The founder of Western Watersheds Project, a Hailey-based organization that seeks to end grazing on public lands in the West, has been cited by the Bureau of Land Management for allegedly providing a false statement on a grazing permit application.
As a result of the alleged violation, the BLM has proposed canceling the permit, which covers three grazing allotments tied to property near Clayton.
The nonprofit conservation group was originally founded by Jon Marvel in 1993 to bid for expiring grazing leases on Idaho state school endowment lands.
Groups that represent ranchers say the development marks the unraveling of Western Watersheds.
The organization has been so successful in its efforts to curtail public lands grazing that many ranchers refer to Marvel as “the most hated man in the West.”
“This could unravel everything they’ve done over the past 15 years,” said Jake Putnam, broadcast services manager for Idaho Farm Bureau Federation.
Western Watersheds attorney Laird Lucas said the claims by the BLM and ranching groups are false and defamatory.
“We are vigorously contending it,” Lucas said of the violation notice and proposed cancellation of the grazing allotments. “There have been no false statements. This is simply and flatly false.”
According to BLM documents faxed to the Journal Monday, the BLM’s Challis office issued violation notices to Marvel and Gordon Younger, who contributes to Western Watersheds and holds Valley Sun LLC, which obtained the grazing permit in question.
The violation notices allege Valley Sun made a false statement on its grazing application by claiming it was in the process of acquiring livestock for the grazing allotments, even though it had no intention of doing so.
The BLM claimed evidence to back up these claims was contained on WWP’s Web site as well as the group’s own newsletter, The Watersheds Messenger.
According to the BLM documents, Valley Sun turned over day-to-day operations of the allotments to Western Watersheds. In a letter from David Rosenkrance, field manager of the BLM’s Challis office, the agency has proposed to cancel the permit because Valley Sun showed no indication it planned to use the permit for livestock grazing; it has removed all livestock handling facilities from the property; and it has not maintained range improvements.
“Valley Sun LLC and WWP have provided BLM with baffling, contradictory and apparently false statements,” the letter stated.
“There are livestock auctions every week in Blackfoot,” said Blackfoot rancher Jennifer Ellis, past president of the Idaho Cattle Association. “It’s not that hard to acquire livestock.”
Lucas, who also represents Younger and Valley Sun, said everyone has known all along Western Watersheds is a conservation group opposed to public lands grazing that seeks to restore these lands “and we made that very clear to the BLM.”
“We never claimed we were ranchers or were going to get into the cattle business,” he added.
He said the recent violation notices are an attempt by ranching groups to use the BLM to pry the land from the conservation group and use it for their own purposes.
“The BLM is doing the bidding of the ranchers,” Lucas said.
The BLM controls federal grazing permits, while the Idaho Department of Lands’ Idaho Land Board controls grazing permits on Idaho endowment fund land, which is used to benefit public schools and other beneficiaries. The IDL controls 1,207 grazing leases covering 1,783,813 acres.
Ranchers hope this development could lead the land board to rethink new rules it is writing that would allow groups such as Western Watersheds to bid on state grazing leases for conservation purposes.
Ellis said ranchers would like to see future bid applications include a section that asks, “Have you ever been convicted of lying to obtain a grazing permit?” If that wording were included, she said, it could preclude Western Watersheds from bidding on state grazing leases in the future if it is ultimately found guilty of the violation.
Lazy Y Ranch, an LLC set up by Younger, recently won a federal lawsuit against state land board officials who awarded grazing leases to ranchers over environmental groups that offered more money.
A federal court ruled the state violated the civil rights of Younger by not allowing him to bid for grazing leases. The court ruled the Idaho Constitution requires the land board to secure the maximum financial return on the state’s grazing land to benefit public schools.
As part of the suit, the Idaho Land Board agreed to rewrite its rules to allow conservation groups to compete for leases on state endowment lands. The 2010 Legislature still has to approve those rules.
Western Watersheds officials estimate their organization holds more than 4,000 acres in school endowment land leases that are being managed for wildlife habitat and conservation purposes.
Putnam said the hope among ranchers is that the recent BLM violations could change how the land board awards grazing leases. The land board, which consists of the governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state controller, and superintendent of public instruction, next meets March 16.
George Bacon, director of the Idaho Department of Lands and secretary to the land board, said the issue of the BLM violations is not on the board’s March 16 agenda, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be added.
“We have to see how all this unfolds with the BLM,” Bacon said. “I think it will take awhile to get to the bottom of what happened.”
“This raises a number of questions and concerns, and we plan on working through all of those as we proceed forward,” said Jon Hanian, spokesman for Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter.
Lucas said the previous system of grazing on state lands has been losing money for Idaho for many years. If the state can make more money by leasing the land to conservation groups, “It makes perfect sense.”
He expects Western Watersheds and Younger to ultimately prevail when all the facts come forth.
“We don’t play fast and loose with the law like they do,” he said. “I expect us to prevail in the end.”
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Gov. Richardson signs bill to allow conservation easements
A new law will allow the state to acquire conservation easements from farmers, ranchers and other landowners to ensure that the property is not developed.
Gov. Bill Richardson on Monday signed legislation into law that supporters say can help protect land in New Mexico, improve wildlife habitat and provide for open space for communities or recreation.
"New Mexicans want their land preserved. They are committed to conservation, to wildlife," Richardson said at a news conference at ranch south of Santa Fe, which is protected by a conservation easement with a nonprofit group. The agreement prevents the ranch from being broken up into smaller parcels for real estate development.
The new law, which takes effect May 19, also establishes a fund for the state to make grants for conservation and land restoration projects. The legislation was approved by lawmakers during a 30-day session, which ended in February.
Lawmakers allocated $5 million for conservation easements during a special session of the Legislature, which ended last week.
Despite the state's current financial problems, House Speaker Ben Lujan, D-Santa Fe, said it was important to earmark money for land conservation.
"If we don't do it now, when? Do we do it when all the land is gone?" Lujan said at the news conference with Richardson.
With a conservation easement, landowners can enter into an agreement with the state to ensure there's no development on the land. The individual will continue to own the property, however, and the conservation easement will apply to those who buy or inherit the property in the future. The new law does not allow the state to buy the land, however.
"Protection of New Mexico's conservation heritage makes good economic sense. As New Mexico's population expands, the value of our wildlife resources are increasingly being appreciated and recognized as a major economic and renewable resource," Karyn Stockdale, executive director for Audubon New Mexico, said in a statement. "The Natural Heritage Conservation Act is not only protecting our natural lands, it is investing in New Mexico's long-term economic future, a win-win scenario for all involved."
Gov. Bill Richardson on Monday signed legislation into law that supporters say can help protect land in New Mexico, improve wildlife habitat and provide for open space for communities or recreation.
"New Mexicans want their land preserved. They are committed to conservation, to wildlife," Richardson said at a news conference at ranch south of Santa Fe, which is protected by a conservation easement with a nonprofit group. The agreement prevents the ranch from being broken up into smaller parcels for real estate development.
The new law, which takes effect May 19, also establishes a fund for the state to make grants for conservation and land restoration projects. The legislation was approved by lawmakers during a 30-day session, which ended in February.
Lawmakers allocated $5 million for conservation easements during a special session of the Legislature, which ended last week.
Despite the state's current financial problems, House Speaker Ben Lujan, D-Santa Fe, said it was important to earmark money for land conservation.
"If we don't do it now, when? Do we do it when all the land is gone?" Lujan said at the news conference with Richardson.
With a conservation easement, landowners can enter into an agreement with the state to ensure there's no development on the land. The individual will continue to own the property, however, and the conservation easement will apply to those who buy or inherit the property in the future. The new law does not allow the state to buy the land, however.
"Protection of New Mexico's conservation heritage makes good economic sense. As New Mexico's population expands, the value of our wildlife resources are increasingly being appreciated and recognized as a major economic and renewable resource," Karyn Stockdale, executive director for Audubon New Mexico, said in a statement. "The Natural Heritage Conservation Act is not only protecting our natural lands, it is investing in New Mexico's long-term economic future, a win-win scenario for all involved."
Friday, March 5, 2010
Westerners grouse over more proposed land restrictions
Congressional Western Caucus members are squawking about Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s proposal to further restrict public use of federal lands by listing the Greater Sage Grouse as an endangered species.
“The only good place for a sage grouse to be listed is on the menu of a French bistro,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-UT, whose 3rd District would be adversely affected by the listing.
An estimated 500,000 of the birds can be found in 11 Western states. In a March 4 letter to Salazar, 36 caucus members said that listing the grouse as endangered would not only have a “severe impact on all of our states,” it could also “potentially destroy opportunities for the renewable energy development the [Obama] administration has ardently supported” – all for a bird that’s already being successfully protected by wildlife officials at the state level.
But the Obama administration is under great political pressure to list the sage grouse as endangered. Even before the president was inaugurated, environmentalists were calling the bird “a poster child for the threats to wildlife posed by oil and gas drilling, “ and the endangered designation “a litmus test for the Obama administration.”
The economic impact of an endangered listing would fall most heavily on ranchers and energy producers, who feel doubly threatened by another administration proposal to designate millions of acres of federal land in nine states as national monuments, which would put them off-limits for drilling, mining, grazing, lumbering and any other commercial activity.
Salazar told angry Westerners that what they’re calling a federal land grab is just in the “brainstorming” stage, and promised not to repeat the Clinton administration’s designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah after reassuring the locals that no such plans were in the works. Many ranching and mining operations were permanently locked out of the area as a result.
This time, state lawmakers in Utah are taking no chances. They’ve introduced legislation allowing state officials to seize federal land by eminent domain in hopes of an eventual constitutional showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The only good place for a sage grouse to be listed is on the menu of a French bistro,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-UT, whose 3rd District would be adversely affected by the listing.
An estimated 500,000 of the birds can be found in 11 Western states. In a March 4 letter to Salazar, 36 caucus members said that listing the grouse as endangered would not only have a “severe impact on all of our states,” it could also “potentially destroy opportunities for the renewable energy development the [Obama] administration has ardently supported” – all for a bird that’s already being successfully protected by wildlife officials at the state level.
But the Obama administration is under great political pressure to list the sage grouse as endangered. Even before the president was inaugurated, environmentalists were calling the bird “a poster child for the threats to wildlife posed by oil and gas drilling, “ and the endangered designation “a litmus test for the Obama administration.”
The economic impact of an endangered listing would fall most heavily on ranchers and energy producers, who feel doubly threatened by another administration proposal to designate millions of acres of federal land in nine states as national monuments, which would put them off-limits for drilling, mining, grazing, lumbering and any other commercial activity.
Salazar told angry Westerners that what they’re calling a federal land grab is just in the “brainstorming” stage, and promised not to repeat the Clinton administration’s designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah after reassuring the locals that no such plans were in the works. Many ranching and mining operations were permanently locked out of the area as a result.
This time, state lawmakers in Utah are taking no chances. They’ve introduced legislation allowing state officials to seize federal land by eminent domain in hopes of an eventual constitutional showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sage grouse will get limited protection
Federal authorities today embarked on a compromise effort to protect the sage grouse as a "candidate" species under the Endangered Species Act.
Short of designating the sage grouse as threatened or endangered, the compromise crafted by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar embraced the latest science indicating that grouse need help to avoid extinction in the face of energy development, grazing and house-building.
This approach "gives an open window" of "several years" for public and private land users to take action "making sure the grouse doesn't have to be put on the endangered species list," Salazar said. "We believe we can do that."
Hunting grouse in Colorado and other western states will still be allowed. At the same time, energy companies poised to drill in sensitive areas may face new restrictions and are on notice that protections for the grouse in the future could one day force industry relocation.
"The sage grouse's decline reflects the extent to which open land in the West has been developed in the last century," Salazar said in a statement before his announcement.
"This development has provided important benefits, but we must find common-sense ways of protecting, restoring, and reconnecting the Western lands that are most important to the species' survival while responsibly developing much-needed energy resources."
A chicken-size forager found in eleven western states, the sage grouse depends on sagebrush steppe for food and protection. But its habitat overlaps the nation's prime energy development territory in Colorado, Utah, Montana and Wyoming.
As developers cleared sagebrush, grouse that once numbered in the millions declined. Since 1985, grouse populations have decreased by more than 30 percent, federal biologists said, with only 89,000 males counted in a 2007 survey across the eleven states.
