Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2004 | 11:07 a.m.
Environmentalists are sharply criticizing a federal Bureau of Land Management analysis that they say will mean less land for rare and endangered species in Clark County.
The critics say that the BLM analysis threatens a precedent-setting compromise that granted Clark County the right to continue developing while still protecting endangered and rare desert animals and plants.
The controversy is a byproduct of the Clark County Conservation of Public and Natural Resources Act of 2002, which redesignated "wilderness study areas" used in part for the protection of animal and plant species, including the desert tortoise. The act, which received bipartisan support, put some land into national conservation areas and other protected categories, but the act also released almost 219,000 acres for uses including development.
Since 1998 the county, the BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have agreed to balance any loss of critical habitat by mitigating and protecting an equal amount of land elsewhere. The environmentalists say the BLM's analysis of the 2002 act's impacts violates that agreement, called the Clark County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
The plan -- and adherence to it -- are critical to Las Vegas because the plan's existence allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to permit continued development of desert land, despite the potential threat such development would have to rare species.
When the 2002 federal act released almost 219,000 acres from Wilderness Study Areas, the local plan required the BLM to do an "expedited review" of how the releases would affect the 78 targeted plants, animals and their habitats in the conservation plan.
An initial BLM review indicated a net loss of almost 32,000 acres of protected lands to "multiple use management areas" as a result of the 2002 act.
Almost two years later, the BLM last week released a six-page analysis to Clark County's Implementation and Monitoring Committee for the habitat plan. The analysis indicates that the BLM missed more than 143,000 acres in its initial inventory of protected areas, and thus does not need to mitigate against losses to protected land in Clark County.
Environmentalists say that misses the point -- that the amount of protected land may have increased on paper, but not in reality.
"However much land we had protected three years ago, we don't have that much land today," said Jane Feldman, an activist with the Sierra Club and a member of the habitat plan committee. "It's like they (the BLM officials) are setting a new base line. The (habitat plan) law did not say set a new base line. The law said you do not have any loss (to protected land) without mitigating it."
Hermi Hiatt, a member of the Red Rock Audobon Society and the habitat plan committee, agreed.
"When the 2002 lands act was passed, it looked like, gee, we lost a lot of acreage," she said. "It looks like we lost acreage but gained it on paper."
Brian O'Donnell, an activist with the national Wilderness Society, said the BLM's analysis is "shady."
"God hasn't created more wilderness, but the BLM apparently has," he said. "They're trying to get around mitigating for the lost land. The development is real. The mitigation is on paper."
John Wallin, a Nevada Wilderness Project activist, said the environmental groups -- among them the wilderness groups that supported the 2002 act -- could take the government to court over the issue.
"We've never used litigation, but this is one of those cases that might force our hand," he said.
Feldman and others said the issue is likely to be a focus of discussion at the habitat plan committee's next public meeting, scheduled for Sept. 29.
BLM officials say the criticism is off base. John Jamrog, BLM assistant field manager in Las Vegas, said his agency's assessment shows that there is more land to be protected for rare species than there was before the 2002 act passed.
He said although former protected wilderness may become "multiple use areas," that doesn't necessarily imply that they will become home to asphalt. The BLM's land use plan for Clark County includes other, parallel protections for land, Jamrog said.
"To say that it's unmitigated is an oversimplication," Jamrog said. "It's mitigated by the restrictions that exist in the land use plan. ... We have these additional lands under our jurisdiction that were never accounted for. We should be given acknowledgement for the restrictions on those lands."
The National Environmental Protection Act requires the BLM to evaluate any development that the BLM approves or starts, he added.
"We don't get off the hook because those lands were released" by the 2002 act, he said.
Julene Haworth, government affairs specialist for the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, a member of the habitat conservation plan committee and a former staffer for Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican who co-sponsored the 2002 act, said it is too early to judge the BLM's response to the act's land transfer.
"It's a process that's going to take some time," Haworth said.
She said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will have the ultimate say on whether the BLM's response is adequate for the habitat plan. Haworth noted that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM share Las Vegas offices.
Haworth said that while the debate continues, nobody doubts the importance of keeping the habitat plan -- and the Fish and Wildlife Service certification that allows continued development in Clark County -- in place.
"We don't want to do anything to jeopardize it," she said.
Lew Wallenmeyer, Clark County's habitat plan administrator, agreed the question of what land is being taken out of protected status, and what needs to be mitigated, is still open. The BLM's analysis, he said, was preliminary and more study is needed.
"Loss of habitat, that is a concern, but it depends on what the management strategy for those areas is," he said. "We have to analyze specific species and habitats. When I read this document, to me it is not a conclusion.
"It is important to note that it (the habitat plan) says 'No net unmitigated loss,' " Wallenmeyer said. "It boils down to how are those lands going to be ultimately managed, and what does that do for the animals and their habitats."
The Fish and Wildlife Service, a sister Interior Department agency to the BLM, echoes the county's perspective.
"The way that I view that BLM document is ... as a first step in the process," said Cynthia Martinez, Fish and Wildlife assistant field supervisor. "To me the next step in the analysis is, what were the habitat types and did the (2002) act make up those habitats elsewhere in the county?"
Martinez said without more analysis of the impacts of the 2002 act on specific animals, plants and habitats, the BLM position probably "is not acceptable."
Jamrog said his agency is preparing to build on its earlier report.
The other agencies, the habitat plan committee members and the environmental activists should take the preliminary report "and talk to us," he said. "They want to analyze it in terms of the covered habitat. ... We're in full agreement."
archive
