This trend has serious, negative implications for public lands policy and could have devastating consequences for Wilderness. These deals create a quid pro quo situation wherein wilderness protection is essentially “paid for” with balancing provisions in the same piece of legislation that facilitate development, privatization, and intensified land use—even in the very “wilderness” set aside in the deals. If this trend continues, the days of the stand-alone wilderness bill, along with the strict observance of the letter and spirit of the Wilderness Act, may be relics of the past.

We write this paper as advocates for public land and against its privatization and degradation. We also write out of concern for what quid pro quo wilderness may say about and mean to the future of grassroots environmental activism. In the last several months, dozens of grassroots groups and individual activists have joined us in expressing concern about the new wilderness phenomenon, and in issuing this analysis we hope to widen the discussion. In this paper, we describe several examples of quid pro quo wilderness in Oregon, Nevada, and Idaho, look at the implications for public land policy, and, in the case of the Owyhee Initiative, set the context and anticipate the impact on the ground.

The Quid Pro Quo Template
Conservationists cite various justifications for going along with this new approach, but the gist of their argument is that current political realities won’t support the kind of wilderness legislation passed in the 1980s and 1990s, and that quid pro quo wilderness is the best we can expect. In this atmosphere, politicians normally identified as anti-wilderness ideologues—and who wield disproportionate power over public land issues—are taking on the wilderness mantle with alacrity, while still holding the line for the ranching, wise-use, mining, and development interests they represent.

The Steens Mountain [Oregon] Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-399). The Steens Mountain project is considered by many to mark the beginning of the quid pro quo wilderness trend. In the late 1990s, a Clinton Administration proposal to create a national monument in southeast Oregon’s Steens Mountain prompted anti-monument interests, including Steens ranchers, to enter into negotiations with conservationists over alternative approaches to protecting the area.

Rather than simply outline a plan for the Steens landscape, the bill’s primary statement of purpose was to “maintain the cultural, economic, ecological, and social health of the Steens Mountain area.”

In the legislation that resulted, a Wilderness Area of about 170,000 acres was created—of which 97,000 acres are “cow-free”— within a larger Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA).4 The CMPA was to be managed “to maintain and enhance cooperative and innovative management projects, programs, and agreements” between the various interests in the Steens.

Some ranchers with Steens inholdings who grazed their cattle on adjacent public lands were bought out with huge land trades that netted them more than five times the amount of land the public gained. The bill trade 104,000 acres of public land for 18,000 private acres. The Interior Department streamlined the appraisal process for the lands that were traded. The legislation also offered $5 million in cash payments to the ranchers to make them “economically whole” and made the Bureau of Land Management financially responsible for all water developments and fencing ranchers would need on their newly-acquired holdings. In short, the public paid a premium in land and cash for the crown jewel of the Steens.

Perhaps the most significant innovation in the Steens deal was the creation of the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC), made up of representatives of various groups with an interest in the Steens, including ranchers, motorized recreationists, and environmentalists. The role of the SMAC was to oversee management of the area and issue recommendations to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Some critics of the Steens deal had feared that the SMAC was a step toward local control of public lands, and according to some participants, it has in fact become a platform for local special interest groups to push for management concessions that are counter to Wilderness values.

A central problem with Steens implementation and the SMAC is that locals have interpreted the Steens legislation in such a way that the “innovations” and flexibility established for the CMPA would also apply to the Wilderness.

One conservationist member of the SMAC has said that in negotiating the Steens deal, environmentalists may have unwittingly “sent the message that if you’re a wilderness advocate you’re willing to consider just about anything that the enemies of wilderness…might put before you, and you won’t walk away.”6

The Clark County [Nevada] Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (PL 107-282). This bill, championed by Nevada Senators Reid and Ensign and supported by environmentalists and developers, was one increment in a continuing process of privatizing land for development in the Las Vegas Valley.

The centerpiece of the Clark County bill was the earmarking of about 22,000 acres of federal land in the Las Vegas Valley to be auctioned off to developers. 7 Also included was a large, controversial land exchange, several public land giveaways, and the designation of 450,000 acres of wilderness.

The bill released 233,000 acres of wilderness study areas and expressly declined to reserve federal water rights within the newly-established Wilderness. It also allowed the siting of transmission corridors in two Wilderness Study Areas, where such uses would normally not be allowed.

Among the most cynical aspects of the bill was creation of a National Conservation Area at Sloan Canyon, whose petroglyphs Sen. Reid said were “in desperate need of protection,” while another provision granted a road right-ofway through part of the natural area to create a shortcut for commuters.