In Colorado, the latest count found 3,344 males, Colorado Division of Wildlife spokesman Tyler Baskfield said. Colorado offers about 3.6 million acres of sagebrush habitat - 53 percent on public lands and 47 percent private, Baskfield said.
The federal Bureau of Land Management - which manages 8.4 million acres across Colorado and 253 million acres nationwide - plays a key role in determining whether the grouse will survive. BLM managers lease land for grazing, drilling, mining and installation of powerlines and windmills.
"We know that we can and need to do better," BLM director Bob Abbey said, adding that he'll issue a map of key habitat and a new strategy for protecting grouse. "This is certainly a challenge for all of us," Abbey said.
Energy companies with deals to do exploration work in grouse-friendly areas will face stricter scrutiny, Abbey said. "We would likely attach some additional stipulations on that drilling," Abbey said.
Conservationists welcomed the Fish and Wildlife Service's "warranted but precluded" decision, saying that even though it falls short of adding grouse to the list of endangered and threatened species it recognizes that grouse face extinction.
"What this means is, the bird is in trouble. The declines are significant, and this is a way for the Fish and Wildlife Service to say: 'We recognize its trajectory as downward but we have other species in more trouble and our resources are limited,' " said biologist Steve Torbit, the Colorado-based regional director of the National Wildlife Federation.
"There's not a single villain in this. The problem has been that we - as westerners - have not paid adequate attention and respect to sagebrush. People love the mountains, love the rocks and ice. But, for wildlife, the critical area is sagebrush steppe," Torbit said.
Conservationists also vowed vigilance.
The grouse "needs much greater protection in order to fully recover. We'll be watching closely to make sure the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service follow through with the necessary steps to recover healthy populations of this important Western bird," Sierra Club deputy director Bruce Hamilton said.
Industry leaders - for oil and gas, wind, and livestock - had lobbied against listing the grouse because new restrictions could complicate business.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Association, which represents about 300 energy companies, already has been working to try to minimize harm to grouse, especially during breeding and nesting seasons, COGA president Tisha Schuller said.
Today's decision "just means we will continue doing what we are doing. We will continue to work with BLM and Fish and Wildlife on sage grouse management plans," Schuller said.
"We don't think there's a choice between one or the other. It is our intent to work in harmony with all the stakeholders to protect wildlife resources and ensure thoughtful energy development."
The decision announced Friday morning by Interior Secretary Salazar and Tom Strickland, assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks - followed lengthy battling. This was the second time Fish and Wildlife Service biologists conducted a review in response to multiple petitions since 1998 to list the grouse as threatened or endangered. A federal grouse "status review" concluded in 2005 that grouse did not need protection. Court challenges, alleging improper political interference in that decision-making, led to a reconsideration starting in 2007.
Designating the grouse as a "candidate" species is expected to force the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies to work cooperatively with private landowners to conserve grouse. Federal authorities may give financial and technical assistance and help develop conservation agreements that give regulatory assurances to landowners who try to help grouse.
(Bruce Finley: 303.954.1700 or bfinley@denverpost.com)
Thursday, March 4, 2010
In Utah, a move to seize federal land
Long frustrated by Washington's control over much of their state, Utah legislators are proposing a novel way to deal with federal land -- seize it and develop it.
The Utah House of Representatives last week passed a bill allowing the state to use eminent domain to take land the federal government owns and has long protected from development.
The state wants to develop three hotly contested areas -- national forest land in the Wasatch Mountains north of Salt Lake City, land in a proposed wilderness area in the red rock southwestern corner of the state, and a stretch of desert outside of Arches National Park that the Obama administration has declared off-limits to oil and gas development.
Supporters argue that provisions in the legislation that granted Utah statehood allow it to make such a land grab. They also hope to spark a showdown in the Supreme Court that would rearrange the balance of power between states and the federal government.
Some legal experts say the effort is unlikely to succeed, but Republican state Rep. Chris Herrod, one of the authors of the bill, said the state had little choice.
"I love America, and I'm a peaceful guy," Herrod said, "but the only real option we have is rebellion, which I don't believe in, and the courts."
The eminent domain proposal is among the most audacious yet in a state accustomed to heated battles over the two-thirds of its land owned by the federal government.
This is the state, after all, where local officials bulldozed their own roads through Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, tore down signs barring off-roading in Canyonlands National Park and, with funding from the statehouse, spent years unsuccessfully defending those actions in federal court.
The eminent domain proposal quickly drew scorn from environmental groups.
"This is an ideological fantasy," said Scott Groene, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in Moab. "Everybody knows this isn't going to happen. The federal public lands are the thing that makes the American West so great."
The proposal is one of a host in statehouses nationwide that show a deep discontent with federal authority. Eight legislatures have passed resolutions asserting, to various degrees, the sovereignty of their states.
In Utah, a dozen measures have been introduced since January that defy the federal government. It has reached such a pitch that the House's Democratic leader last week complained that Republicans were spending too much time on such proposals.
The most aggressive efforts are generally by conservative groups, but Michael Boldin of the 10th Amendment Center in Los Angeles -- named for the constitutional clause that some contend limits federal power over states -- said that states' rights were also being cited by liberals in support of state proposals to legalize marijuana and gay marriage.
In the Intermountain West, particularly in rural areas, residents have long complained that federal preservation of land has prevented development that could provide reliable jobs and bolster the tax base.
Last week, a Utah congressman warned that the Obama administration was plotting to create two national monuments in the state, and Republican Gov. Gary Herbert announced that he would meet with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to urge him to reconsider.
The administration said the hullabaloo was sparked by a memo identifying areas that could be protected at some point in the future, not imminently.
A spokeswoman said Herbert supported the concept of the eminent domain proposal but was unsure whether it would survive a legal challenge. The bill's authors contend they can rely on the legislation that brought Utah into the union in 1896, which they read as requiring the federal government to sell its land in the state and give Utah a 5% cut.
The legislators want to seize and open two roads through national forest land that the federal government closed. This would allow access to state land that they hope to sell to developers to build high-end cabins.
A third area would be more provocative: a swath of federal land outside Arches National Park where the George W. Bush administration, on the eve of the 2008 election, authorized oil and gas exploration. The Obama administration reversed the decision.
Legal experts contend that the federal government is under no obligation to sell its land in Utah and that no state could successfully seize federal property.
"It flies in the face of history and is also inconsistent as a point of law," said Bob Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah.
Keiter and others argue that the move illustrates a pattern in recent Western history -- a conservative backlash to the election of a Democratic president. After Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, the movement known as the Sagebrush Rebellion helped lock up the West for the GOP and put Ronald Reagan in the White House.
President Clinton faced a similar backlash, aggravated by his creation before the 1996 presidential election of Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument.
"Utah has this history of grand conservation gains," Groene said. "Every time it happens it triggers this anger. And 20 years later we always look back and agree that conservation was a wise idea."
nicholas.riccardi@ latimes.com
The Utah House of Representatives last week passed a bill allowing the state to use eminent domain to take land the federal government owns and has long protected from development.
The state wants to develop three hotly contested areas -- national forest land in the Wasatch Mountains north of Salt Lake City, land in a proposed wilderness area in the red rock southwestern corner of the state, and a stretch of desert outside of Arches National Park that the Obama administration has declared off-limits to oil and gas development.
Supporters argue that provisions in the legislation that granted Utah statehood allow it to make such a land grab. They also hope to spark a showdown in the Supreme Court that would rearrange the balance of power between states and the federal government.
Some legal experts say the effort is unlikely to succeed, but Republican state Rep. Chris Herrod, one of the authors of the bill, said the state had little choice.
"I love America, and I'm a peaceful guy," Herrod said, "but the only real option we have is rebellion, which I don't believe in, and the courts."
The eminent domain proposal is among the most audacious yet in a state accustomed to heated battles over the two-thirds of its land owned by the federal government.
This is the state, after all, where local officials bulldozed their own roads through Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, tore down signs barring off-roading in Canyonlands National Park and, with funding from the statehouse, spent years unsuccessfully defending those actions in federal court.
The eminent domain proposal quickly drew scorn from environmental groups.
"This is an ideological fantasy," said Scott Groene, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in Moab. "Everybody knows this isn't going to happen. The federal public lands are the thing that makes the American West so great."
The proposal is one of a host in statehouses nationwide that show a deep discontent with federal authority. Eight legislatures have passed resolutions asserting, to various degrees, the sovereignty of their states.
In Utah, a dozen measures have been introduced since January that defy the federal government. It has reached such a pitch that the House's Democratic leader last week complained that Republicans were spending too much time on such proposals.
The most aggressive efforts are generally by conservative groups, but Michael Boldin of the 10th Amendment Center in Los Angeles -- named for the constitutional clause that some contend limits federal power over states -- said that states' rights were also being cited by liberals in support of state proposals to legalize marijuana and gay marriage.
In the Intermountain West, particularly in rural areas, residents have long complained that federal preservation of land has prevented development that could provide reliable jobs and bolster the tax base.
Last week, a Utah congressman warned that the Obama administration was plotting to create two national monuments in the state, and Republican Gov. Gary Herbert announced that he would meet with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to urge him to reconsider.
The administration said the hullabaloo was sparked by a memo identifying areas that could be protected at some point in the future, not imminently.
A spokeswoman said Herbert supported the concept of the eminent domain proposal but was unsure whether it would survive a legal challenge. The bill's authors contend they can rely on the legislation that brought Utah into the union in 1896, which they read as requiring the federal government to sell its land in the state and give Utah a 5% cut.
The legislators want to seize and open two roads through national forest land that the federal government closed. This would allow access to state land that they hope to sell to developers to build high-end cabins.
A third area would be more provocative: a swath of federal land outside Arches National Park where the George W. Bush administration, on the eve of the 2008 election, authorized oil and gas exploration. The Obama administration reversed the decision.
Legal experts contend that the federal government is under no obligation to sell its land in Utah and that no state could successfully seize federal property.
"It flies in the face of history and is also inconsistent as a point of law," said Bob Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah.
Keiter and others argue that the move illustrates a pattern in recent Western history -- a conservative backlash to the election of a Democratic president. After Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, the movement known as the Sagebrush Rebellion helped lock up the West for the GOP and put Ronald Reagan in the White House.
President Clinton faced a similar backlash, aggravated by his creation before the 1996 presidential election of Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument.
"Utah has this history of grand conservation gains," Groene said. "Every time it happens it triggers this anger. And 20 years later we always look back and agree that conservation was a wise idea."
nicholas.riccardi@ latimes.com
Utah House mounts new federal lands challenge
Utah lawmakers voted Thursday to condemn federal lands in a message meant to reach the Supreme Court and challenge the U.S. government to open lands to development for school funding.
HB143 passed the House 57-13 over Democratic objections that pressing the court case will be costly and likely unsuccessful. Republicans called it a necessary fight to reverse federal oppression and the state's chronically worst-in-the-nation per-student school funding.
"Our schoolchildren have been robbed," said Rep. Chris Herrod, R-Provo, the bill's sponsor.
Herrod asserts that, despite Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, the state is "sovereign" over lands in its boundaries and has power to reclaim those that the federal government did not acquire with state approval. He concedes that Utah gave up claims to federal lands at statehood, but said the federal government has broken its pledge to put the state on "equal footing" with other states by keeping more than two-thirds of the state in federal ownership.
His bill would authorize taking segments of federal land for roads to access state-owned lands for energy production and other development to aid schools. A companion bill proposed by Rep. Ken Sumsion, R-American Fork, would take $1 million in state revenues over three years to cover the legal bills.
Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, called the bill "an act of self-preservation for our state."
House Democrats argued against the action because they said it would waste money in court fees over something the Supreme Court already has decided. Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, said he wants more money for Utah schools but also believes in lawmakers' duty to live under Supreme Court rulings.
"We have an allegiance to the United States of America and to case law that has been developed through generations," King, an attorney, said.
Herrod said previous cases before the Supreme Court were split decisions, and a new challenge is warranted.
"Case law is never overturned unless you have another court case," he said.
Rep. Kraig Powell, R-Heber City, said the potential advantages of a court victory are worth the risk of defeat and loss of legal fees.
"We may very well be termed crazy somewhere by constitutional attorneys around the country," he said, "but every argument that was once asserted by someone had to be started by someone."
