|
|
|
|
Supes butt heads against bighorn plan |
|
|
Wednesday, 21 November 2007 |
|
By Jon Klusmire
Register Staff 11-20-2007 The Inyo County Board of Supervisors strongly condemned the proposal to designate 417,000 acres of Eastern Sierra high country “critical habitat” for the endangered Eastern Sierra bighorn sheep.
In a strongly worded resolution, the board assailed the proposed designation as a move that could potentially threaten recreation and other common backcountry pursuits and would almost certainly have an immediate, potentially devastating impact on ranchers who graze sheep on federal lands.
While it is unlikely that the supervisors’ staunch opposition will stall the designation process, their comments and official stance could lead to a downward adjustment of the amount of land getting the designation, or even excluding some areas currently used for domestic sheep grazing.
When it comes to the Endangered Species Act and public lands, “peopled don’t trust the federal government anymore,” said Third District Supervisor Beverly Brown. That’s especially true when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gets involved in wildlife issues, and “over-manages” to the detriment of people, the local economy and, in many cases, the species that is supposed to be protected, she said.
Second District Supervisor Linda Arcularius said that suspicion was justified, since there was “story after story” about how trying to protect an endangered species resulted in calamity for both the animal, the people and the economy in the region.
Brown and Arcularius cited examples, such as with the spotted owl, the Devil’s Hole pup fish, where either over time the science didn’t hold up (the spotted owl) or when management decisions actually led to the death of the endangered pup fish in one instance.
Fourth District Supervisor Jim Bilyeu said the 417,000 acres was far too much land to be burdened with the “severe restrictions … and strict federal regulation” that might come with the critical habitat designation.
Bilyeu said his primary concern was there was no way to predict or estimate what kind of regulations and restrictions might arise in the future based on the habitat designation.
Bob Williams, field supervisors or the Nevada U.S. FWS office in Reno, absorbed the criticism of the habitat plan and cleared up some misconceptions about what the designation would and wouldn’t do.
First off, the designation would have no impact whatsoever on the grazing of sheep on private land. Thus, there is no danger that children raising sheep for a 4-H project would be affected at all by the designation, he said. Nor would any sheep rancher be affected if the sheep grazed on private land.
The FWS also has no authority to change current or future regulations regarding use of National Forest land, for example. Williams noted that the Inyo National Forest, not the FWS, might have regulations in place restricting taking dogs into certain areas during the bighorn’s lambing season.
Such regulations, including restrictions on domestic sheep grazing on federal land that is home to the bighorns, were put in place more than seven years ago when the Sierra Nevada bighorn was listed as a federally endangered species, Williams pointed out.
In some cases, that listing prompted federal land managers, working with the state Department of Fish and Game, to adjust their management guidelines, he said. Other uses, such as hiking and horse packing, weren’t impacted by the bighorn’s listing, and likely will not be impacted by the critical habitat designation, he added. “Anything already permitted by the Forest Service will probably stand” and not be changed because of the designation, he said.
The issue of removing domestic-sheep grazing from any land with the critical habitat designation consumed much of the supervisors’ comments.
Williams said “it’s not our position to just remove sheep grazing off BLM or Forest Service lands.” The FWS will work with each grazing permittee to try and customize a grazing plan that will coincide with the critical habitat designation.
Williams admitted that there were numerous situations regarding recreation and grazing and general use of public lands where he could not predict if the designation would lead to additional regulations or restrictions.
However, if that is the case, those changes will be made “in the light of day” by the responsible federal land manager, whether that’s the Forest Service, BLM or Park Service.
Williams noted that virtually the entire 417,000 acres slated for the critical habitat designation was on federal land managed by those three agencies.
The listing in 2000 of the bighorns as endangered species prompted those three agencies to consult with the federal FWS and the state DFG whenever an “action” was proposed on federal land that created the need for an environmental document (a declaration of no impact, an Environmental Assessment, and full Environmental Impact Statement, etc.).
If the critical habitat designation goes through, the same consultations will occur, but they will be a bit more formalized and the FWS will, when necessary, comment on whatever action is being planned.
Arcularius and Bilyeu asked if the agency ever altered the boundaries of proposed critical habitat based on public comment and the economic impact analysis of the designation. (The economic analysis has not been completed yet, which was another item that sparked concern among the supervisors. Williams said when that document is complete, the public and the supervisors would have a chance to comment on it and the whole habitat plan, too.)
Arcularius pointed out that there was a small amount of overlap between existing domestic-sheep grazing permit areas and the habitat designation. She suggested the FWS could “back those lines off the grazing allotments.” Virtually all the domestic sheep grazing on federal land in the Eastern Sierra are in Mono County. Arcularius estimated that taking out the domestic-sheep grazing lands from the plan would reduce the acreage by maybe 5 percent.
“It’s a small, small amount of habitat,” Arcularius said, and there would still be “plenty of habitat for the bighorns.”
Besides, logic would indicate that an area that has been used for domestic-sheep grazing for generations “can’t be critical habitat for bighorns,” she added.
Arcularius, Brown and Inyo/Mono Agricultural Commissioner George Milovich questioned “the science” that has been used in other areas to ban domestic sheep from grazing on bighorn habitat because of the threat of disease spreading from the domestic to the bighorn sheep.
Williams said the critical habitat boundaries were drawn without consideration of disease spread. They were drawn, he said, in an effort to provide enough habitat for the endangered bighorns to thrive and grow in numbers.
Williams said in this case the state DFG and the FWS have had seven years to study the Sierra Nevada bighorn and how to best manage its range to protect the species. There were about 100 animals when the species was listed, and now more than 400 bighorns have been counted in the same range.
By having seven years worth of studies and evaluations from DFG and the Forest Service, Williams said the Fish and Wildlife Service was able to make a well-informed decision about the amount and location of truly critical habitat for the bighorns.
He added, though, that the agency wants and needs to hear input from local governments and citizens about the proposed designation. He said it was not unusual for the amount of land originally proposed as critical habitat to shrink between the draft proposal and the final plan.
Written comments on the proposal should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502, by e-mail to
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, or by facsimile to (775) 861-6301. Written comments will be accepted until Nov. 23, 2007.
A copy of the proposal and other information is available at www.fws.gov/nevada.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 29 January 2008 )
|
|
|
|