The Boulder-White Clouds. In the autumn of 2004, a compromise proposal emerged in Idaho for the Boulder and White Clouds Mountains in the center of the state. Republican Representative Mike Simpson introduced the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Proposal (CIEDRA), a plan that combines various development subsidies with wilderness.



Part of the quid pro quo is to hand over potentially thousands of acres of federal land to Custer County and the State of Idaho. The bill calls for the outright conveyance, for free, of some 1,600 acres of federal land to Custer and Blaine counties and several central Idaho towns. These lands would be opened for second-home development and other uses, with the goal of creating a local tax base on what is currently federal land. There is also a provision that allows the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to convey parcels of 100 acres or less, gratis, to Custer County or the State of Idaho for purposes of recreation and tourism.

Like the Clark County bill, the Boulder-White Clouds proposal would prohibit any federal reservation of water rights in the wilderness.

Among the most controversial aspects of the proposal is a plan to open a motorized trail on a currently roadless strip of land lying between two of the proposed wilderness areas, in addition to numerous concessions to motorized use. The executive director of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a motorized-access advocacy group, stated that Simpson had done “a better job than anyone I’ve seen with a wilderness bill.”

The conservation groups working with Simpson on the proposal have straddled the line between support and opposition—disavowing various provisions, while stating that they will continue to work to make it better. 11

Lindsay Slater, one-time aide to Oregon Rep. Greg Walden and a prime author of the Steens legislation, is now working for Simpson on the Boulder-White Clouds. “We think stand-alone wilderness is done,” Slater said. “The trend seems to be towards legislation based on compromise among the various interests.”

Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (PL 108-720). In late 2004 Congress passed an omnibus land and water bill, co-sponsored by all members of the Nevada delegation, that designated 768,000 acres of Wilderness in a rural, overwhelmingly federally-owned county north of Las Vegas.

This 8.3 acre parcel of federal land in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area was purchased by U.S. taxpayers in 1989 for preservation. Under the CIEDRA, the land would be privatized. Photo: John Osborn, M.D.

The tradeoffs for wilderness protection included:
--the release of 245,000 acres of Wilderness Study Areas;
--the granting, for free, of 256 miles of water pipeline rights-of-way on federal land to the Southern Nevada
Water Authority to bring more water into Las Vegas from over the Lincoln County line, and an additional
192 miles of right-of-way to the County and its for-profit water company partner, Vidler Water—for a total
of 448 miles;
--the conveyance of over 18,000 acres of federal land, for free, to Lincoln County for open space and to the
State of Nevada to expand state parks;
--the disposal of 100,000 acres of federal land, to be relinquished from federal management and auctioned off  to the highest bidder. This provision also effectively nullified a successful lawsuit brought by environmental groups pertaining to about 13,500 of these acres.

A previously proposed federal land sale that had been delayed by a successful NEPA lawsuit was forced through as part of the Lincoln County bill. The land is just over the Lincoln County line from Mesquite, Nevada.

The Nevada environmental community was split over the Lincoln County legislation. Responding to the impacts of the non-wilderness provisions, the local Sierra Club chapter testified in opposition to the bill. The Nevada Wilderness Coalition testified against many of the non-wilderness provisions of the bill, but not the bill as a whole. Coalition members have defended their affiliation with the bill, stating that “it would have passed whether or not any wilderness was included.”

Yet, the wilderness provisions lent what would otherwise be a blatant land and water giveaway the cachet of compromise and environmental benefit. According to one long-time congressional staffer, that can make the difference between a bill that bogs down in controversy and one that sails through as a “win-win.” Even in the current Republican-dominated House and Senate, the staffer says, the bill might not have made it to the floor had there been unified opposition by environmentalists.

Pragmatism and New Precedents
Compromise wilderness deals are heralded as products of diverse groups, once hopelessly polarized and stalemated, finally sitting down to find common ground on divisive issues. Conservationist-proponents describe the unexpected joys of “working with people we’ve never worked with before and …finding shared values and frustrations.”14 They also take the pragmatic tack that “these (development bills) are inevitable,” so they might as well attach some wilderness to them.15

The new paradigm is hailed as innovative and visionary—Steens co-sponsor Rep. Greg Walden repeatedly intoned that the Steens was “not your grandfather’s wilderness.” Yet quid pro quo wilderness rewards the West’s traditional power base by forcing wilderness to tag along with land and water development schemes. Many fear that special exceptions in these bills are eroding the integrity of the Wilderness Act itself, by allowing uses and activities traditionally prohibited. As one wilderness defender put it, “If, for the sake of expediency, we make exceptions in wilderness bills, we make it harder to preserve the character of these wild places…Cheap wilderness is just that . . . easier to get and easier to lose.”16

Moreover, whether actively promoting or merely acquiescing to the linking of wilderness with these projects, wilderness advocates often facilitate the bypass of environmental laws and the entrenchment of new precedents. In the case of the land exchanges and giveaways that facilitate new wilderness, laws that would normally apply to the relinquishment of federal lands are simply waived. There was no National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation of the ecological values traded away in the Steens; nor, in the Clark County bill, much consideration of the consequences of opening up more federal land to development in the drought-plagued Las
Vegas Valley. 17,18

Laws generally thought worth fighting for, and touted in fundraising letters and on environmental organizations’ websites, are now seemingly dispensable if wilderness can be obtained.
In the case of the Steens, where appraisals were cut short, and the Boulder-White Clouds, where land would be given outright to state and local governments, land value is disregarded, and thus federal land is treated as a cheap, disposable asset. In supporting such deals, environmentalists may unwittingly lend credence to the ravings of Sagebrush Rebels, who believe that undeveloped federal land is essentially worthless.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of quid pro quo wilderness is the exclusivity, even secrecy, of the process. Negotiators must keep information to themselves and keep outsiders from entering the process, since they threaten the delicate collaborative milieu. This puts conservationists in the position of perpetuating the very secrecy that has been such an issue of contention between the conservation movement and the government and industry.

The Owyhee Initiative
Nowhere are the dicey issues of quid pro quo wilderness better displayed than in the Owyhee Initiative. In 2001, just after passage of the Steens bill, a new consensus land-use plan called the Owyhee Initiative (OI) was emerging in the Owyhee-Bruneau Canyonlands of southwest Idaho, where conservationists have long sought to create wilderness and where a national monument proposal had evaporated upon the departure of the Clinton Administration.

For public-lands ranchers in the Owyhees, the writing was on the wall. In the face of successful litigation by Western Watersheds Project (WWP) and the Committee for the High Desert (CHD) to reduce cattle numbers in the area, plus drought and poor cattle prices, ranchers were highly motivated to improve their situation. They called on Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, who promised support for whatever consensus proposal for the Owyhees the ranchers and others could come up with. Specifically barred from the OI discussions were WWP and CHD, the two groups that had successfully sued on grazing issues.

The OI group consisted of representatives of three environmental groups, ranchers, off-road vehicle enthusiasts, outfitters, and Owyhee County. The OI’s stated goal was: …to develop and implement a landscape-scale program in Owyhee County that preserves the natural processes that create and maintain a functioning, un-fragmented landscape supporting and sustaining a flourishing community of human, plant, and animal life, that provides for economic stability by preserving livestock grazing as an economically viable use, and that provides for the protection of cultural resources.

As of this writing, legislative language has not been made publicly available, but the final agreement was released in November 2004 and the legislation is expected to implement the agreement by ordering its ratification. The agreement can be found at http://www.owyheeinitiative.org, and all references here are to that document.

A Ranching Oligarchy
Like the Steens, the OI creates a management oversight structure, but it goes far beyond the earlier project. The OI creates a Board of Directors, a Science Review Panel, and a Science Center as apparatus for Owyhee oversight and planning.

Board of Directors: Legislation would provide for permanent membership of specific nonprofit corporations, businesses, and special interest groups—the OI negotiators, in fact— to oversee all lands in Owyhee County, including 3.8 million acres of public lands and all of the Wilderness (OI at 2). Some proponents assert that this body will be advisory only, but have variously termed it a “stewardship group” and a “resource management body.” In reality, it could wield overweening power and influence over public land decisions. The OI cattlemen’s representative has publicly stated that the Board of Directors will be “King.” 19 Science Review Panel: This provision is an effort to push livestock-friendly science that will in turn be used to thwart changes in BLM grazing management needed to protect livestock-polluted waters and damaged public
lands. This process is to be overseen by the OI Board of Directors and will involve the University of Idaho—an institution that, like many western land grant schools, is known for partiality to commodity interests and susceptibility to political pressure.