HB143 passed the House 57-13 over Democratic objections that pressing the court case will be costly and likely unsuccessful. Republicans called it a necessary fight to reverse federal oppression and the state's chronically worst-in-the-nation per-student school funding.
"Our schoolchildren have been robbed," said Rep. Chris Herrod, R-Provo, the bill's sponsor.
Herrod asserts that, despite Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, the state is "sovereign" over lands in its boundaries and has power to reclaim those that the federal government did not acquire with state approval. He concedes that Utah gave up claims to federal lands at statehood, but said the federal government has broken its pledge to put the state on "equal footing" with other states by keeping more than two-thirds of the state in federal ownership.
His bill would authorize taking segments of federal land for roads to access state-owned lands for energy production and other development to aid schools. A companion bill proposed by Rep. Ken Sumsion, R-American Fork, would take $1 million in state revenues over three years to cover the legal bills.
Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, called the bill "an act of self-preservation for our state."
House Democrats argued against the action because they said it would waste money in court fees over something the Supreme Court already has decided. Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, said he wants more money for Utah schools but also believes in lawmakers' duty to live under Supreme Court rulings.
"We have an allegiance to the United States of America and to case law that has been developed through generations," King, an attorney, said.
Herrod said previous cases before the Supreme Court were split decisions, and a new challenge is warranted.
"Case law is never overturned unless you have another court case," he said.
Rep. Kraig Powell, R-Heber City, said the potential advantages of a court victory are worth the risk of defeat and loss of legal fees.
"We may very well be termed crazy somewhere by constitutional attorneys around the country," he said, "but every argument that was once asserted by someone had to be started by someone."
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Utah Legislature: Federal police powers are targeted in House bill
A bill that aims to "rein in" the police powers of Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service on federally managed lands sailed through a legislative committee with no debate and now advances to the full House for consideration.
The measure by Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, comes after years of frustration expressed by several local sheriffs about the "unchecked" police powers of the agencies, which they contend are supposed to contractually enter into cooperative agreements with local police entities.
"There's no accountability, no line authority," former Millard County Sheriff Ed Phillips told members of the House Natural Resources Committee on Monday.
With its passage of the Federal Lands Management Policy Act in 1976, Congress intended for the federal government to contract with local law enforcement to carry out policing responsibilities wherever possible, Phillips said.
Instead, the advent of the '90s brought a prolific swell in the number of rangers who have become their own crime-fighting kingdom, Phillips said.
HB146 says that Utah does not "recognize" federal law enforcement authority of those agencies beyond what is "necessary" to manage, use and protect federally managed lands.
Phillips, joined by the current sheriffs of San Juan and Kane counties, said the issue has been one of such concern that it has been taken up by the 13-member Western States Sheriffs' Association but federal agencies have not been willing to budge.
Kane County Sheriff Lamont Smith said the federal encroachment has been so broad that federal rangers have taken to writing tickets for everything from expired registrations to broken tail lights to violators stopped on U.S. 89 near Lake Powell.
As an example of what they say is "encroachment," Noel and the sheriffs pointed to events like last spring's federal raid that led to more than two dozen arrests of people accused of stealing or possessing Native American artifacts and a May showdown between BLM agents and off-road enthusiasts at the Paria River corridor.
e-mail: amyjoi@desnews.com
The measure by Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, comes after years of frustration expressed by several local sheriffs about the "unchecked" police powers of the agencies, which they contend are supposed to contractually enter into cooperative agreements with local police entities.
"There's no accountability, no line authority," former Millard County Sheriff Ed Phillips told members of the House Natural Resources Committee on Monday.
With its passage of the Federal Lands Management Policy Act in 1976, Congress intended for the federal government to contract with local law enforcement to carry out policing responsibilities wherever possible, Phillips said.
Instead, the advent of the '90s brought a prolific swell in the number of rangers who have become their own crime-fighting kingdom, Phillips said.
HB146 says that Utah does not "recognize" federal law enforcement authority of those agencies beyond what is "necessary" to manage, use and protect federally managed lands.
Phillips, joined by the current sheriffs of San Juan and Kane counties, said the issue has been one of such concern that it has been taken up by the 13-member Western States Sheriffs' Association but federal agencies have not been willing to budge.
Kane County Sheriff Lamont Smith said the federal encroachment has been so broad that federal rangers have taken to writing tickets for everything from expired registrations to broken tail lights to violators stopped on U.S. 89 near Lake Powell.
As an example of what they say is "encroachment," Noel and the sheriffs pointed to events like last spring's federal raid that led to more than two dozen arrests of people accused of stealing or possessing Native American artifacts and a May showdown between BLM agents and off-road enthusiasts at the Paria River corridor.
e-mail: amyjoi@desnews.com
Complaints heat up over possible new monuments
On the same day a Utah legislative committee unanimously approved a resolution voicing opposition to the creation of any more national monuments, members of the U.S. Senate Western Caucus also took their fight to the mat.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and other members of the Senate Western Caucus sent a letter Tuesday to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, expressing concern about the possible designation of national monuments in Utah and other states absent public input or consent.
In the letter, Hatch and six other caucus members, including Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, voiced opposition to the possible designation of 14 sites in nine Western states as national monuments through the "misuse" of the Antiquities Act. Two of the sites — the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa — are in Utah.
"Americans enjoy a variety of benefits from our public lands, but many westerners rely on public lands for their very livelihoods. For that reason, Congress has ensured that public land management decisions are made in a process that is both public and transparent. … Americans should never live in fear that the stroke of a pen in Washington could forever change their lives," the senators wrote.
The vitriolic opposition is an echo of the reaction across the state when President Bill Clinton designated 1.7 million acres in southern Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in 1996. Clinton used the Antiquities Act to make the surprise designation.
"The way the monument was designated violated the spirit and letter of the Antiquities Act, which expressly forbids large land grabs," Hatch said. "Citizens should oppose any abuse of power by the government, and using the Antiquities Act to circumvent public input and congressional oversight is a clear abuse."
The letter stresses the need for building local consensus and "stakeholder involvement," when it comes to land management and also points to overburdened federal agencies it asserts are ill-equipped to deal with the responsibilities that come with new monument designations.
"The Bureau of Land Management faces budget shortfalls annually, and the National Park Service faces a maintenance backlog on its existing facilities of over $9 billion," the letter reads. "Policymakers must focus on making responsible investments on behalf of the American taxpayer."
In addition to Hatch and Bennett, the letter was signed by Sens. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Michael Enzi, R-Wyo.; Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; Mike Johanns, R- Neb.; and John Ensign, R-Nev.
HCR 17, a resolution on the issue being run by Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, unanimously passed a legislative committee Tuesday afternoon that featured an appearance by former Congressman James Hansen.
The long-time Republican lawmaker, active for years in wilderness and lands-related legislation, told members of the House Natural Resources committee that while resolutions are skeptically referred to as "mere" message bills, federal lawmakers do take notice.
Former Salt Lake City Mayor Ted Wilson, who also served as the head of the Utah Rivers Council, said he supports the resolution despite being a self-professed environmentalist.
"(But) I also know the tremendous setback with the Grand Staircase. It angered county commissioners all over this state, it angered a lot of Democrats," he said.
Wilson, the newly tapped head of Gov. Gary Herbert's Balanced Resource Council, said any presidential designation of new national monuments in Utah would be a significant setback undermining resources plans being crafted.
e-mail: amyjoi@desnews.com
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and other members of the Senate Western Caucus sent a letter Tuesday to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, expressing concern about the possible designation of national monuments in Utah and other states absent public input or consent.
In the letter, Hatch and six other caucus members, including Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, voiced opposition to the possible designation of 14 sites in nine Western states as national monuments through the "misuse" of the Antiquities Act. Two of the sites — the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa — are in Utah.
"Americans enjoy a variety of benefits from our public lands, but many westerners rely on public lands for their very livelihoods. For that reason, Congress has ensured that public land management decisions are made in a process that is both public and transparent. … Americans should never live in fear that the stroke of a pen in Washington could forever change their lives," the senators wrote.
The vitriolic opposition is an echo of the reaction across the state when President Bill Clinton designated 1.7 million acres in southern Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in 1996. Clinton used the Antiquities Act to make the surprise designation.
"The way the monument was designated violated the spirit and letter of the Antiquities Act, which expressly forbids large land grabs," Hatch said. "Citizens should oppose any abuse of power by the government, and using the Antiquities Act to circumvent public input and congressional oversight is a clear abuse."
The letter stresses the need for building local consensus and "stakeholder involvement," when it comes to land management and also points to overburdened federal agencies it asserts are ill-equipped to deal with the responsibilities that come with new monument designations.
"The Bureau of Land Management faces budget shortfalls annually, and the National Park Service faces a maintenance backlog on its existing facilities of over $9 billion," the letter reads. "Policymakers must focus on making responsible investments on behalf of the American taxpayer."
In addition to Hatch and Bennett, the letter was signed by Sens. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Michael Enzi, R-Wyo.; Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; Mike Johanns, R- Neb.; and John Ensign, R-Nev.
HCR 17, a resolution on the issue being run by Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, unanimously passed a legislative committee Tuesday afternoon that featured an appearance by former Congressman James Hansen.
The long-time Republican lawmaker, active for years in wilderness and lands-related legislation, told members of the House Natural Resources committee that while resolutions are skeptically referred to as "mere" message bills, federal lawmakers do take notice.
Former Salt Lake City Mayor Ted Wilson, who also served as the head of the Utah Rivers Council, said he supports the resolution despite being a self-professed environmentalist.
"(But) I also know the tremendous setback with the Grand Staircase. It angered county commissioners all over this state, it angered a lot of Democrats," he said.
Wilson, the newly tapped head of Gov. Gary Herbert's Balanced Resource Council, said any presidential designation of new national monuments in Utah would be a significant setback undermining resources plans being crafted.
e-mail: amyjoi@desnews.com
EAJA Reform Welcome News for New Mexico Agriculture Groups
PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 3, 2010
For further information, contact:
Caren Cowan at 505.247.0584
Sharon Lombardi at 575.622.1646
Howard Hutchinson at 505.379.9243
Legislation that would bring oversight and accountability to payments made under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) is gaining broad support in New Mexico and across the country.
The New Mexico Cattle Growers Association (NMCGA), New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc. (NMWGI), New Mexico Federal Lands Council (NMFLC), Dairy Producers of New Mexico (DPNM) and AZ/NM Coalition of Counties (Coalition) are joining producers nationwide in support of the Open EAJA Act of 2010 (H.R. 4717), introduced by Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and co-sponsored by Representatives Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) and Rob Bishop (R-UT).
The EAJA was passed by Congress in the 1980s as means to protect the rights of non-profits, small businesses and individual citizens from unreasonable government actions. Along the way, however, it has been co-opted by special interest and environmental groups, who use the law to get paid after suing the federal government.
“When the EAJA was passed, it was meant to protect people like family ranchers and others from the federal government,” said Bert Ancell, NMCGA President, Bell Ranch. “Today, these activist groups are using our tax dollars to sue the federal government and try to put us out of business. According to the only research to date, activist environmental groups have gotten paid $42 million dollars to sue the federal government in the last decade.”
The Open EAJA Act of 2010, brought about by the efforts of the Western Legacy Alliance, www.westernlegacyalliance.org , and the research of attorney Karen Budd-Falen, Cheyenne, Wyoming would bring accountability and transparency to payments made under the EAJA. Specifically, the bill requires an accounting of how attorneys’ fees are being awarded under EAJA, an annual report to Congress outlining the number, stature and amount of the awards, and a Government Accounting Office (GAO) audit of the uses of EAJA funds over the past 15 years.
Every year, activist groups file thousands of motions and petitions with various government agencies across the country. The resulting paperwork keeps the agencies from actually getting any on the ground work done, and guarantees that a deadline will eventually be missed by the agency, opening the door for a lawsuit. Rather than go to court, the federal agencies settle the suit with the activist group, and typically agree to pay them for their attorneys’ fees under EAJA.
“These lawsuits keep the agencies in turmoil, and have a big impact on our operations,” said Jim Cooper, NMWGI President, Arabela. “Our tax dollars fund the government agencies and their attorneys. To make sure our rights as landowners and producers are protected, we have to intervene in the lawsuit, spending our own money on attorneys and court costs. Then, the government pays these groups’ attorneys’ fees – using our tax dollars again – giving them money for the next lawsuit.”
