, and our stance is that we’d like to see regulations in place so that if the data does come to support bird farming our operators could use that to enhance the population. We’re interested for later use, but at this time there’s no direct interest in investing.”
    A representative for the Wyoming Wildlife Federation (WWF) also came forward in opposition to the regulation, saying, “We remain unconvinced of the reliable scientific evidence that sage grouse can be raised in captivity on a meaningful scale, and it’s a step toward private ownership of native wildlife in Wyoming.”
    She also said the WWF believes wildlife management should be left to the Commission and the Game and Fish Department and not a legislative budget footnote.
    However, not all comments were opposed to Chapter 60. “The sage grouse has been decimated in the last 15 or 20 years. We’ve gotten to a point where I don’t know, without privatization, that we can get the sage grouse we need,” said Casper resident John Burd.
    In response to the genetic question, Burd emphasized the eggs would be taken from the same genetic population. “You’re still releasing the same genetics, and this would allow the birds to increase a population that has drastically declined,” he continued.
    He also stated the captive breeding of sage grouse would cause landowners and farms to recreate habitat for sage grouse. “Look at all the pheasant farms that always increase habitat for their birds,” he said.  
    Legal council for the Commission said because Chapter 60 is a footnote to a budget and not a state statute the Commission is not mandated to pass the regulations. Wyoming State Senator Jennings argued that the intention of the budget footnote was to have regulations passed.
    “We thought it was a logical idea and another tool that could be used in sage grouse management,” explained Jennings. “I agree with a lot of the comments, but we probably do have a couple of game bird farms that, in conjunction with the Game and Fish, need to go out and collect research.”
    “Wyoming is proactive on a lot of things. Why can’t we be the first ones to figure out the science of raising sage grouse in captivity and the proper way to put them back in the wild?” he questioned.
    In the end the Commission decided to give the regulations further consideration and bring them back at a later date. The Commission passed a motion to not pass Chapter 60 as written, and to not develop rules until credible science and further studies can be collected.
    Christy Hemken is assistant editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .