explained that the sensitive species list is developed by gaining a field perspective through
meetings with biologists and through the Natural Heritage Program which assesses peer reviewed
literature and grey literature, such as federal aid documents, field notes, and reports.
Mr. Bill James, Division of Wildlife Resources, Habitat Section, indicated their role is to
acquire the necessary information to interact with various regulatory agencies that deal with
threatened or endangered species. He cited the example of the spotted frog. The division has
been able to make a conservation agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other
agencies to take certain management actions to preclude the need for federal listing. He noted
that the state sensitive species list is quite distinct in that there is no regulatory authority
associated with the state list. By design it is an information item which indicates what may
become a problem in the future.
Some members of the committee expressed concern that the listing process is not fair and
does not provide for adequate public comment. A concern raised was whether the process
represented a good scientific format for determining species listings.
Mr. Jerry Sintz, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), stated the Utah BLM has
developed a sensitive species list for both plants and animals. They designate those species as
special status species. He said the BLM complies with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as it
applies to listed species and those proposed for listing. The BLM does not manage special status
species as though they were listed as either threatened or endangered. Management of non-listed
species is much more flexible than it is for listed species. Mr. Sintz pointed out that the BLM is
a strong supporter of conservation agreements, which are designed to protect rare species but are
more flexible and can be more quickly developed and implemented than recovery plans for listed
species. The agreements are a way to develop state, federal, and local partnerships regarding
management of rare species.
Ms. Theresa Prendusi, U.S. Forest Service, gave a slide presentation on the Forest
Service's authority and direction on sensitive species. She distributed copies of the information
presented. Sensitive species receive emphasis to ensure viability and to preclude trends toward
federal listing under the ESA.
Ms. Janet Mizzi, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, indicated their mandate is not simply to
protect the individual species but to protect the ecosystems upon which species depend. Ms.
Mizzi stated there are several laws that require protection and consideration of sensitive species.
The most important of those is the ESA. The service recently developed a conservation
agreement policy to deal with species that do not warrant listing under the ESA but are still rare,
sensitive, or declining. They currently have nine conservation agreements with the state of Utah.
She stated the listing of threatened and endangered species involves a very lengthy public
process. Candidate species are reviewed yearly, but there is no public process for the candidate
species list. The service does not regulate sensitive species other than threatened, endangered,
and candidate species. She stated it is important that a sensitive species list be maintained at
either the national or state level because it gives an early warning sign of what to be aware of
when developing any kind of land management plan.
Mr. Randy Allen, River Gas Corporation, stated they are a small independent natural gas
producer with wells in Carbon and Emery Counties. Wildlife concerns have had a tremendous
impact on their ability to develop their leases. The main wildlife concern in the immediate future
involves their desire to drill within the vicinity of golden eagle and red tail hawk nests. There is
no conclusive scientific proof that their proposed operation will harm either species. He
suggested an oversight board be appointed to develop specific goals for species listings. Steps
should be taken to ensure that the process is guided by science and driven by an effort to balance
the impacts to both wildlife and humans. Clear, specific, and focused guidance by the
Legislature could prevent many problems. He added that prudent development can coexist with
wildlife.
Mr. John Dyer, Inland Resources Inc., distributed information on how the state's
sensitive species list has affected their operation. Mr. Dyer stated because of the state's list and
the BLM's desire to treat it as threatened and endangered, it has cost and will continue to cost
Inland Resources a great deal of money for additional employees to ensure compliance and to
perform studies of sensitive species, such as the ferruginous hawk. He pointed out that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service determined not to list the ferruginous hawk as a candidate species.
Mr. Jon Holst, Inland Resources Inc., indicated that the definition of sensitive species
adopted by the state has regulatory and management implications beyond those identified in the
state's sensitive species list. He asserted that objective scientific criteria should be incorporated
into the definition of sensitive species. Mr. Holst distributed a copy of the Federal Register
notice concerning ferruginous hawks which indicates that it did not warrant listing. He also
distributed information from the National Biological Service on the hawks. Data shows that at a
minimum populations of the hawk are stable.
MOTION: Rep. Tuttle moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:05 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.