New Mexicans have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past 15 years in an attempt to protect natural resources users who make up the custom, culture and economy of the state, according to Louise Peterson, Hatchita, President of the Arizona/New Mexico Coalition of Counties.
“On rare occasions we have been reimbursed for some of the actual expenses incurred in protecting New Mexico families,” she said. “But it is shocking to see that $300,000 was paid on a single case --- that was not even decided in favor of the Forest Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity.”
What the public doesn’t know is that not only are these suits keeping federal agencies from doing their jobs in terms of conserving wildlife and lands, but they are driving at the heart of the nation’s food supply, notes Al Squire, Hagerman, DPNM President.
“Americans pay less than ten percent of their disposable income for the most abundant and safest food supply in the world,” says Squire. “While we are producing that cheap and wholesome food under government controlled caps, so that we cannot pass along increased production costs, we are paying up to three times for litigation that is aimed at eliminating us.”
Congresswomen Lummis and Herseth Sandlin and Congressman Bishop deserve the support, praise and heartfelt appreciation of nature resources users ---which includes every member of the public who eats, drives a car, and uses utilities like water and electricity, points out Don L. “Bebo” Lee, Alamogordo, NMFLC President.
“As a nation we have come to expect that electricity is automatic when we flip a switch, that water is magically in the tap when we turn it and that our grocery stores will always be stocked with all the food we want or need,” Lee comments. “Many don’t realize that the production of these necessities of life are the fruits of the land --- and that someone has to have the ability to work that land.”
The DPNM, Coalition, NMCGA, NMFLC, and NMWGI are asking the New Mexico Congressmen Ben Lujan, Harry Teague and Martin Heinrich to co-sponsor and support H.B. 4717. They are also asking for other groups and individuals to join with them in this effort.
For further information call 505.247.0584, 575.622.1646, or 505.379.9243.
For further information, contact:
Caren Cowan at 505.247.0584
Sharon Lombardi at 575.622.1646
Howard Hutchinson at 505.379.9243
Legislation that would bring oversight and accountability to payments made under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) is gaining broad support in New Mexico and across the country.
The New Mexico Cattle Growers Association (NMCGA), New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc. (NMWGI), New Mexico Federal Lands Council (NMFLC), Dairy Producers of New Mexico (DPNM) and AZ/NM Coalition of Counties (Coalition) are joining producers nationwide in support of the Open EAJA Act of 2010 (H.R. 4717), introduced by Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and co-sponsored by Representatives Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) and Rob Bishop (R-UT).
The EAJA was passed by Congress in the 1980s as means to protect the rights of non-profits, small businesses and individual citizens from unreasonable government actions. Along the way, however, it has been co-opted by special interest and environmental groups, who use the law to get paid after suing the federal government.
“When the EAJA was passed, it was meant to protect people like family ranchers and others from the federal government,” said Bert Ancell, NMCGA President, Bell Ranch. “Today, these activist groups are using our tax dollars to sue the federal government and try to put us out of business. According to the only research to date, activist environmental groups have gotten paid $42 million dollars to sue the federal government in the last decade.”
The Open EAJA Act of 2010, brought about by the efforts of the Western Legacy Alliance, www.westernlegacyalliance.org , and the research of attorney Karen Budd-Falen, Cheyenne, Wyoming would bring accountability and transparency to payments made under the EAJA. Specifically, the bill requires an accounting of how attorneys’ fees are being awarded under EAJA, an annual report to Congress outlining the number, stature and amount of the awards, and a Government Accounting Office (GAO) audit of the uses of EAJA funds over the past 15 years.
Every year, activist groups file thousands of motions and petitions with various government agencies across the country. The resulting paperwork keeps the agencies from actually getting any on the ground work done, and guarantees that a deadline will eventually be missed by the agency, opening the door for a lawsuit. Rather than go to court, the federal agencies settle the suit with the activist group, and typically agree to pay them for their attorneys’ fees under EAJA.
“These lawsuits keep the agencies in turmoil, and have a big impact on our operations,” said Jim Cooper, NMWGI President, Arabela. “Our tax dollars fund the government agencies and their attorneys. To make sure our rights as landowners and producers are protected, we have to intervene in the lawsuit, spending our own money on attorneys and court costs. Then, the government pays these groups’ attorneys’ fees – using our tax dollars again – giving them money for the next lawsuit.”
New Mexicans have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past 15 years in an attempt to protect natural resources users who make up the custom, culture and economy of the state, according to Louise Peterson, Hatchita, President of the Arizona/New Mexico Coalition of Counties.
“On rare occasions we have been reimbursed for some of the actual expenses incurred in protecting New Mexico families,” she said. “But it is shocking to see that $300,000 was paid on a single case --- that was not even decided in favor of the Forest Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity.”
What the public doesn’t know is that not only are these suits keeping federal agencies from doing their jobs in terms of conserving wildlife and lands, but they are driving at the heart of the nation’s food supply, notes Al Squire, Hagerman, DPNM President.
“Americans pay less than ten percent of their disposable income for the most abundant and safest food supply in the world,” says Squire. “While we are producing that cheap and wholesome food under government controlled caps, so that we cannot pass along increased production costs, we are paying up to three times for litigation that is aimed at eliminating us.”
Congresswomen Lummis and Herseth Sandlin and Congressman Bishop deserve the support, praise and heartfelt appreciation of nature resources users ---which includes every member of the public who eats, drives a car, and uses utilities like water and electricity, points out Don L. “Bebo” Lee, Alamogordo, NMFLC President.
“As a nation we have come to expect that electricity is automatic when we flip a switch, that water is magically in the tap when we turn it and that our grocery stores will always be stocked with all the food we want or need,” Lee comments. “Many don’t realize that the production of these necessities of life are the fruits of the land --- and that someone has to have the ability to work that land.”
The DPNM, Coalition, NMCGA, NMFLC, and NMWGI are asking the New Mexico Congressmen Ben Lujan, Harry Teague and Martin Heinrich to co-sponsor and support H.B. 4717. They are also asking for other groups and individuals to join with them in this effort.
For further information call 505.247.0584, 575.622.1646, or 505.379.9243.
Lee to Lead New Mexico Federal Lands Council
New Mexico Federal Lands Council
Drawer 149
Alamogordo, NM 88311
Contact: Caren Cowan (505) 247-0584
For Immediate Release – March 1, 2010
Don L. “Bebo” Lee, Alamogordo, was elected President of the New Mexico Federal Lands Council (NMFLC) at the group’s recent annual meeting.
Lee, a southeastern New Mexico rancher, says he is honored to be elected. “For most of us, trying to stay informed, stay in business and deal with government regulations and agencies on an individual basis is almost impossible. The Federal Lands Council has a long history of protecting our industry, which I plan to continue.”
Other newly-elected officers include Carlos Salazar, Vice President, Medenales; Bobby Jones, Secretary/Treasurer, Dell City; Bill Sauble, Northeastern Regional Director, Maxwell; Jose Varela Lopez, Northwestern Regional Director, Santa Fe; Roy Farr, Southwestern Regional Director, Datil; and Lewis Derrick, Southeastern Regional Director, Artesia.
The organization got its start in the mid-1970s, as ranchers formed local grazing associations to help them work with land management agencies like the Bureau of Land Management. Those local groups grew into the NMFLC, which works to represent the livestock grazing industry on a state and national level, and keep producers informed. Past NMFLC presidents include Mike Casabonne, Hope; Bud Eppers, Roswell; Dick Corn, Roswell and Bob Jones, Dell City.
The NMFLC is made up of both individual members and grazing and agriculture trade organizations. Member organizations include the Gila Livestock Growers Association; the Lincoln National Forest Allotment Owners; Southwest Grazing Association; Fee & Public Lands Association; Southern New Mexico Grazing Association; West Central Grazing Association; New Mexico Cattle Growers Association; New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; Northern New Mexico Stockmen; and the New Mexico Farm &Livestock Bureau.
-30-
Drawer 149
Alamogordo, NM 88311
Contact: Caren Cowan (505) 247-0584
For Immediate Release – March 1, 2010
Don L. “Bebo” Lee, Alamogordo, was elected President of the New Mexico Federal Lands Council (NMFLC) at the group’s recent annual meeting.
Lee, a southeastern New Mexico rancher, says he is honored to be elected. “For most of us, trying to stay informed, stay in business and deal with government regulations and agencies on an individual basis is almost impossible. The Federal Lands Council has a long history of protecting our industry, which I plan to continue.”
Other newly-elected officers include Carlos Salazar, Vice President, Medenales; Bobby Jones, Secretary/Treasurer, Dell City; Bill Sauble, Northeastern Regional Director, Maxwell; Jose Varela Lopez, Northwestern Regional Director, Santa Fe; Roy Farr, Southwestern Regional Director, Datil; and Lewis Derrick, Southeastern Regional Director, Artesia.
The organization got its start in the mid-1970s, as ranchers formed local grazing associations to help them work with land management agencies like the Bureau of Land Management. Those local groups grew into the NMFLC, which works to represent the livestock grazing industry on a state and national level, and keep producers informed. Past NMFLC presidents include Mike Casabonne, Hope; Bud Eppers, Roswell; Dick Corn, Roswell and Bob Jones, Dell City.
The NMFLC is made up of both individual members and grazing and agriculture trade organizations. Member organizations include the Gila Livestock Growers Association; the Lincoln National Forest Allotment Owners; Southwest Grazing Association; Fee & Public Lands Association; Southern New Mexico Grazing Association; West Central Grazing Association; New Mexico Cattle Growers Association; New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; Northern New Mexico Stockmen; and the New Mexico Farm &Livestock Bureau.
-30-
Monday, March 1, 2010
Senate turns back bid to block White House on national monuments
The first round of a new fight over White House power to unilaterally impose new protections on large tracts of western lands went to the Obama administration.
The Senate on Thursday rejected, 38-58, Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-S.C.) bid to block White House authority to designate national monuments in western states.
DeMint wanted to attach the amendment to legislation approved yesterday aimed at bolstering tourism in the U.S.
The issue flared this month with the leak of an internal Interior Department document that lists 14 potential national monuments in nine states.
Interior Department officials called the document a very preliminary draft, and said that no decisions have been made about what areas – if any – might merit further review.
But the document has nonetheless enraged western Republicans, who fear a “land grab” that would prevent oil-and-gas drilling and many other activities.
Utah Republicans have introduced bills that would prevent designations in that state without Capitol Hill approval. And Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) plans to introduce a bill next week that do the same thing for her state, an aide said today.
On Friday, 16 House Republicans led by Reps. Rob Bishop (Utah) and Doc Hastings (Wash.) wrote to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar seeking a host of other documents related to Interior’s consideration of new monuments.
The letter says there are unanswered questions about the status of potential designations, what groups or people are involved in the review, and the extent to which consideration will continue “behind closed doors.”
“Western communities and residents that stand to be affected by these proposed monument designations have the right to know what the Administration is planning with regards to the future of millions of acres of both public and private lands throughout the West,” Bishop said in a prepared statement Friday.
“Despite the DOI’s statements that the initial documents are simply ‘drafts,’ the American people deserve to know the full extent of the planning as well as the involvement of all outside parties,” he added.
Bishop chairs the Congressional Western Caucus, and Hastings is the top Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee.
An Interior Department spokeswoman said last week that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “believes new designations and conservation initiatives work best when they build on local efforts to better manage places that are important to nearby communities.”
The Senate on Thursday rejected, 38-58, Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-S.C.) bid to block White House authority to designate national monuments in western states.
DeMint wanted to attach the amendment to legislation approved yesterday aimed at bolstering tourism in the U.S.
The issue flared this month with the leak of an internal Interior Department document that lists 14 potential national monuments in nine states.
Interior Department officials called the document a very preliminary draft, and said that no decisions have been made about what areas – if any – might merit further review.
But the document has nonetheless enraged western Republicans, who fear a “land grab” that would prevent oil-and-gas drilling and many other activities.
Utah Republicans have introduced bills that would prevent designations in that state without Capitol Hill approval. And Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) plans to introduce a bill next week that do the same thing for her state, an aide said today.
On Friday, 16 House Republicans led by Reps. Rob Bishop (Utah) and Doc Hastings (Wash.) wrote to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar seeking a host of other documents related to Interior’s consideration of new monuments.
The letter says there are unanswered questions about the status of potential designations, what groups or people are involved in the review, and the extent to which consideration will continue “behind closed doors.”
