The clock is ticking for Montana to convince the federal government that the sage grouse is not threatened or endangered in the state.
In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the bird warranted federal protection, but was precluded from being listed simply because other species were worse off. Dissatisfied environmental groups sued, and a federal judge ruled the agency must make a decision about the listing by September 2015.
For nearly a decade, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, FWP has protected 200,000 acres of sage grouse habitat with one-time payments to private landowners who agree not to convert sagebrush to other habitat types. Historically, the threat has been a conversion to agriculture, but new challenges have joined the landscape.
“We believe if we can maintain the habitat we have, our populations will remain stable,” said FWP wildlife biologist Catherine Wightman. “The problem is the threat that the conversion will continue, and the additional threat of new energy development.”
Montana began to develop a conservation strategy in the spring of 2013 when Gov. Steve Bullock appointed an advisory council to draft a plan that would prevent the sage grouse from being listed. The 12-person council represents conservation, energy, mining, hunting, ranching, agriculture, Indian tribes, and local and state government.
On Nov. 1, the council published a draft of the plan on FWP’s website, opening it to public review and comment. Since then, FWP has held seven public meetings across the state to present the plan and hear from interested parties.
Working with a Wyoming model
Dave Galt, executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association, MPA, attended each public meeting on behalf of MPA members. He feels the FWP is on the right track, but said the plan requires some changes.
The main point of contention is the no surface occupancy, NSO, buffer within 1 mile of active sage grouse strutting grounds known as leks in “core areas” or critical habitats. This bans all surface facilities — including roads and well pads — within that NSO buffer area. MPA believes that Wyoming’s recently approved sage grouse conservation plan is a better model, and it set the distance at 0.6 miles.
“A mile is a big amount of land that you can’t have any surface occupancy at all,” Galt said. “Wyoming has an approved plan for 0.6 miles, and there is no science to suggest that 0.6 miles is inadequate. The question is why would Montana go to a mile? There’s no justification for that.”
Wightman disagrees. She said the birds feel the impact of development for at least 4 miles, and that even Wyoming’s Fish and Wildlife agency is discovering that 0.6 miles may not be enough.
“If this was purely a conservation strategy based on science that we have to date, the 4-mile buffer would be the most appropriate,” Wightman said. “The information we have suggests that the impacts are greater the closer you get to a lek. So while 1 mile is not a magic number, we do know 1 mile is better than 0.6.”
Also timing issues
Another obstacle for energy development is the restriction of activities in core areas during critical times of year, namely nesting and brooding season from March to July. In winter concentration areas, exploration and development activity would be prohibited from December to March.
The plan also sets noise levels at the perimeter of a lek from March to July to not exceed 10 decibels, a number Galt argues is barely above a whisper and poses a problem.
“I know that language came from Wyoming’s plan, but it has turned into a problem in Wyoming. Before you put a limit in there that can’t be met, you need to take a look at it and have some flexibility,” Galt said.
Several key development areas such as the Cedar Creek Anticline and Elk Basin are included in Montana core areas. But to address already heavily developed areas, Special Management Core Area, SMCA, designations were created inside the core. This allows existing and planned oil and gas production to continue in these areas.
Fighting for land use
Any new drilling outside of a SMCA would be subject to certain conditions to reduce the total surface disturbance in critical habitat, limiting the impact of oil development. But it could come down to industry duking it out with other developers for first dibs on the land.
For instance, the Montana Department of Transportation has often built new highways alongside existing roads because it’s faster and cheaper, but that practice would now count as a surface disruption.
“We would probably object to any DOT plans to build new highways unless they develop plans to minimize their disturbance,” Galt said. “We’d be an active voice in long term highway planning so they only work within the right of way they have currently because additional disturbance goes into the calculation that could limit development of energy.”
If approved, the sage grouse habitat conservation plan would be executed and monitored by a newly formed Montana Sage Grouse Oversight Team, one that MPA hopes consists of a small group of only key agency directors, the governor’s policy advisor and a few legislators to ensure prompt resolution of issues and ease of communication.
BLM revising plans
Since Montana land ownership is a bit of a checkerboard pattern of public and private lands, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, is also revising its sage grouse conservation management plans.
BLM spokeswoman Kristin Lenhardt said the agency recognizes the need for consistency with state-led conservation planning efforts.
“We’re working very closely with all the partners and landowners in the area, and those on these teams to develop strategies,” Lenhardt said. “So hopefully there won’t be a lot of contradiction because we’re all after the same goal.”
FWP is accepting comments on the council’s plan until Dec. 4, at which time they will be evaluated and a final draft submitted to Bullock in January. Wightman said so far public comments on the draft strategy have been supportive, but most concerns lie with how it may impact private operations. Galt added that the consistent message at each public meeting is a desire to keep local control.
“We’re all trying to avoid the listing and doing conservation strategies to keep it state-driven. That’s what this is all about,” Galt said. “But energy development will be more difficult, regardless what prevails.”
