Thursday, Sept. 30, 2004 | 8:54 a.m.
A federal Bureau of Land Management analysis that suggests the agency does not have to compensate for the loss of wilderness habitat does not mean the land will not be protected, BLM officials told a Clark County group Wednesday.
John Jamrog, BLM assistant field manager, told about 30 members of the county's committee working on the region's habitat conservation plan that his agency does not foresee the loss of habitat protected by a sweeping agreement called the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
The plan -- to which the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the county and state are all signatories -- says any loss of protected habitat for the desert tortoise and 77 other rare desert species has to be mitigated in some way.
Environmentalists were alarmed when last month the BLM released a study that said the original estimates undercounted the amount of protected habitat in Clark County, and so the release of protected Wilderness Study Areas would not have to be mitigated.
The issue, Jamrog noted, is highly technical, but participants also noted that it is critically important for the county. The habitat conservation plan provided the justification in 2001 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issuing the county a permit that allows continued unfettered development of 145,000 acres -- as long as critical habitat is left alone.
In 2002, federal legislation moved land from Wilderness Study Areas into protected conservation areas and other uses, put new land into those conservation areas, but also released more than 200,000 acres for other uses, including potential development.
In numbers it provided the habitat committee Wednesday, the BLM estimated that 57,179 acres would be taken out of the protections provided as Wilderness Study Areas.
Jomrog, though, said that does not mean they would lose all federal and local protection.
"There's somewhat of an impression that this was some kind of a final statement from the BLM," Jamrog said, referring to the study released last month that said no mitigation was necessary for the 57,179 acres. "I do recognize that some of the results and recommendations in the report are controversial.... We'll work through the ultimate resolution."
He said some of the land already has protections under the BLM's resource management plan, although Jamrog said he doesn't know how much would be protected from development. The BLM still has to analyze how the 57,179 acres affects critical habitat in the county, Jamrog said.
Ron Marlow, a UNR biology professor and consultant to the county's habitat conservation effort, said more study is needed.
"The conclusion that there is no unmitigated loss is premature," he said. "There may not be any loss of habitat for any of the 78 species but you can't know that until you have done the analyses."
Environmentalists said they want to see a formal change to the BLM's resource management plan that would prevent habitat loss at the 57,179 acres.
The BLM officials "are saying 'We're going to protect it, trust us down the road,' " said Brian O'Donnell, an activist with the national Wilderness Society. "What we're saying is put it in the resource management plan. They can do an amendment.
"It's got to be written and it's got to be formalized," O'Donnell said. "That's all we're asking for."
Jane Feldman, an activist with the local arm of the Sierra Club, agreed. She said the BLM has already calmed some concerns by agreeing that if land is taken from critical habitat, it has to be mitigated.
"I thought it was terrific that we got the recognition that the 57,000 acres has to be accounted for," she said.
archive