“Western communities and residents that stand to be affected by these proposed monument designations have the right to know what the Administration is planning with regards to the future of millions of acres of both public and private lands throughout the West,” Bishop said in a prepared statement Friday.
“Despite the DOI’s statements that the initial documents are simply ‘drafts,’ the American people deserve to know the full extent of the planning as well as the involvement of all outside parties,” he added.
Bishop chairs the Congressional Western Caucus, and Hastings is the top Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee.
An Interior Department spokeswoman said last week that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “believes new designations and conservation initiatives work best when they build on local efforts to better manage places that are important to nearby communities.”
Congress Should Limit President's Authority on Monuments -- U.S. Chamber
Congress should act to limit the president's authority to create new national monuments, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said this week.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 currently gives the president authority to declare new national monuments without congressional approval in order to protect threatened cultural and natural resources. But past presidents have repeatedly abused that authority to make sweeping designations that are much larger than those originally intended by the act, the chamber said in a letter Monday to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
"The Act was designed to protect small areas of land and specific items of archaeological, scientific, or historic importance," the chamber wrote. "In fact, it instructs the President to confine any designations 'to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'"
A confidential document (pdf) leaked last week revealed that the Interior Department had compiled a list of 14 potential sites for new or expanded national monuments the administration could create through the Antiquities Act.
The Antiquities Act already contains provisions limiting presidential authority in Wyoming and Alaska, and those requirements should be made national, the chamber said. Utah representatives, still upset over President Clinton's 1996 decision to create the 1.7-million-acre Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, introduced legislation that would put similar restrictions in place in their state.
If Congress does not act and the Obama administration does go forward with the listed designations, it should first take public comment, the chamber said.
The leaked document, which Interior officials have downplayed as the result of a preliminary "brainstorming" session, says in its opening paragraph that any designations should follow an assessment of public and congressional support.
Congressional Republicans are calling the document evidence of "secret insider dealings," and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) today thanked the chamber for joining the fray.
"Western states have already suffered this past year from the administration's anti-energy, land-hungry policies, which have locked up sweeping swaths of land and put thousands out of work," Bishop said. "The fact that they would even consider making these designations without public input is disingenuous at best."
Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 currently gives the president authority to declare new national monuments without congressional approval in order to protect threatened cultural and natural resources. But past presidents have repeatedly abused that authority to make sweeping designations that are much larger than those originally intended by the act, the chamber said in a letter Monday to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
"The Act was designed to protect small areas of land and specific items of archaeological, scientific, or historic importance," the chamber wrote. "In fact, it instructs the President to confine any designations 'to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'"
A confidential document (pdf) leaked last week revealed that the Interior Department had compiled a list of 14 potential sites for new or expanded national monuments the administration could create through the Antiquities Act.
The Antiquities Act already contains provisions limiting presidential authority in Wyoming and Alaska, and those requirements should be made national, the chamber said. Utah representatives, still upset over President Clinton's 1996 decision to create the 1.7-million-acre Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, introduced legislation that would put similar restrictions in place in their state.
If Congress does not act and the Obama administration does go forward with the listed designations, it should first take public comment, the chamber said.
The leaked document, which Interior officials have downplayed as the result of a preliminary "brainstorming" session, says in its opening paragraph that any designations should follow an assessment of public and congressional support.
Congressional Republicans are calling the document evidence of "secret insider dealings," and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) today thanked the chamber for joining the fray.
"Western states have already suffered this past year from the administration's anti-energy, land-hungry policies, which have locked up sweeping swaths of land and put thousands out of work," Bishop said. "The fact that they would even consider making these designations without public input is disingenuous at best."
Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com.
Western Lawmakers Ask Salazar for All Doc's On Nat'l Monument Designations
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee Ranking Member Rob Bishop (UT-01); and 14 Members of Congress sent a letter today to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar requesting further information related to an internal DOI document that revealed the Administration is considering designating numerous new National Monuments that would lock up at least 13 million acres of land.
Secretary Salazar has publicly said that there is “no secret agenda” and wants to have a “public dialogue.” Therefore, the Department should be willing to answer questions regarding the exact undertakings and status of the potential Monument designations, as well as what outside group and individuals have been involved in the secret planning.
“If this internal document had not been exposed, Americans would still be in the dark about the Obama Administration’s potential plans to lock up millions of acres of land across the West,” said Hastings. “While Secretary Salazar says that the discussions are just ‘preliminary,’ no assurances have been given that the President will not designate these monuments. When you catch someone in the kitchen in the dark of night with their hand in the cookie jar, it’s very hard to believe they’re just checking to see what’s inside and that no cookies were just about to get eaten. The communities and those workers whose jobs could be directly affected by the locking up of these lands deserve to see a full picture of what was happening inside their government. We’ve asked for copies of documents relating to the planning, which includes coordination with outside groups, and all of the missing pages from the document we uncovered last week.”
“Western communities and residents that stand to be affected by these proposed monument designations have the right to know what the Administration is planning with regards to the future of millions of acres of both public and private lands throughout the West,” said Bishop. “Despite the DOI’s statements that the initial documents are simply ‘drafts,’ the American people deserve to know the full extent of the planning as well as the involvement of all outside parties. If the DOI is confident that it is operating with the utmost transparency then they should have no problem providing these documents expeditiously. However, given the number of congressional document requests made to DOI this past year that remain unfulfilled, I am not holding my breath.”
In the letter, the Members request the following additional information from Secretary Salazar:
1. All pages of the “Internal Draft” document of which we obtained only pages numbered 15 to 21.
2. With regard to the “brainstorming,” a copy of any documents distributed at or in preparation for the meetings, a list of all participants or invitees, any notes taken at the meeting (s), and any memoranda, work product or follow up documents from the meeting(s). All records, electronic or otherwise, of meetings or discussions with private groups, individuals or other persons or entities that are not employees of the Department of the Interior where potential National Monument designations were discussed. All notes, agendas, memoranda or documents from those meetings.
3. All documents related to the Secretary’s initiative to compile a list of potential National Monument designations since July 1, 2009, including, but not limited to, maps.
4. Any communication with any person or entity outside of the Department of the Interior related to the Secretary’s initiative since July 1, 2009.
Background
The letter was signed by the following Members:
Congressman Doc Hastings (WA-04)
Congressman Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Congressman Don Young (AK)
Congressman Dean Heller (NV-02)
Congressman Greg Walden (OR-02)
Congressman Jeff Flake (AZ-06)
Congressman Denny Rehberg (MT)
Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (WY)
Congressman Wally Herger (CA-02)
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-03)
Congressman Pete Sessions (TX-32)
Congressman Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Congressman John Campbell (CA-48)
Congressman Mike Simpson (ID-02)
Secretary Salazar has publicly said that there is “no secret agenda” and wants to have a “public dialogue.” Therefore, the Department should be willing to answer questions regarding the exact undertakings and status of the potential Monument designations, as well as what outside group and individuals have been involved in the secret planning.
“If this internal document had not been exposed, Americans would still be in the dark about the Obama Administration’s potential plans to lock up millions of acres of land across the West,” said Hastings. “While Secretary Salazar says that the discussions are just ‘preliminary,’ no assurances have been given that the President will not designate these monuments. When you catch someone in the kitchen in the dark of night with their hand in the cookie jar, it’s very hard to believe they’re just checking to see what’s inside and that no cookies were just about to get eaten. The communities and those workers whose jobs could be directly affected by the locking up of these lands deserve to see a full picture of what was happening inside their government. We’ve asked for copies of documents relating to the planning, which includes coordination with outside groups, and all of the missing pages from the document we uncovered last week.”
“Western communities and residents that stand to be affected by these proposed monument designations have the right to know what the Administration is planning with regards to the future of millions of acres of both public and private lands throughout the West,” said Bishop. “Despite the DOI’s statements that the initial documents are simply ‘drafts,’ the American people deserve to know the full extent of the planning as well as the involvement of all outside parties. If the DOI is confident that it is operating with the utmost transparency then they should have no problem providing these documents expeditiously. However, given the number of congressional document requests made to DOI this past year that remain unfulfilled, I am not holding my breath.”
In the letter, the Members request the following additional information from Secretary Salazar:
1. All pages of the “Internal Draft” document of which we obtained only pages numbered 15 to 21.
2. With regard to the “brainstorming,” a copy of any documents distributed at or in preparation for the meetings, a list of all participants or invitees, any notes taken at the meeting (s), and any memoranda, work product or follow up documents from the meeting(s). All records, electronic or otherwise, of meetings or discussions with private groups, individuals or other persons or entities that are not employees of the Department of the Interior where potential National Monument designations were discussed. All notes, agendas, memoranda or documents from those meetings.
3. All documents related to the Secretary’s initiative to compile a list of potential National Monument designations since July 1, 2009, including, but not limited to, maps.
4. Any communication with any person or entity outside of the Department of the Interior related to the Secretary’s initiative since July 1, 2009.
Background
The letter was signed by the following Members:
Congressman Doc Hastings (WA-04)
Congressman Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Congressman Don Young (AK)
Congressman Dean Heller (NV-02)
Congressman Greg Walden (OR-02)
Congressman Jeff Flake (AZ-06)
Congressman Denny Rehberg (MT)
Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (WY)
Congressman Wally Herger (CA-02)
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-03)
Congressman Pete Sessions (TX-32)
Congressman Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Congressman John Campbell (CA-48)
Congressman Mike Simpson (ID-02)
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Obama to Create New National Monuments?
A short list (below) describing the Obama Administration’s potential new national monuments was leaked to the media this week. I had heard rumors that this was being considered as early as November when I had a private conversation with a top BLM administrator, so I was not surprised by the “announcement.”
The areas under consideration for new national monument status subject to public support and other considerations include the following lands, Owyhee Canyons, Montana Plains, Otero Mesa, San Rafael Swell, Northern Sonoran Desert, Cascades Siskiyou, Vermillion Basin, Lesser Prairie Chicken, Berrysessa-Snow Mountain, Heart of the Great Basin, Bodie Hills, Modoc Plateau, Cedar Mesa, and San Juan Islands.
At one time or another I have visited nearly all the proposed national monuments and each has its special values that make them worthy of protection. Let’s hope the Obama administration follows through on designation of these areas, and even adds a few of the runner up proposals like Bristol Bay, Alaska and Wyoming’s Red Desert.
The Proposed National Monuments:
Otero Mesa in New Mexico: A 1.2 million acre grasslands inhabited by prairie dogs, pronghorn, and other wildlife.
San Rafael Swell, Utah: A wild 40x75 mile mix of canyons, gorges, arches, and buttes that includes 5 wilderness study areas, this place has long been considered for national park status. I’ve wandered some of the canyons on the fringes of this area including Little Wildhorse Canyon, an area with narrow slot canyons.
Owyhee Canyonlands in Oregon and Nevada: The adjacent Idaho portions of this canyon complex was given some partial protection by legislation last year, but Nevada and Oregon sections of this area remain unprotected. I worked the BLM searching for rare plants in this extremely remote part of the West, and often went days without seeing another soul. The remote canyons are home to redband trout and California bighorn sheep.
Montana Northern Plains: This would protect the Bitter Creek WSA and other BLM lands which lies just south of the Canadian border and immediately adjacent to Grasslands National Park in Canada. Back in the 1980s, I published a proposal for Montana wildlands that included a 3.5 million acre national park that would have included the BLM lands along the Missouri Breaks, Charles M. Refuge Wildlife Refuge, and the Bitter Creek area, among other public holdings. In essence, this proposal would make that dream a reality by creating a natural connected corridor between the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Missouri Breaks National Monument, and private conservation efforts north of the Missouri River.
Northwest Sonoran Desert, Arizona. The Sonoran Desert, dominated by its signature plant, the saguaro cactus, it is the most diverse of all North American deserts. On-going and escalating ORV abuse, livestock grazing, and other threats, including extended drought perhaps due to global climate change, threatens this unique ecosystem. This proposal would encompass desert lands northwest of Phoenix.
Cascade Siskiyou National Monument expansion, California/Oregon. In 2000 the Cascades Siskiyou National Monument was established in Oregon, but a portion of the area lies in California. This expansion south would include fine examples of oak woodlands and the unique plant assemblages in this region which features vegetation representative of the Great Basin, Klamath Mountains and Cascade Range. There is also discussion of including an expanded boundary in Oregon as well to include the proposed Siskiyou Crest to the west of Ashland. The Siskiyou Crest includes portions of the PCT, the Red Buttes Wilderness, and the Kangeroo Roadless areas, one of the largest unprotected roadless areas in northern California. This is an area I’ve explored on numerous occasions over the years, and can attest to its unique beauty and quality.