The OI allows even preliminary documentation used in a BLM grazing decisionmaking processes to be subject to separate review (OI at 3). It lists “elements of science review” that, when applied to management actions on public wild lands, will allow almost any BLM proposal to be found deficient. The OI Board of Directors,comprised largely of non-scientists, will decide if a review is merited in the first place (OI at 5-6). This review at every step of the BLM’s multi-stage grazing-decision process will slow down the process, give the agency cold feet, and ultimately slant the decisions. Ranchers will also be able to use information from the OI taxpayerfunded science review in legal appeals of (taxpayer-funded) BLM decisions.

Science Center: The Board will oversee a Science Center that will provide a vehicle for taxpayer subsidies to fund vegetation “treatment” and other development- and livestock-oriented projects. The Science Center will be interjected into monitoring the condition of public lands, and other key functions of BLM livestock grazing and public lands administration. Science Center monitoring will focus on assessing “trends in landscape function and integrity” and “within wilderness designations … compliance with recreational vehicle access, range condition and trend, wildfire impacts, the status of invasive species and noxious weeds and the status and impact of predatory species.” (OI at 6).

Mention of “predatory species” is indicative of part of the OI agenda. Owyhee ranchers have vigorously promoted two separate “research” projects, to be conducted by the federal Wildlife Services, aimed at killing predators of sage grouse.20 By blaming predators for species declines, ranchers hope to create a diversion from the need to improve cattle-damaged habitat in Owyhee County. (OI at 6).

Under the OI, ranchers who have damaged public lands will be rewarded for their harmful grazing practices. A “forage reserve program” (also called grassbanking) would be set up through the Science Center to secure “alternative forage” for ranchers whose abusive grazing practices have damaged public lands. They would be provided with forage and areas to graze livestock while the public lands that they have damaged are being “treated” and rested for recovery (OI at 7 and 20).

The creation of these structures, which will be maintained at federal taxpayer expense, essentially elevates local control and privatizes management of the Owyhees. 21 In effect, a separate management structure would be set up to conduct the activities/functions of BLM.

Public lands livestock grazing is not economically viable without massive support from taxpayers. Grazing fees paid by ranchers are extremely low—under $2.00 per month for each cow grazed—and BLM’s administration costs for grazing permits average 5 to 6 times the amount received in grazing fees. In the Owyhee, where extensive livestock riparian and upland grazing degradation exists, BLM costs to manage the County’s fewer than 100 public lands ranchers’ livestock use may be much greater, and the new control seized by ranchers under the OI will only increase these costs.

Habitat vs. Scenery
The 1999 Idaho Citizens Wilderness proposal identified 1.3 million acres of potential Wilderness in the Owyhees. In 2000, a 2.7 million landscape was included in a National Monument Proposal. By 2003, Sierra Club inventories had found 1.6 million acres of Wilderness-worthy lands. The OI ignores and weakens protection for much of the area, calling for the designation of just 511,000 acres of wilderness. The proposal also releases WSAs critical to the long-term survival of sage grouse populations; ignores over one million acres of wilderness-suitable lands, leaving them vulnerable to intrusions and habitat fragmentation from future livestock developments and vegetation; shaves off portions of WSAs for livestock projects; and cherrypicks the most visually impressive lands as Wilderness.

For example, important sage grouse habitats in the Sheep Creek East and Sheep Creek West WSAs are slated for release in their entirety, along with large parts of the Bruneau-Sheep Creek WSA. Sagebrush habitats in the Jarbidge have become so fragmented that even very small patches of sagebrush are critical to the persistence of sage grouse populations there.22 Parts of WSAs to be released there contain some of the only areas of native vegetation that remain in the “better” condition category.

There are currently 700,000 acres of WSAs in the Owyhees. The OI would release 200,000 acres of WSAs from interim protection, under the justification that these areas were “non-recommended” for wilderness by BLM. The notoriously unscientific BLM wilderness inventory process dropped sagebrush lands from consideration for such spurious reasons as “ lack of visitor screening” and claims that they engendered “a feeling of monotony.” The BLM also dubbed as “nonrecommended” less rugged places where ranchers hoped for future development and expanded grazing.

Deviant Wilderness Provisions
While initially claiming to conform to the Wilderness Act and congressional guidance,24 the OI makes significant concessions to livestock and other interests. Wilderness management is to follow the “requirements, policies and guidance” of the Wilderness Act, but also “subsequent legislation to establish wilderness in Owyhee County”—presumably, the legislation that will codify the Owyhee agreement. The OI not only contains several harmful and controversial provisions gleaned from other wilderness bills, but its appendices incorporate very detailed provisions regarding grazing, juniper management, access, fire management, military activities,
outfitting, and other activities that undermine intrinsic qualities of wilderness.

