Candidate conservation agreements with assurances

At a Sept. 10 meeting with local landowners and representative from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Wyoming Stock Growers Association (WSGA) the “ins and outs” of Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAA) were discussed.

LeAnne Correll, WSGA CCAA Education Project Coordinator, provided the official definition of a Candidate Conversation Agreement which is: a voluntary conservation agreement whereby private landowners agree to manage their lands to remove or reduce threats to a species at risk of being listed under the Endangered Species Act. In return for managing their lands to the benefit of species at risk, these landowners receive assurances against additional regulatory requirements should that species ever be listed under the ESA.

Tyler Abbott with the USFWS in Cheyenne also discussed Candidate Conservation Agreements without assurances (CCAs) which are primarily focused on federal lands and federal land managers.

Both Correll and Abbott talked about the details of the Statewide Grazing and Ranch Management Greater Sage Grouse CCAA (statewide agreement) which has been developed by the USFWS and is specific to Wyoming.

The sage grouse was determined to be warranted for listing as an endangered species in 2010 by the USFWS. Sage grouse are currently a candidate species under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) but is will either be listed as an endangered species or dropped from consideration in Sept. 2015.

Candidate species are assessed as having enough biological information to warrant listing as an endangered species but they have no significant protection under the ESA according to Abbott. Candidate species are managed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Division (WGFD) and the USFWS works with WGFD to try and improve the population of the species to keep it from being listed.

Abbott stated CCAAs are basically agreements between private landowners and the USFWS with the purpose to minimize, avoid and eliminate threats to species on private lands. The goal is cooperative, on the ground conservation of targeted species in exchange for assurances from the federal agency.

In exchange for agreeing to a set of conservation measures, the USFWS assures the landowner that they will not ask for any further measures if the species is listed as endangered.

One of the items the USFWS will provide as part of the Candidate Conversation Agreement is an incidental take permit that allows a certain amount of incidental killing or harassment of a listed species due to normal operations on the private land. This permit is part of Section 10 of the ESA which lists exceptions to prohibited acts listed in Section 9 of the act.

The umbrella agreement, defined in the statewide agreement, has a comprehensive list of conservation measures. Correll says that this the maximum amount of conservation measures that will be asked of a landowner. Individual landowners can negotiate what practices they will follow.

One requirement of the Candidate Conversation Agreement is monitoring of the target species and annual report of the monitoring information. Some examples of conservation measures provided by Abbott include avoiding the concentration of livestock in nesting habitat during certain months of the year and not placing salt, new watering facilities and corrals in nesting habitat.

There are potential financial and time commitment obligations, largely related to the yearly monitoring and reporting required by a Candidate Conversation Agreement. Another concern for private landowners is how the sage grouse becoming listed might affect their grazing permits. If it is of concern, they are advised to consult with the federal agency they lease from to discuss a CCA on the leased land.

Because there are commitments, both of time and finances, Correll says Landowners need to carefully consider if entering into a Candidate Conversation Agreement is the right choice for them.

Both Abbott and Correll said that many of the desired conservation measures are already being practiced by private landowners.

“The biggest question that you as a landowner have to ask yourself is ‘do I think that my operation can go on, if the bird were listed, afterwards just like it is today,’” Correll said.