Vermillion Basin, Colorado. The Vermillion Basin lies along the Colorado-Wyoming border and bisected by Vermillion Creek, a tributary of the Green River. Part of the area was studied by the BLM for wilderness designation. It is another lonely corner of the West with rugged canyons and sage covered slopes containing important sage grouse habitat. I’ve hiked a few parts of the basin, and did not encounter another person. But this solitude is likely to change in the future since the area is considered a high priority for on-going oil and gas exploration.
Lesser Prairie Chicken, New Mexico: A 58,000 acre area that is home to bluestem grasslands that contain some of the best lesser prairie chicken habitat in the United States.
Berrysessa-Snow Mountain, California: This 500,000 acre area would include portions of California’s northern Coast Ranges that are the headwaters of Cache Creek, a BLM wilderness area, home to many wintering bald eagles and a growing herd of Tule Elk as well as one of the most diverse botanical communities in the United States. I’ve had the pleasure of hiking Cache Creek and hiking to the summit of Snow Mountain—both areas have outstanding wildlands value, but I was most impressed with the oak woodlands on lower slopes and fir forests at higher elevations.
Heart of the Great Basin, Nevada: This monument would include the Toiyabe, Monitor, and Toquima Ranges. All three ranges have some protected status granted by wilderness designation. This was one of my favorite parts of Nevada which I explored in preparing my Nevada Mountain Ranges book. It contains substantial archeological sites, huge aspen groves, and 12,000 foot peaks.
Bodie Hills, California. Have you ever visited Bodie Ghostown State Park north of Mono Lake, than you have been in the proposed Bodie Hills National Monument. This land of sweeping sage covered hills, home to Mono Basin Sage Grouse, an endangered species. Connecting the Bodie Hills with Mono Lake Scenic Area, plus adjacent recently designated wilderness in the headwaters of the Owen River would make a large interconnected wildlands of national significance.
Modoc Plateau, California. The 3 million acre proposed Modoc Plateau National Monument is another one of those out of the way places in the West where few venture, and is not likely to be on anyone’s to “must see before I die list”. The proposal includes the Skedaddle Mountains on the Nevada-California border, one of the largest unprotected wilderness study areas in the state. Immediately west of the Black Rock Desert complex in northern Nevada, this area, along with the Owyhee Canyonlands, probably contains some of the least visited areas in the American West. One of the things that I’ve particularly enjoyed when I’ve camped out here, is the vast bowl of shining stars at night since this area is far from any major urban light sources.
Cedar Mesa, Utah. The Cedar Mesa area extends from the San Juan River to Elk Ridge on the north borders Grand Gulch on the west and Comb Wash on the east. It includes some of the best canyons in Utah like Mule, Arch, Fish and others, as well as thousands of ancient Native American dwellings and other archeological materials. I once watched cows trampling and destroying ancient walls of an Indian dwelling in Arch Canyon, and have seen plenty of damage from ORVs in Comb Wash. Hopefully national monument designation can bring more protection to this unique part of Utah’s Canyon Country.
San Juan Islands, Washington. The 172 islands and islets that make up Washington’s San Juan Islands lie in Puget Sound north and west of Seattle. The islands lie in the rainshadow the Olympic Mountains and receive some of the lowest annual precipitation on the entire West Coast north of Santa Barbara, California. I have only visited a few of the islands, but enjoy the play of land and sea. The islands and the surrounding ocean is a rich land for marine mammals like orca as well as salmon. There are only 13,389 acres are owned by federal, state or local governments in the islands, so I don’t know exactly which lands might be included in the monument. Hopefully national monument status can add to these public holdings to preserve what is a truly outstanding landscape.
Other areas on short list:
Among areas on the short list which probably will not get national monument designation at this time are Wyoming’s Red Desert, Bristol Bay region and Teshekpuk Lake on the North Slope, both in Alaska. It’s a shame that these three areas are not at the top of the list.
Wyoming’s Red Desert, has been proposed as national park for decades. It includes Adobe Town Badlands, a desert elk herd, and portions of historic trails like the Oregon and Mormon trails. It is threatened by expanding oil and gas development. (Perhaps the reason it is not on the list is due to legislation passed when the Tetons were given protected status that prohibited any new national monuments in Wyoming.)
The Bristol Bay is area that is under threat. The Bay is home to the most famous and largest salmon fisheries in North America, and a proposed gold mine near the headwaters of one of the area rivers could pose a threat to many of these runs.
Finally, Teshekpuk Lake is a well known breeding area for waterfowl located along the Arctic Coast to the west of Prudhoe Bay. Oil development is planned for this area as well.
Land Acquisition and Consolidation
Other parts of the leaked proposal discuss funding for land trades and targeted land acquisition from willing sellers in several important areas to consulate management. For instance, within the Missouri Breaks National Monument there are approximately 80,000 acres of private lands which the administration believes could be purchased for approximately $24 million. Another area targeted for land acquisition is the Upper Green River Valley of Wyoming where almost 400,000 checker boarded state and private acres are located that could be purchased or exchanged. A third area for consolidation is the John Day River in Oregon and the south slope of the Pioneer Mountains in Idaho near Craters of the Moon National Monument.
What are National Monuments?
National Monuments are similar to national parks in many ways, and raise the profile of an area. Unlike National Parks which must be designated by Congressional legislation, and are only managed by the National Park Service, national monuments can be created by Presidential proclamation under the 1906 Antiquities’ Act. Though most national monuments are under National Park Service administration, five other federal agencies currently manage some of our national monuments. For instance, the Missouri Breaks National Monument in Montana is managed by the BLM and Mount St. Helens Volcano National Monument is managed by the Forest Service.
The Act was first used by Theodore Roosevelt to create Devil’s Tower National Monument in Wyoming in 1906. Roosevelt subsequently expanded upon this first conservation act by designating the Grand Canyon NM, Olympic NM, National Bridges NM, and Pinnacles NM in California, among 18 national monuments he established during his presidency. Many subsequent Presidents have designated new national monuments, including George W. Bush who created five national monuments, though four were off in the middle of the Pacific Ocean where there are no voters and no controversy. Many national monuments are “upgraded” to national park status eventually. For instance, Grand Teton National Park, Death Valley National Park, Katmai National Park were all originally national monuments.
Locals Typically Oppose National Monuments
We will, no doubt, hear some the predictable rhetoric about a “government” take over—even though in nearly every instance, the designation is merely changing management emphasis on lands already owned by the public. Historically, however, national monuments were established over the protests of local people.
For example, Teddy Roosevelt tried in vain to get Congress to protect the Grand Canyon but with no success, So Roosevelt used the Antiquities Act to create a Grand Canyon National Monument over the objections of mining, logging and livestock interests as well as most of the residents of Arizona. The Arizona Congressional Delegation even stopped funding for the national monument as a protest.
Similarly, when Roosevelt established protection for old growth forests in the Olympic Mountains, local timber interests and communities were outraged. When Franklin Roosevelt established Jackson Hole National Monument in the Tetons in 1943, locals protested, and the Wyoming delegation introduced legislation to undesignated the monument.
Eventually the Jackson Hole National Monument was merged with other lands to create Grand Teton National Park. When Bill Clinton and Bruce Babbitt established Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in southern Utah in 1996, the Utah Congressional delegation and Governor were opposed.
There is a pattern to all these protest. Generally short sighted local attitudes change over time, and national monuments generally enjoy wide spread public support even within the states where public opposition was high. There are few people who live in Wyoming today, for instance, who would vote to undesignated Grand Teton National Park. And on the heavily logged Olympic Peninsula, Olympic National Park retains the bulk of remaining old growth forests and intact salmon streams that is now one of the prime attractions of the region.
Will the Obama Administration go forward with this proposal and ensure a legacy in conservation history? I certainly hope so. If history and the passage of time is any indication, future generations of Americans will thank him for these designations just as millions of Americans now enjoy and are grateful for past President’s use of the Antiquities Act to enshrine many of America’s most iconic landscapes from the Grand Tetons in Wyoming to Glacier Bay in Alaska to Joshua Tree National Park.
George Wuerthner has published 35 books covering many areas and topics including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy, California Wilderness Areas, Oregon Wilderness Areas, Nevada Mountain Ranges, Alaska Mountain Ranges, Idaho Mountain Ranges, and Thrillcraft--The Environmental Impacts of Motorized Recreation.
The areas under consideration for new national monument status subject to public support and other considerations include the following lands, Owyhee Canyons, Montana Plains, Otero Mesa, San Rafael Swell, Northern Sonoran Desert, Cascades Siskiyou, Vermillion Basin, Lesser Prairie Chicken, Berrysessa-Snow Mountain, Heart of the Great Basin, Bodie Hills, Modoc Plateau, Cedar Mesa, and San Juan Islands.
At one time or another I have visited nearly all the proposed national monuments and each has its special values that make them worthy of protection. Let’s hope the Obama administration follows through on designation of these areas, and even adds a few of the runner up proposals like Bristol Bay, Alaska and Wyoming’s Red Desert.
The Proposed National Monuments:
Otero Mesa in New Mexico: A 1.2 million acre grasslands inhabited by prairie dogs, pronghorn, and other wildlife.
San Rafael Swell, Utah: A wild 40x75 mile mix of canyons, gorges, arches, and buttes that includes 5 wilderness study areas, this place has long been considered for national park status. I’ve wandered some of the canyons on the fringes of this area including Little Wildhorse Canyon, an area with narrow slot canyons.
Owyhee Canyonlands in Oregon and Nevada: The adjacent Idaho portions of this canyon complex was given some partial protection by legislation last year, but Nevada and Oregon sections of this area remain unprotected. I worked the BLM searching for rare plants in this extremely remote part of the West, and often went days without seeing another soul. The remote canyons are home to redband trout and California bighorn sheep.
Montana Northern Plains: This would protect the Bitter Creek WSA and other BLM lands which lies just south of the Canadian border and immediately adjacent to Grasslands National Park in Canada. Back in the 1980s, I published a proposal for Montana wildlands that included a 3.5 million acre national park that would have included the BLM lands along the Missouri Breaks, Charles M. Refuge Wildlife Refuge, and the Bitter Creek area, among other public holdings. In essence, this proposal would make that dream a reality by creating a natural connected corridor between the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Missouri Breaks National Monument, and private conservation efforts north of the Missouri River.
Northwest Sonoran Desert, Arizona. The Sonoran Desert, dominated by its signature plant, the saguaro cactus, it is the most diverse of all North American deserts. On-going and escalating ORV abuse, livestock grazing, and other threats, including extended drought perhaps due to global climate change, threatens this unique ecosystem. This proposal would encompass desert lands northwest of Phoenix.
Cascade Siskiyou National Monument expansion, California/Oregon. In 2000 the Cascades Siskiyou National Monument was established in Oregon, but a portion of the area lies in California. This expansion south would include fine examples of oak woodlands and the unique plant assemblages in this region which features vegetation representative of the Great Basin, Klamath Mountains and Cascade Range. There is also discussion of including an expanded boundary in Oregon as well to include the proposed Siskiyou Crest to the west of Ashland. The Siskiyou Crest includes portions of the PCT, the Red Buttes Wilderness, and the Kangeroo Roadless areas, one of the largest unprotected roadless areas in northern California. This is an area I’ve explored on numerous occasions over the years, and can attest to its unique beauty and quality.
Vermillion Basin, Colorado. The Vermillion Basin lies along the Colorado-Wyoming border and bisected by Vermillion Creek, a tributary of the Green River. Part of the area was studied by the BLM for wilderness designation. It is another lonely corner of the West with rugged canyons and sage covered slopes containing important sage grouse habitat. I’ve hiked a few parts of the basin, and did not encounter another person. But this solitude is likely to change in the future since the area is considered a high priority for on-going oil and gas exploration.
Lesser Prairie Chicken, New Mexico: A 58,000 acre area that is home to bluestem grasslands that contain some of the best lesser prairie chicken habitat in the United States.