The OI plan allows livestock projects constructed outside wilderness to “incidentally” increase livestock use inside wilderness. Projects are not required to protect or enhance wilderness values, nor must it be shown that there will be no significant adverse impacts. Increased cattle use in ecologically compromised wilderness is allowed if “new, improved or replaced structures, facilities or other range improvement actions maintain or improve wilderness values.” New projects would have only to maintain a degraded status quo to allow increased cattle numbers.

The OI would extend the use of motorized equipment inside wilderness to “customary” activities, including the herding of livestock. While congressional guidelines allow motorized use if there are no practical alternatives and there would be no significant adverse effect, the OI grants ranchers virtually unlimited access, including cross-country through the wilderness.

The very configuration of the OI wilderness facilitates access, as 40 percent of the proposed OI wilderness lies within one mile of a road. Inside the proposed wilderness areas, many cherry-stem roads and even a through road would remain open. Only 400 acres of the Owyhee wilderness would lie more than 4 or 5 miles from a road.25

The OI does not merely grandfather existing military uses of the land and airspace, but states the intention that wilderness designation “will not affect military training in the area,” and goes so far as to refer to “wilderness compatible ground and air operations” (OI at 23). If the Air Force seeks future expansion or altered uses, such language will make it much more difficult to protect wilderness lands from these intrusions. The OI repeatedly refers to the application of “proper grazing management” across the landscape, including the Wilderness areas (OI at 11). In other contexts, Owyhee ranchers have used the same term to promote maximizing livestock use, and under the OI concept of “proper grazing management” there is no requirement to improve degraded areas, only to maintain them at the same level of degradation.

One provision would serve to alter new livestock grazing decisions, standards of use, and reductions in stocking rates recently implemented by BLM after litigation by WWP and CHD. The OI states that allotments containing wilderness will have “new opportunities to implement proper grazing management,” and opens the door to modifying the “manner and degree of grazing use” —i.e., increasing grazing.

Large areas of the Canyonlands are already intensively grazed, but
the OI would facilitate more of the same under the rubric of
"proper grazing management." Photo: WWP
The OI proposes to remove protective designations such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern or protective provisions of Land Use Plans, referred to as “constraints of overlapping management.”26

The proposal includes some livestock-free areas. The wilderness acreage summary on the website shows 32,801 acres, while the map depicts more parcels. These areas would be small and scattered, rather than large blocks ofpublic lands, and extensive new fencing would be necessary to exclude cattle.

The OI specifically allows the construction of new fences along boundaries or within Wilderness to exclude livestock from cow-free areas—but fences cause direct mortality of species like sage grouse and raptors who fly into them. They also concentrate livestock use, lead to weed infestation, and otherwise fragment habitat and mar wild lands.

“Reduced grazing areas” are proposed, where some grazing permittees will be bought out and others remain. While stocking rates may be reduced, livestock facilities and harmful practices such as predator killing may continue to support the remaining livestock. In addition, since the same limits of livestock forage use generally apply on all grazing permits on an allotment, the permittees that remain on the “reduced grazing areas” may simply use the forage previously consumed by the bought-out permittee’s livestock.

While conservationists participating in the OI may wish to distance themselves from these directives, that wilderness be chattel to grazing is an essential part of the ranchers’ expectations. The OI structure and the cattlemen’s close ties to politicians virtually ensure their fulfillment.

Shredding the Sagebrush Sea
The West’s sagebrush wild lands have long been viewed as a throwaway landscape, managed for commodity production under fallacies promoted by the livestock industry and many range professionals. Anti-sagebrush, myth-based management has been pervasive.27 Virtually all sagebrush wild lands are grazed,28 resulting in altered species composition and structure, and disruption of ecosystem functioning.29 There is now widespread recognition of the spiraling loss, fragmentation, and endangerment of sagebrush habitats. 30, 31

Characterized by bunchgrasses, forbs and shrubs with soil interspaces of microbiotic crusts, the sagebrush ecosystem did not evolve with herds of large, hoofed ungulates.32 The current vegetation originated in the Pleistocene, with little grazing by large native herbivores, and bison scarce in the intermountain region.

