• Issues
  • Access
  • Agriculture
  • Climate Change
  • Energy
  • Fisheries
  • Highways & Habitat
  • Mining
  • Roadless Forest Areas
  • Wetlands
• News Room
  • Press Releases
  • Reports
  • Square Dealer
• Search this Site
• RSS Feed

 

FACTS for Fish and Wildlife

Funding  Accountability Coordination Transparency Science

The TRCP FWEWG has compiled its recommendations and priorities regarding federal management of energy development on public lands and organized them under the five fundamental areas of Funding, Accountability, Coordination, Transparency and Science.

Funding

• A long-term, dedicated funding solution is needed to adequately provide the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service (FS) and state fish and wildlife agencies the necessary means to manage habitats and populations affected by energy development.  The administration and Congress must pass federal legislation for new, long-term funding to monitor, evaluate and protect fish and wildlife populations influenced by energy development.
  
  
• Funding appropriated for fish and wildlife management should be used to manage habitats and populations proactively.  Much of the funding BLM receives for fish and wildlife biological services is being directed to the processing of permits for expanded energy development. Any annual or short-term increase in federal funding for energy development should be matched by funding to deal with the consequences to fish and wildlife.  While there have been regular increases in funding for expediting energy development, there have not been commensurate increases in fish and wildlife funding.

Accountability

• BLM and FS lands should be managed equally for multiple uses and resources, maintaining a balance of energy development and fish and wildlife habitat.

• A specific “Conservation Strategy” for each energy field or project, which would go beyond the NEPA-level evaluations and plans currently being completed, should be used to proactively address fish and wildlife management and needs.  This Conservation Strategy should be finalized before development starts and must provide specific recommendations and actions to minimize impacts, while establishing plans for mitigation, detailed monitoring and the use of adaptive management.

• Managers, industry and other decision-makers must be held accountable and responsible for following laws, regulations, and policy including commitments made in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents.  A process for accountability should be established that allows the public to track compliance with law, policy, plans and, most importantly, commitments in decision documents.

• Compliance with, and enforcement of, requirements from Records of Decision and other contracts with the American people for the efficient development of their resources should be included in written performance standards for the BLM employees responsible for each phase of the development process.

• Mineral leasing should be done in a manner that takes into account the future impacts from development on fish and wildlife resources.  Therefore, we recommend a change in the current leasing process that would provide for a prior assessment of impacts from lease development before leasing occurs and includes plans that balance the needs of fish and wildlife resources.

Coordination

• The federal government should improve coordination with all interested parties when planning and implementing energy development.  Public involvement from all stakeholders, including local and state governments, non-governmental organizations, industry, sportsmen and others, is important and should be assured.  State wildlife agencies that have the authority to manage wildlife and fish populations that are affected by energy development should be given stronger legal standing in the process, rather than only being given cooperating agency status.

• Adaptive management based on the best-available monitoring information and coordination with state agencies must be used by federal officials. An effective adaptive management process includes regular reviews of both state and federal findings from research and monitoring, active consideration of alternative energy field management, and the means for making such management changes for future development where needed to lessen impacts on fish and wildlife.  There must be coordination between federal officials and state wildlife agencies to lessen or avoid impacts on fish and wildlife.  Lack of coordination and data-sharing often means that the same approach to development is continued despite monitoring that has shown it is detrimental to wildlife.

Transparency

• A clear, transparent federal planning process and decision-making process that follows administrative law and policy is essential.

• Leasing and development should be guided by complete and up-to-date land use plans developed with public input, based on current information on how development is likely to proceed.

• Federal land managers must make decisions on energy development following processes that allow for adequate public review.  Decisions made by public officials and the processes leading to them must be transparent.  Laws, policies and proper procedures must be followed at all times.  Sufficient information about proposed energy leases and development must be provided to the public to allow for understanding and reasonable comments, and the time provided for public comments must be commensurate with the complexity of the proposals.

• Meetings related to energy development on public lands should be part of the public record.

Science

• Science must be used to inform all fish and wildlife management decisions, particularly when specific research has been conducted on the impacts of energy development.  Subsequently, adaptive management processes should be used and based upon monitoring data so that a systemic approach to adjusting development can be made when other natural resources are affected.

• The energy development planning process should include science-based mitigation.  This mitigation must be planned by using rigorous methods and an adaptive management process that systematically uses data from impact monitoring and evaluation to adjust development.  Offsite mitigation is essential when on-site mitigation cannot be effectively used or is not appropriate to offset resource values impacted at the project location.

• There are certain special and unique places in the West that should be either entirely off-limits or extremely limited to oil and gas drilling.  The federal government should set aside these important areas to ensure that valuable fish and wildlife resources and these special habitats are appropriately protected.  Such places can be identified from a fish and wildlife habitat standpoint by using available science and data on population numbers and other factors.

Return to main energy page.