Click to review the actual Owyhee County Resource Plan

1. Prevention of setting of minimum in-stream flows

One of the advantages of having an employee state planning process with an active committee is that all members of the committee are constantly watching news and official sources as well as unofficial sources for items of vital interest. One member of the Owyhee CountyCommittee saw a small notice in the Idaho Statesman (a Boise newspaper which has very limited distribution in Owyhee County) announcing a meeting before the water board to discuss and set minimum stream flows in the Owyhee River. The issue of minimum stream flows was before the water board on a petition filed by Idaho Rivers United, a water conservationist group.

The notice gave limited time for preparation, but the committee and the Board of Commissioners sent a representative to object to the hearing because the county had not been advised in advance and had not been given adequate opportunity to prepare. In addition, the commissioners sent a letter to the Water Board complaining about the lack of notice and about the lack of coordination with the county. In response, the Water Board set a new hearing with substantial advance notice.

The committee discussed the issue and three members of the committee prepared themselves to appear before the Board and oppose the setting of minimum stream flows on the basis of failure to comply with the statutory burden of proof. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Water Board denied the petition and dismissed it. Had the planning process not been in place, no doubt the minimum stream flows would have been established, to the detriment of all farmers and ranchers who use water from the river as well as other counties in the immediate area.

2. Establishment of local sage grouse working group

The Idaho Fish & Game Commission, in concert with similar commissions through the western states, had developed a series of sage grouse “guidelines” which if implemented, would destroy the grazing industry in Owyhee Countyas well as other counties throughout southern Idaho. The Idaho Fish & Game Commission sent a notice to the Board of County Commissioners stating that local working groups would be established throughout the state to develop local plans for protecting sage grouse habitat.

The Board was requestedto nominate someone to serve on the local working group. Because the county planning process had been in place for so long, the Board advised Fish & Game that the Natural ResourcesCommittee should become the focal point for development of the local working group. The county also contended that a local working group plan should be consistent with the county plan because of the involvement of federal agencies, such as Fish & Wildlife and the BLM, in sage grouse rehabilitation.

The county maintained pressure on Fish & Game until finally Fish & Game signed a memorandum of understanding with the county agreeing that the local working group be a sub-committee of the Natural Resources Committee and that the sage grouse local plan would be consistent with and become part of the Owyhee County plan. As a result, the local working group plan for sage grouse for Owyhee County is the only plan in southern Idaho, which was fully developed without identifying grazing as the main enemy of the sage grouse. The local plan is an example of the type of plan that can be developed that looks at the real issues instead of simply focusing on an anti-grazing agenda.

3. Local involvement in development of TMDLs

The Department of EnvironmentalQuality of Idaho established local and regional groups for providing local input into development of a TMDL plan. The WAG (Watershed Advisory Group) included the nominations submitted to DEQ by the Natural ResourcesCommittee. The format for development of the plan used by DEQ did not provide any real local input from the WAG, but was designed simply to have WAG members comment on the draft plan when completed by the department. Thus, agency personnel would have prepared the draft plan.

The WAG members, well trained in the planning process in the county, objected to this process and requested that the Board of Commissioners insist upon involvement in the actual writing of the plan. The state director of DEQ and the regional director in charge of TMDL planning appeared before the Board of Commissioners. Before the meeting ended, the state director agreed that because of the long planning experience in Owyhee County, members of the WAG had sufficient expertise and involvement to participate in development of the plan.

Thus the draft of the plan was withdrawn, the WAG comments were considered, members of the WAG met with DEQ staff and the draft plan was revised to include the comments and input provided by the county. None of this would have been possible without the planning process in place in the county.

4. Successful coordination of species research

When conservation groups began to exert pressure for the listing of the spotted frog, particularly in Owyhee County, the BLMbegan research to identify the location and population of the spotted frog. Their research was conducted mainly in the desert areas upon which BLM grazing is located. Because of the existence of the Natural Resources Committee and the planning process, US Fish & Wildlife was aware of the county’s involvement in planning. They had become aware of the county’s involvement during the litigation involving the Bruneau Hot Springs Snail.

A representative of Fish & Wildlife contacted the chairman of the board of county commissioners to request assistance of the county in obtaining research information as to the location of the spotted frogs. The federal representative was referred to the Natural Resources Committee. His presentation to the committee was that Fish & Wildlife knew that if the frogs were to be found, they were to be found in the higher elevations in the county where there were sufficient streams on private land to provide the most desirable habitat.