Berrysessa-Snow Mountain, California: This 500,000 acre area would include portions of California’s northern Coast Ranges that are the headwaters of Cache Creek, a BLM wilderness area, home to many wintering bald eagles and a growing herd of Tule Elk as well as one of the most diverse botanical communities in the United States. I’ve had the pleasure of hiking Cache Creek and hiking to the summit of Snow Mountain—both areas have outstanding wildlands value, but I was most impressed with the oak woodlands on lower slopes and fir forests at higher elevations.
Heart of the Great Basin, Nevada: This monument would include the Toiyabe, Monitor, and Toquima Ranges. All three ranges have some protected status granted by wilderness designation. This was one of my favorite parts of Nevada which I explored in preparing my Nevada Mountain Ranges book. It contains substantial archeological sites, huge aspen groves, and 12,000 foot peaks.
Bodie Hills, California. Have you ever visited Bodie Ghostown State Park north of Mono Lake, than you have been in the proposed Bodie Hills National Monument. This land of sweeping sage covered hills, home to Mono Basin Sage Grouse, an endangered species. Connecting the Bodie Hills with Mono Lake Scenic Area, plus adjacent recently designated wilderness in the headwaters of the Owen River would make a large interconnected wildlands of national significance.
Modoc Plateau, California. The 3 million acre proposed Modoc Plateau National Monument is another one of those out of the way places in the West where few venture, and is not likely to be on anyone’s to “must see before I die list”. The proposal includes the Skedaddle Mountains on the Nevada-California border, one of the largest unprotected wilderness study areas in the state. Immediately west of the Black Rock Desert complex in northern Nevada, this area, along with the Owyhee Canyonlands, probably contains some of the least visited areas in the American West. One of the things that I’ve particularly enjoyed when I’ve camped out here, is the vast bowl of shining stars at night since this area is far from any major urban light sources.
Cedar Mesa, Utah. The Cedar Mesa area extends from the San Juan River to Elk Ridge on the north borders Grand Gulch on the west and Comb Wash on the east. It includes some of the best canyons in Utah like Mule, Arch, Fish and others, as well as thousands of ancient Native American dwellings and other archeological materials. I once watched cows trampling and destroying ancient walls of an Indian dwelling in Arch Canyon, and have seen plenty of damage from ORVs in Comb Wash. Hopefully national monument designation can bring more protection to this unique part of Utah’s Canyon Country.
San Juan Islands, Washington. The 172 islands and islets that make up Washington’s San Juan Islands lie in Puget Sound north and west of Seattle. The islands lie in the rainshadow the Olympic Mountains and receive some of the lowest annual precipitation on the entire West Coast north of Santa Barbara, California. I have only visited a few of the islands, but enjoy the play of land and sea. The islands and the surrounding ocean is a rich land for marine mammals like orca as well as salmon. There are only 13,389 acres are owned by federal, state or local governments in the islands, so I don’t know exactly which lands might be included in the monument. Hopefully national monument status can add to these public holdings to preserve what is a truly outstanding landscape.
Other areas on short list:
Among areas on the short list which probably will not get national monument designation at this time are Wyoming’s Red Desert, Bristol Bay region and Teshekpuk Lake on the North Slope, both in Alaska. It’s a shame that these three areas are not at the top of the list.
Wyoming’s Red Desert, has been proposed as national park for decades. It includes Adobe Town Badlands, a desert elk herd, and portions of historic trails like the Oregon and Mormon trails. It is threatened by expanding oil and gas development. (Perhaps the reason it is not on the list is due to legislation passed when the Tetons were given protected status that prohibited any new national monuments in Wyoming.)
The Bristol Bay is area that is under threat. The Bay is home to the most famous and largest salmon fisheries in North America, and a proposed gold mine near the headwaters of one of the area rivers could pose a threat to many of these runs.
Finally, Teshekpuk Lake is a well known breeding area for waterfowl located along the Arctic Coast to the west of Prudhoe Bay. Oil development is planned for this area as well.
Land Acquisition and Consolidation
Other parts of the leaked proposal discuss funding for land trades and targeted land acquisition from willing sellers in several important areas to consulate management. For instance, within the Missouri Breaks National Monument there are approximately 80,000 acres of private lands which the administration believes could be purchased for approximately $24 million. Another area targeted for land acquisition is the Upper Green River Valley of Wyoming where almost 400,000 checker boarded state and private acres are located that could be purchased or exchanged. A third area for consolidation is the John Day River in Oregon and the south slope of the Pioneer Mountains in Idaho near Craters of the Moon National Monument.
What are National Monuments?
National Monuments are similar to national parks in many ways, and raise the profile of an area. Unlike National Parks which must be designated by Congressional legislation, and are only managed by the National Park Service, national monuments can be created by Presidential proclamation under the 1906 Antiquities’ Act. Though most national monuments are under National Park Service administration, five other federal agencies currently manage some of our national monuments. For instance, the Missouri Breaks National Monument in Montana is managed by the BLM and Mount St. Helens Volcano National Monument is managed by the Forest Service.
The Act was first used by Theodore Roosevelt to create Devil’s Tower National Monument in Wyoming in 1906. Roosevelt subsequently expanded upon this first conservation act by designating the Grand Canyon NM, Olympic NM, National Bridges NM, and Pinnacles NM in California, among 18 national monuments he established during his presidency. Many subsequent Presidents have designated new national monuments, including George W. Bush who created five national monuments, though four were off in the middle of the Pacific Ocean where there are no voters and no controversy. Many national monuments are “upgraded” to national park status eventually. For instance, Grand Teton National Park, Death Valley National Park, Katmai National Park were all originally national monuments.
Locals Typically Oppose National Monuments
We will, no doubt, hear some the predictable rhetoric about a “government” take over—even though in nearly every instance, the designation is merely changing management emphasis on lands already owned by the public. Historically, however, national monuments were established over the protests of local people.
For example, Teddy Roosevelt tried in vain to get Congress to protect the Grand Canyon but with no success, So Roosevelt used the Antiquities Act to create a Grand Canyon National Monument over the objections of mining, logging and livestock interests as well as most of the residents of Arizona. The Arizona Congressional Delegation even stopped funding for the national monument as a protest.
Similarly, when Roosevelt established protection for old growth forests in the Olympic Mountains, local timber interests and communities were outraged. When Franklin Roosevelt established Jackson Hole National Monument in the Tetons in 1943, locals protested, and the Wyoming delegation introduced legislation to undesignated the monument.
Eventually the Jackson Hole National Monument was merged with other lands to create Grand Teton National Park. When Bill Clinton and Bruce Babbitt established Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in southern Utah in 1996, the Utah Congressional delegation and Governor were opposed.
There is a pattern to all these protest. Generally short sighted local attitudes change over time, and national monuments generally enjoy wide spread public support even within the states where public opposition was high. There are few people who live in Wyoming today, for instance, who would vote to undesignated Grand Teton National Park. And on the heavily logged Olympic Peninsula, Olympic National Park retains the bulk of remaining old growth forests and intact salmon streams that is now one of the prime attractions of the region.
Will the Obama Administration go forward with this proposal and ensure a legacy in conservation history? I certainly hope so. If history and the passage of time is any indication, future generations of Americans will thank him for these designations just as millions of Americans now enjoy and are grateful for past President’s use of the Antiquities Act to enshrine many of America’s most iconic landscapes from the Grand Tetons in Wyoming to Glacier Bay in Alaska to Joshua Tree National Park.
George Wuerthner has published 35 books covering many areas and topics including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy, California Wilderness Areas, Oregon Wilderness Areas, Nevada Mountain Ranges, Alaska Mountain Ranges, Idaho Mountain Ranges, and Thrillcraft--The Environmental Impacts of Motorized Recreation.
In the West, ‘Monument’ Is a Fighting Word
In much of the nation, “monument” is an innocuous word, conjuring up images of historical figures cast in bronze or road-side plaques few stop to read.
In the West, though, it’s a fighting word, bound up for years with simmering resentments against the federal government and presidential powers. The feeling dates to the days when, with the stroke of a pen, Theodore Roosevelt declared lands he wished to protect as national monuments under the American Antiquities Act.
A new monument fight erupted this week when Representative Rob Bishop, Republican of Utah, said he had uncovered a “secret” Interior Department memorandum suggesting that the federal government was considering national monument designation for 14 huge blocks of land in nine states from Montana to New Mexico.
A spokeswoman for the Department of the Interior, Kendra Barkoff, said the list was not secret at all, but simply a “very, very, very preliminary,” internal working document resulting from a brainstorming session that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Democrat and former senator from Colorado, had requested about the lands in the West.
“No decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration,” Ms. Barkoff said in a statement.
But the word “secret,” especially when applied to the possible doings of far-away federal bureaucrats, is right up there with “monument” in its ability to unleash vitriol among Western conservatives. In 1996, President Bill Clinton created the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah with a surprise announcement that still resonates across the region as a symbol of government powers, or what critics call the abuse of those powers.
The new Interior Department memorandum, people in both parties said, has reopened a wound from those days that never quite healed.
“Given the lingering frustration felt by many Utahns, following the 1996 ‘stroke of the pen’ monument designation, it is totally inappropriate for this federal agency to even have preliminary discussions without involving the stakeholders on the ground,” said Representative Jim Matheson, Democrat of Utah, a state that had two of the possible new monuments on the list, the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa.
In Montana, an area of unplowed grassland called the Northern Prairie was listed on the Interior Department memorandum, discussed as a possible home for a new national bison range. But the state’s representative at large, Denny Rehberg, a Republican, said in a statement, “The Antiquities Act was never intended as an end-run around the will of the people nor as a land-grab device for East Coast politicians.”
Ms. Barkoff at the Interior Department said in an interview that Mr. Salazar, as Colorado’s attorney general, United States senator and secretary of the interior, had a history of seeking consensus, and that any discussion of monument designation would be open to public and Congressional involvement.
A spokesman for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, a conservation group, said the appearance of secrecy in monument talks had melded with ideological opposition to the Obama administration — widespread in a deeply Republican part of the country.
“I don’t think it’s as much about the specifics of the land issues as it is pure ideological concerns,” said the group’s executive director, Scott Groene. “There’s already been a great fury going on in this state, and it’s hard to imagine that this really changes any of that.”
The fury is nothing new. In 1969, for example, the town of Boulder, Utah, passed a resolution changing its name to Johnson’s Folly, and predicted the town’s demise after President Lyndon B. Johnson added thousands of acres to Arches and Capitol Reef National Monuments, which were both later designated national parks by Congress.
The town later reverted to its original name, and on its Web site the Boulder Business Group now proudly calls the town the “gateway to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.”
Representative Bishop, who was teaching history and government in a high school in northern Utah when that monument was created in 1996, also held out the possibility that cooler heads and calmer discussions could prevail on land protection in the West. The prerequisite, he said, is transparency and genuine dialogue. If Westerners think there is a foregone conclusion, hostility to more national monuments will be unavoidable.
“If they do things in an open and transparent way and involve everyone, then there’s no need for yelling and screaming,” Mr. Bishop said. “Do it the right way, and we can work it out.”
In the West, though, it’s a fighting word, bound up for years with simmering resentments against the federal government and presidential powers. The feeling dates to the days when, with the stroke of a pen, Theodore Roosevelt declared lands he wished to protect as national monuments under the American Antiquities Act.
A new monument fight erupted this week when Representative Rob Bishop, Republican of Utah, said he had uncovered a “secret” Interior Department memorandum suggesting that the federal government was considering national monument designation for 14 huge blocks of land in nine states from Montana to New Mexico.
A spokeswoman for the Department of the Interior, Kendra Barkoff, said the list was not secret at all, but simply a “very, very, very preliminary,” internal working document resulting from a brainstorming session that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Democrat and former senator from Colorado, had requested about the lands in the West.
“No decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration,” Ms. Barkoff said in a statement.
But the word “secret,” especially when applied to the possible doings of far-away federal bureaucrats, is right up there with “monument” in its ability to unleash vitriol among Western conservatives. In 1996, President Bill Clinton created the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah with a surprise announcement that still resonates across the region as a symbol of government powers, or what critics call the abuse of those powers.
The new Interior Department memorandum, people in both parties said, has reopened a wound from those days that never quite healed.
“Given the lingering frustration felt by many Utahns, following the 1996 ‘stroke of the pen’ monument designation, it is totally inappropriate for this federal agency to even have preliminary discussions without involving the stakeholders on the ground,” said Representative Jim Matheson, Democrat of Utah, a state that had two of the possible new monuments on the list, the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa.