“The vegetation of the pristine sagebrush/grasslands was relatively simple and extraordinarily
susceptible to disturbance ... the native vegetation lacked the resilience, depth, and plasticity to cope with concentrations of large herbivores. The plant communities did not bend to adapt; they shattered. This tends to make the review of grazing in the sagebrush/grasslands a horror story, resplendent with examples of what should not have been done.” 33

Habitat fragmentation proceeds at multiple levels, so that even where a veneer of sagebrush remains, livestock may have removed or simplified critical habitat components for native animals. For example, sagebrush broken and battered by livestock loses the structural complexity of overhead cover required by pygmy rabbits.34,35 Livestock degradation sets the stage for irreversible change. Native bunchgrasses are weakened and killed by the chronic effects of livestock grazing. Microbiotic crusts that fix nitrogen, protect against erosion, and
help exclude weeds are destroyed by trampling. Alien annual cheatgrass and other weeds invade depletedunderstories. Livestock facilitate weed dispersal, transporting seeds in fur, mud, and dung. 36

Cheatgrass produces continuous fine fuels, so that fires flash across the landscape. Larger and larger areas burn more frequently and uniformly, leaving fewer unburned patches. As this phenomenon accelerates, the landscape is converted to annual grassland. Remaining sagebrush habitat patches become smaller; species disappear. This destructive transformation is visible today across southern Idaho and is now creeping into the Owyhee
Canyonlands.37

The OI plan would accelerate this multi-layered fragmentation, both by sanctioning, even elevating, existing grazing and by facilitating more livestock-related developments and management schemes. Fences concentrate livestock, allowing more uniform degradation and new zones of heavy disturbance. Livestock water developments dig into the heart of wild springs, disrupt stratigraphy, remove water, and may cause springs to dry up. Pipelines ripped outward across the sagebrush extend chronic grazing degradation and weeds into the few remnant islands of pristine sagebrush that may remain. Roads to salt sites, pipeline routes, and fence lines become conduits for weed spread,38 and create new travel corridors for nest predators.39,40

Perpetuating the Damage
The OI would allow large-scale manipulations of vegetation, including inside the wilderness, and removing mature and old-growth western juniper and re-seeding with non-native species after wild fire or fire treatment. The OI claims it would restore lands “to their natural condition” by introducing fire to the ecosystem. Yet the proposal does not address the fact that livestock grazing is a major and continuing cause of altered fire cycles, understory loss, and juniper expansion,41,42 or that burned and grazed juniper sites in the Owyhees are being invaded by cheatgrass and medusahead.

In some areas, soil erosion and depletion of the understory and other grazing-related impacts have so altered site characteristics that they are now dominated by juniper. While western juniper communities are critical habitats for many species of native wildlife in the Owyhees, the OI proposes that, with the exception of a few study sites, “all remaining areas of juniper woodland occupying other habitat types both within and outside of designated wilderness will be considered for treatment and restoration of native habitat.” 43

Magnificent ancient, even pre-Columbian, junipers are found on the flanks of Juniper Mountain. There, four WSAs—the labyrinthine canyons of Squaw Creek Canyon, and the Middle Fork Owyhee River, Big Willow Spring, and Red Canyon WSAs—are slated for release.

Following OI “treatments,” exotic plant species may be planted, including inside Wilderness (OI at 23).

Restoring and Rethinking
Protection of large core areas in the Canyonlands is necessary for landscape level conservation of sage grouse and other sagebrushobligate species.44 The sagebrush West needs large-scale, landscapelevel conservation focused on healing livestock-damaged lands, restoring habitat connectivity and protecting imperiled biological systems.45

Despite its billing as an innovation, the central accomplishment of the Owyhee Initiative would be to perpetuate and expand the supremacy of grazing in the Owyhee. Here and elsewhere across the sagebrush sea, the land cannot begin to mend, let alone be restored, until livestock grazing damage is ameliorated. That would be true innovation.

Of what value is Wilderness designation if the land is devoid of birdsong, robbed of its wildness by a monoculture of alien plants and bovine invaders?

Many of today’s wilderness advocates point to the acute urgency of gaining wilderness protection, and there is no denying that anti-wilderness sentiment dominates in the current government.46 Yet in our view, quid pro quo wilderness has such serious and far-reaching implications—in policy and on the ground—that the wisdom of further reinforcing these precedents must be examined sooner rather than later. Wilderness advocates could begin by reacquainting themselves with the cause of protecting all public lands, wilderness and non-wilderness alike, and with the less compromising methods of the past.

