Elko wildlife advisory board backs Cortez desert bighorn reintroduction, asks BLM and NDOW to secure permittee assurances

The Elko County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife voted to support a Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) plan to reestablish desert bighorn sheep in the Cortez Mountains, provided the Bureau of Land Management and NDOW work with local permittees to secure assurances that the reintroduction will not adversely affect permitted grazing operations.

NDOW officials told the board the move is being pushed by an emergency drought situation affecting a source herd in southern Nevada and by briefings and planning that have been underway for several years. "We're going into four weeks of emergency water hauls every day," NDOW staffer Scott Roberts said, describing the department's immediate response to prolonged dry conditions in the source herd area.

Board members, permittees and local residents raised concerns about grazing AUMs, private water rights, wildfire risk and the practical effects on ranch operations if sheep use overlaps private allotments or springs. Ranchers including Sabrina Reed and Carl Sligosky said they were surprised by recent notices and asked for written, enforceable protections. Reed said permittees in Pine Valley "were not contacted about this preliminary idea prior to the letter we all received recently" and described local water and fire risks.

Why it matters: NDOW described the situation as urgent — drought conditions in the source herd have prompted officials to accelerate a previously planned transplant. NDOW said it now aims to move a larger group than originally planned (the department described earlier plans for an initial 25-sheep release, with the emergency proposal raising that to about 60 sheep) and estimated the immediate effort could cost roughly $800,000, including water-hauling and staff/volunteer time.

What NDOW said: Deputy Director Caleb McAdoo said NDOW has sought broad outreach and "developed voluntary cooperative agreements" to address permittee concerns, including hold-harmless language for landowners if sheep wander off public lands. McAdoo also noted the department has coordinated with mining interests and other potentially affected groups. He framed the action as part of longstanding statewide bighorn management and said NDOW sees the transplant as one of several tools to avoid a large-scale die-off on the source range.

Permittees' concerns: Multiple ranchers questioned whether the range has the wintering habitat and water for a newly established herd, and whether the BLM's Resource Management Plan (RMP) — some speakers said dates to the 1980s — accurately reflects current conditions. Ranchers noted suspended AUMs and private spring rights, and urged legally binding assurances. Carl Sligosky and Ray Bailey stressed suspended AUMs carried from the 1960s and that private springs and adjudicated water are in local hands.

Public comment and stakeholder views: Local conservation groups and bighorn advocacy organizations spoke in favor. Lydia Teal of Nevada Bighorns Unlimited said reintroductions are a proven conservation strategy and urged cooperation among stakeholders. Mark Self of HILCO Bighorns said his group also supports the transplant. On the other side, several Pine Valley permittees and ranchers voiced opposition or asked for stronger written protections before any action.

Technical and management details provided at the meeting: NDOW staff said they plan to collar many adult sheep to monitor movements — "we would hope to have close to all of the ewes collared," Scott Roberts said — but noted collar availability and budgets limit exact numbers. Officials said capture and release would most likely occur between now and June if permitting and planning allow, and that some animals might be moved to other states (Utah was mentioned as a potential recipient). NDOW also described predator control and other post-release management as part of its planning.

Board action: The advisory board circulated and adopted a motion conditioned on the BLM and NDOW working with permittees. The motion, moved by Joel McConnell and seconded by a board member identified as Justin, called for support of the relocation "if BLM and NDOW work with permittees to provide assurances that there will not be any adverse impact" to permittees or their allotments. The chair voted aye and the motion passed.

What happens next: NDOW staff said they will continue outreach and are prepared to pursue either a categorical exclusion (CX) through BLM procedures or an environmental assessment if required; the CX route is the faster administrative path but the department said the timeline is tight. Officials encouraged permittees and stakeholders to continue direct dialogue with NDOW.

The board's action is a conditional, advisory expression of support; formal authority over grazing permits and final NEPA decisions rests with the BLM and other agencies. NDOW said it will return to affected groups as planning progresses.