The Natural Resources Committee scheduled a meeting of the ranchers in the area and invited Fish & Wildlife representative to speak to the ranchers who owned the private property in question. Fish & Wildlife believed that they would find sufficient population of the frog and sufficient suitable habitat for them to avoid a listing. The ranchers cooperated because of the involvement of the Natural Resources Committee, and Fish & Wildlife did, in fact, find suitable habitat and sufficient numbers of the frogs to cause them not to list the frog.

To this day, the BLM continues its search for frogs and continues its emphasis on the special status of the frogs even though Fish & Wildlife did not list the frog. The planning process provided facilitation to the federal agency to coordinate its activities with the county and conduct research essential to a non-listing. As a result, no federal management restrictions are available on grazing allotments to the BLM because of frog habitat or lack thereof.

5. County involvement in BLM planning for the Birds of Prey area

Located in Owyhee Countys the National Birds of Prey area, which is a special-use area set aside for preservation and protection of identified birds of prey such as hawks, falcons and eagles. In the early development stages of the activities of the Natural ResourcesCommittee, the BLM issued amendments to the Birds of Prey land-use plan. The amendments to the plan were drafted by the BLM without local input and then submitted to the general public for comment.

One of the troublesome provisions of the draft plan was a closing of a strategic road on the Owyhee county side of the river in the Birds of Prey area. A road along the Elmore County side of the river directly across from the Owyhee County road was also closed. The rationale for closing the roads was to prevent damage to archeological drawings and writings in the rock formations along the road. The Natural Resources Committee protested the issuance of the draft to the general public without having involved the county through the coordination duties of the BLM. Acting on the recommendation of the Natural Resources Committee, the Board of Commissioners protested the issuance of the plan for public comment to the BLM.

After two conferences with the manager of the Birds of Prey area and the resource area in which the Birds of Prey is situated, the county was able to justify its position that the coordination requirements of the federal statutes had been violated. As a result, the BLM withdrew the plan and requestedcomments from the county. The committee made recommendations to the Board and those recommendations were made to the BLM. After a meeting at which the recommendations were discussed, the BLM agreed with the county that it was unnecessary to close the Owyhee County road.

As a result, the final draft of the plan closed the road on the Elmore County side of the river, but not on the Owyhee County side. This change, which was critical to sportsman and to those ranchers who needed access along the Owyhee County road to their pumps, occurred because the planning process was in place and allowed the county a tool to effectively counter BLM’s decision.

6. The county successfully required to coordinate establishment of wildlife exclosures

When a new resource manager came into the Bruneau resource area within the county, she issued for general public comment proposed decisions, which would establish certain enclaves for wildlife exclosure throughout the Bruneau resource area. These proposals were based upon Fish & Game Commission recommendations, which had never been reviewed with the county or with the ranchers involved.

The Natural Resources Committee opposed the proposals and the county commissioners, acting on that recommendation, called for the BLMto withdraw them until the coordination requirements of the statute had been met. The resource manager met with the board of county commissioners, the commissioners pointed out the coordination requirements of FLPMAand after review of those provisions, the resource manager withdrew the proposals and then went on a series of tours throughout the resource area discussing with the ranchers the Fish & Game proposals. The result was little or no conflict with grazing activities.

7. Successful contest of hunting restrictions in the county

Idaho Fish & Game department proposed a restriction on deer hunting in Owyhee Countyfor the year 2001 which would have allowed only bow hunting. The deer-hunting season in Owyhee County is an important season to hunters and particularly to hunters who are also residents of the county. The Natural ResourcesCommittee studied the proposal by Fish & Game and countered it with objections to limiting the hunting season to bow hunting. The committee members appeared and testified at a public hearing held by Fish & Game and, based upon the many presentations made by the committee on behalf of sportsmen as well as ranchers, Fish & Game abandoned its proposal to so restrict hunting.

8. Participation by county in an appeal of grazing decision helps attain range improvements

Permitees of the Hardtrigger allotment in Owyhee Countyfiled an appeal from a decision, which would have reduced their grazing by 30-40%. The county also appealed the decision on the basis that it would have adverse impact on the county’s environment and the county’s planning process. Both the permitees and the county requested a stay of the decision, and an administrative judge granted the stay.

Being unable to show any range improvements in the resource area because of other pending litigation, the BLMexercised its coordination responsibility under FLPMAto approach the county to discuss releasing the stay in order to allow range improvements. The permitees had no objection but were not in any position to afford legal representation in negotiating the release of the stay. The county, through its planning process, negotiated the release and the language of the release. As a result, while the stay is still in place as to those elements that would reduce grazing, range improvements were specifically excluded from the stay and on that allotment the only improvements for water development and fencing were accomplished during the year 2001.

Read other successes:

Modoc County, California

Wallowa County, Oregon

Grays Harbor County, Washington

Last Updated 05/30/2007