Janine Blaeloch is the director of the Seatlle-based Western Land Exchange Project. Katie Fite is the biodiversity director of the Western Watersheds Project, a group with offices in eight states.

Access this paper in a PDF format with more pictures and graphics at http://www.westlx.org/assets/quid-pro-quo.pdf

Footnotes
1 Authors’ email addresses are blaeloch@westlx.org and katie@westernwatersheds.org.

2 Some wilderness advocates have taken issue with our use of the term quid pro quo (Latin, “this for that”), protesting that it implies a payoff for their involvement in these proposals. The quid pro quo we refer to actually describes the stance of members of Congress who are determined that the “this” of wilderness will not be created without the “that” of land and water development concessions and special exceptions inside wilderness areas.

3 Negotiators included the Oregon Natural Desert Association, the Wilderness Society, and the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club.

4 Livestock grazing is an allowed use in Wilderness. The Steens bill created the first statutory cow-free Wilderness.

5 In the summer of 2004, the SMAC was deliberating whether to recommend that the BLM allow property owners to use snowmobiles in Wilderness to gain access to their inholdings. At the same time, the BLM granted motorized access to 4 entities with inholdings in the Steens, who would then have unlimited dry-weather access through 17 miles of Wilderness. Two environmental groups have appealed this decision.

6 Jerry Sutherland, SMAC member, speaking at the 40th Anniversary National Wilderness Conference, Lake George, New York, October 12, 2004.

7 Just four years earlier, Reid had gotten a bill passed that released 27,000 acres of federal land in the Valley for privatization and development. At the time, it was said the “disposal area” would accommodate twenty years’ worth of growth in Las Vegas.

8 Reid recently tried to get a bill through Congress that would give federal land away to create a heliport for tourist helicopters going to the Grand Canyon, an industry Reid has helped in other ways. The flight path from the new heliport would direct about 90 helicopter flights a day over the Sloan Canyon NCA and the North McCullough Wilderness Area, also designated in the Clark County bill. Conservationists were concerned that the helicopter traffic would damage the area’s petroglyphs, destroy solitude, and harm desert bighorn sheep.

9 http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/id02_simpson/Framework_CIEDRA.html, accessed February 7, 2005. The bill will have to be re-introduced in the 109th Congress.

10 Greg Stahl, “Boulder-White Cloud plan scrutinized,” Idaho Mountain Express, June 23, 2004.

11 The groups include Idaho Conservation League, The Nature Conservancy, and the Wilderness Society. The local chapter of the Sierra Club has come out strongly against the proposal.

12 Ken Olsen, “Deal in works to transfer public land to county in Idaho,” Salt Lake Tribune, June 23, 2003.

13 Western Land Exchange Project v. BLM. Environmental groups filed a challenge under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) against an earlier 13,500-acre land disposal in Lincoln County. The court found in the groups’ favor, and the BLM was required to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) before it could proceed to auction the land. However, the Lincoln County bill mandated that the land be put up for auction within 75 days of passage of the bill, rendering impossible the completion of the EIS. The auction was held on February 9, 2005.

14 Rick Johnson. Idaho Conservation League Leaders’ Update, June 23, 2003.

15 Brian O’Donnell of the Wilderness Society’s Wilderness Support Center, quoted in: Matt Jenkins, The wild card, High Country News, March 3, 2003.

16 George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch, quoted in: Ken Olsen, Preserve-grazing swap sought, Salt Lake Tribune, June 17, 2003.

17 The Federal Land Management & Policy Act (FLPMA), which established a public planning process through which the agencies decide which lands are “suitable for disposal” and which should be retained, is also frequently waived.

18 Lack of such consideration is currently posing a problem in North Las Vegas, where a 5,000-acre federal parcel slated for auction has been found to host two rare plant species and significant fossil sites. The BLM is recommending that the parcel be withheld from auction, which the city characterizes as a “nuclear bomb” that alters its growth plans. Sitro Negron. “BLM review creates snag in long-term growth plans. Las Vegas Sun, November 4, 2004.

19 Heughins, Russell. Personal communication to Janine Blaeloch, July 2, 2004. The statement was made by Chad Gibson, a retired county extension agent and consultant to the Owyhee Cattlemen, at the August 2003 meeting of the Lower Snake River District Bureau of Land Management Resource Advisory Council meeting.

20 Both predator-killing proposals were challenged in federal court, and neither went forward.

21 OI components and terminology are strikingly similar to the Federal Land Task Force proposal developed by the State of Idaho in an attempt to gain state and industry control of 11 million acres of National Forest lands to increase timber cutting. William G. Myers, former Bush Interior Solicitor, played a key role in development of the proposals. “Breaking the Gridlock: Federal Lands Pilot Projects in Idaho” and Appendices. State of Idaho. 2000.

22 Commons- Kemner, M.. Use of fragmented and disturbed habitats by sage grouse in eastern Owyhee County, Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Challenge Cost Share Project. 15 p. 2003

23 Projects are already on the drawing board. A recent BLM settlement of a grazing appeal specifically includes construction of a large livestock water pipeline in Little Jacks Creek WSA plateau lands to be released. The Settlement states, “This project is subject to final action to release the above public land within the Little Jacks Creek Wilderness Study Area”.

24 Grazing in National Forest Wilderness Areas, House Report No. 96-917.

25 http://www.owyheeinitiative.org/FAQs/index.htm

26 Ibid

27 Welch, B. and C. Criddle. 2003. Countering misinformation about big sagebrush. Research Paper RMRS-RP-40. USDA, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 28 p.

28 Knick, S. T., D. S. Dobkin, J. T. Rotenberry, M. A. Schroeder, W. M.Vander Haegen and C. V. Riper. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. Condor 105: 611-634.

29 Fleischner, T. L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation Biology 8:629-644.

30 Ricketts, T. H., E. Dinerstein, D. M. Olson, C. J. Loucks, W. Eichbaum, D. DellaSala, K. Kavanaugh, P. Hedao, P.T. Hurley, K. M. Carney, R. Abdell and S. Waters.Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: Conservation Assessment. Island Press. Washington, DC. 1999.

31 Knick et al. 2003.

32 Mack, R. N. and J. N. Thompson. 1982. Evolution in steppe with few large, hoofed mammals. American Naturalist 119:757-773.

33 Young, J. A.1994. History and use of semiarid plant communities–changes in vegetation. In S.B. Monsen and S.G. Kitchen, eds. Proceedings-ecology and management of annual rangelands. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. Citing Young, J. A. and Sparks, B. A. 1985. Cattle in the cold desert. Utah State University Press. Logan, UT. 233 p.

34 Katzner, T. E. and K. K. Parker. 1997. Vegetative structure and size of home ranges used by pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis)
during winter. Journal of Mammalogy. 78:1063-1072.

35 Federal Register. March 5, 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Final Rule to list the Columbia Basin Distinct Population Segment of the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) as endangered. Vol. 67, 135:46441-46450.

36 Belsky, A. J. and J. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock grazing and weed invasions in the arid west. Oregon Natural Desert Association. Bend,
OR.

37 Nowhere is the resulting demise of sagebrush more apparent than in the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, where the synergistic and cumulative impacts of grazing, fire, and military training have wrought ecological havoc. The NCA includes portions of Owyhee County.

38 Gelbard, J. L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits or exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17
(2): 420-432.

39 Braun, C. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? Proc. Western Assoc. State Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, 78.

40 Freilich, J. E., J. M. Emlen, J. J. Duda, D. C. Freeman and P. J. Cafaro. 2003. Ecological effects of ranching: a six-point critique.
BioScience 53(8): 759-765.

41 Belsky, A.J. 1996. Viewpoint on western juniper expansion: is it a threat to arid western ecosystems? J. Range Management. 49. 53-
59. www.onda.org .

42 Belsky, A. J. and D. M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and soils of upland forests of the Interior
West. Conservation Biology 11: 315-327.

43 http://www.owyheeinitiative.org/FAQs/appendices.htm#APPENDIXB

44 Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, M. A. Henstrom, W. J. Hann, M. G. Raphael, R. S. Holthausen, R. A. Gravemeier, and T. D. Rich. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia Basin: broad-sale trends and management implications. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-485.

45 Ricketts et al., 1999.

46 One wilderness proposal that has held on for the long haul is legislation for multi-state, bio-regional, science-based protection of wilderness under the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (HR 1105). The 20 million-acre bill was first introduced in 1992 and has had a steady increase in congressional sponsors since then. In Utah, America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, HR 1796, has also stuck around. The Utah Wilderness Coalition, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and others first saw the bill introduced in 1989 with 5
million acres to be protected. The proposal increased in size after statewide inventories were completed, and now stands at just over 9 million acres.

About Lowbagger.org