In Montana, an area of unplowed grassland called the Northern Prairie was listed on the Interior Department memorandum, discussed as a possible home for a new national bison range. But the state’s representative at large, Denny Rehberg, a Republican, said in a statement, “The Antiquities Act was never intended as an end-run around the will of the people nor as a land-grab device for East Coast politicians.”
Ms. Barkoff at the Interior Department said in an interview that Mr. Salazar, as Colorado’s attorney general, United States senator and secretary of the interior, had a history of seeking consensus, and that any discussion of monument designation would be open to public and Congressional involvement.
A spokesman for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, a conservation group, said the appearance of secrecy in monument talks had melded with ideological opposition to the Obama administration — widespread in a deeply Republican part of the country.
“I don’t think it’s as much about the specifics of the land issues as it is pure ideological concerns,” said the group’s executive director, Scott Groene. “There’s already been a great fury going on in this state, and it’s hard to imagine that this really changes any of that.”
The fury is nothing new. In 1969, for example, the town of Boulder, Utah, passed a resolution changing its name to Johnson’s Folly, and predicted the town’s demise after President Lyndon B. Johnson added thousands of acres to Arches and Capitol Reef National Monuments, which were both later designated national parks by Congress.
The town later reverted to its original name, and on its Web site the Boulder Business Group now proudly calls the town the “gateway to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.”
Representative Bishop, who was teaching history and government in a high school in northern Utah when that monument was created in 1996, also held out the possibility that cooler heads and calmer discussions could prevail on land protection in the West. The prerequisite, he said, is transparency and genuine dialogue. If Westerners think there is a foregone conclusion, hostility to more national monuments will be unavoidable.
“If they do things in an open and transparent way and involve everyone, then there’s no need for yelling and screaming,” Mr. Bishop said. “Do it the right way, and we can work it out.”
Utah monuments
We Utahns can relax, for now. The feds say they aren't sneaking around behind our backs, plotting a land grab of epic proportions.
However, the Interior Department is considering two areas in Utah as future national monuments. Since they are already mostly public lands, managed by the federal government, that's hardly a land grab. But setting aside these starkly beautiful areas as national monuments would have a huge impact on Utahns.
The two are San Rafael Swell, a nearly 3,000-square-mile dome mostly in Emery County bordered by Castle Dale, Green River, Price and Hanksville; and Cedar Mesa, a 400-square-mile area of San Juan County noted for its Native American archaeological sites. With the exception of some parcels owned by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, they are not state-owned. But they are used for grazing and are popular recreation sites.
Since a department memo listing the two Utah sites as possible monuments surfaced last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Gov. Gary Herbert have talked. Herbert says he is confident Interior won't move ahead without first laying some groundwork with locals. Salazar says he will meet with the governor's Balanced Resources Council, and the governor plans to have conversations with Salazar's top deputy and the head of the Bureau of Land Management, which now oversees the two tracts.
The president of the United States has the power under the Antiquities Act to
Advertisement
make such designations without an act of Congress and without asking permission of the people who live in the area. Still, we hope President Barack Obama and Salazar would not follow the example of former President Bill Clinton.
In 1996 the Clinton administration denied it was planning to establish a huge area of south-central Utah as a national monument -- right up until the president announced that 1.9 million acres of public land in Utah had been set aside as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
Utah officials are still fuming over that deception and the fact Clinton sought no advice at all from them regarding the impacts to local residents. And rightly so. Besides simple courtesy, a collaborative process involving state and federal officials, local residents and county commissions would no doubt provide information that could help decide the boundaries of a national monument, the timing of the designation and other important details.
The president shouldn't take a heavy-handed approach just because he can.
However, the Interior Department is considering two areas in Utah as future national monuments. Since they are already mostly public lands, managed by the federal government, that's hardly a land grab. But setting aside these starkly beautiful areas as national monuments would have a huge impact on Utahns.
The two are San Rafael Swell, a nearly 3,000-square-mile dome mostly in Emery County bordered by Castle Dale, Green River, Price and Hanksville; and Cedar Mesa, a 400-square-mile area of San Juan County noted for its Native American archaeological sites. With the exception of some parcels owned by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, they are not state-owned. But they are used for grazing and are popular recreation sites.
Since a department memo listing the two Utah sites as possible monuments surfaced last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Gov. Gary Herbert have talked. Herbert says he is confident Interior won't move ahead without first laying some groundwork with locals. Salazar says he will meet with the governor's Balanced Resources Council, and the governor plans to have conversations with Salazar's top deputy and the head of the Bureau of Land Management, which now oversees the two tracts.
The president of the United States has the power under the Antiquities Act to
Advertisement
make such designations without an act of Congress and without asking permission of the people who live in the area. Still, we hope President Barack Obama and Salazar would not follow the example of former President Bill Clinton.
In 1996 the Clinton administration denied it was planning to establish a huge area of south-central Utah as a national monument -- right up until the president announced that 1.9 million acres of public land in Utah had been set aside as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
Utah officials are still fuming over that deception and the fact Clinton sought no advice at all from them regarding the impacts to local residents. And rightly so. Besides simple courtesy, a collaborative process involving state and federal officials, local residents and county commissions would no doubt provide information that could help decide the boundaries of a national monument, the timing of the designation and other important details.
The president shouldn't take a heavy-handed approach just because he can.
Hatch calls White House to complain about monument plan
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel received an earful from Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch on Friday, one day after a leaked administration memo indicated the president was considering naming two new national monuments in the state.
Hatch's office said the senator called Emanuel to complain about the potential unilateral action and Emanuel promised to provide an official response after consulting with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
"I made very clear to him that if the Administration goes down this road, it will meet absolute outrage and opposition from across the state and from me representing Utah in the United States Senate," Hatch said in a statement.
The Interior Department has said the memo is only a first look at land that may need more federal protection. The list of 14 spots includes the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa areas of southern Utah.
Every member of Utah's federal delegation, along with the governor and many state lawmakers, responded to the memo with anger, reflecting on President Bill Clinton's controversial 1996 decision to create the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The federal designation limits the uses of the land, blocking development and mineral extraction.
"Based on past experience any claim that these plans are just preliminary offers the people of Utah very little comfort," continued Hatch. "The very consideration of these designations demonstrates that Washington wants to dictate to us how our lands will be managed."
mcanham@sltrib.com
Hatch's office said the senator called Emanuel to complain about the potential unilateral action and Emanuel promised to provide an official response after consulting with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
"I made very clear to him that if the Administration goes down this road, it will meet absolute outrage and opposition from across the state and from me representing Utah in the United States Senate," Hatch said in a statement.
The Interior Department has said the memo is only a first look at land that may need more federal protection. The list of 14 spots includes the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa areas of southern Utah.
Every member of Utah's federal delegation, along with the governor and many state lawmakers, responded to the memo with anger, reflecting on President Bill Clinton's controversial 1996 decision to create the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The federal designation limits the uses of the land, blocking development and mineral extraction.
"Based on past experience any claim that these plans are just preliminary offers the people of Utah very little comfort," continued Hatch. "The very consideration of these designations demonstrates that Washington wants to dictate to us how our lands will be managed."
mcanham@sltrib.com
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Obama Eyes Western Land for National Monuments, Angering Some
More than a dozen pristine landscapes, wildlife habitats and scenic rivers in 11 Western states, some larger than Rhode Island and Delaware combined, are under consideration by the Obama administration to become America's newest National Monuments -- a decision the administration can make unilaterally without local input or congressional approval.
More than a dozen pristine landscapes, wildlife habitats and scenic rivers in 11 Western states, some larger than Rhode Island and Delaware combined, are under consideration by the Obama administration to become America's newest National Monuments -- a decision the administration can make unilaterally without local input or congressional approval.
According to internal Department of Interior documents leaked to a Utah congressman and obtained exclusively by Fox News, the mostly public lands include Arizona deserts, California mountains, Montana prairies, New Mexico forests, Washington islands and the Great Basins of Nevada and Colorado -- totaling more than 13 million acres.
Sources say President Obama is likely to choose two or three sites from the list, depending on their size, conservation value and the development threat to each one's environment.
"Many nationally significant landscapes are worthy of inclusion in the NLCS (National Landscape Conservation System)," according to the draft report stamped NOT FOR RELEASE. "The areas listed below may be good candidates for National Monument designation and the Antiquities Act."
Click here to view a list of the sites and a brief description of each one.
Presidential use of the Antiquities Act is highly controversial because the White House, with the stroke of a pen, can lock up thousands of square miles of federal lands used for timber, ranching, mining and energy development without local input or congressional approval. The Act is generally interpreted to commemorate or protect a specific historical landmark, not prohibit development or deprive local communities of jobs and tax revenues.
"Any federal action that could lead to limited access should be done in an open and public manner using extraordinary caution," said Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., upon seeing the leaked report. "The fact that this administration is already circulating internal memos to bypass Congress and the public process is troubling."
In 1996, President Clinton turned 1.3 million acres of southern Utah into the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument without telling the Arizona or Utah congressional delegation. Highly controversial at the time, the designation has withstood numerous legal challenges to the president's authority, and the national monument remains one of Clinton's boldest environmental accomplishments.
While Western politicians are still digesting the report, several properties stand out.
-- Otero Mesa, New Mexico: The area stretches over 1.2 million acres and is home to 1,000 native species. Gov. Bill Richardson has sought protection for Otero Mesa for years, but the Bush administration targeted it for oil and gas development.
-- Heart of the Great Basin, Nevada: Researchers call it a "globally unique assemblage of cultural, wildlife and historic values" that includes thousands of petroglyphs and stone artifacts dating back 12,000 years.
-- Owyhee Desert, Oregon: Called one of the most remote areas of the United States, the Owyhee is home to the largest herd of California bighorn sheep.
-- Bodie Hills, California: Located in the fast growing eastern Sierra Nevada mountains, Bodie contains the Golden State's best preserved ghost town. But the area is also loaded with gold, and several mining permits are pending.
-- The Modoc Plateau, California: Spanning close to 3 million acres in the northwest corner of California, the Modoc Plateau is "laden with biological and archeological treasures." Interior officials call it the second largest unprotected landscape in the state.
The list contains a number of political land mines for the president, according to a former Bush Interior Department appointee familiar with the document who asked to remain anonymous.
"Right now a number of senior officials are going over the report," he told Fox News. "When Clinton did it, most of the West was red states and he didn't have any blowback. Obama has to ask himself, if he chooses a Nevada location, will it hurt (Senator Harry) Reid's re-election. The same is true in almost every (Western) state where Democrats have made serious inroads."
The list was leaked just days after a story appeared in the New York Times outlining the administration's plans to use executive power to advance his agenda in the face of congressional opposition. "We are reviewing a list of presidential orders and directives to get the job done, across a front of issues," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the newspaper.
Western representatives are planning a full-fledged assault on the report when Congress returns from its break next week.
Congressman Rob Bishop, R-Ut., co-founder of the Western States Coalition and now Chair of the Congressional Western Caucus, has also seen the leaked memo.
"We are taking this seriously. The tar is warming up. The pitchforks are ready. We will do what ever we need to make sure Congress is fully informed and fully aware of this action. This process should be open and transparent and President Obama should go though Congress and do it this the right way, not by presidential fiat," said Bishop.
"Outrage. In a country as dependent on foreign oil as this one, this kind of action on public lands is simply unacceptable."
Interior Department spokesman Craig Leff told Fox News late Wednesday the leaked document "reflects some brainstorming discussions within [the Bureau of Land Management], but no decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration."
More than a dozen pristine landscapes, wildlife habitats and scenic rivers in 11 Western states, some larger than Rhode Island and Delaware combined, are under consideration by the Obama administration to become America's newest National Monuments -- a decision the administration can make unilaterally without local input or congressional approval.
According to internal Department of Interior documents leaked to a Utah congressman and obtained exclusively by Fox News, the mostly public lands include Arizona deserts, California mountains, Montana prairies, New Mexico forests, Washington islands and the Great Basins of Nevada and Colorado -- totaling more than 13 million acres.
Sources say President Obama is likely to choose two or three sites from the list, depending on their size, conservation value and the development threat to each one's environment.
"Many nationally significant landscapes are worthy of inclusion in the NLCS (National Landscape Conservation System)," according to the draft report stamped NOT FOR RELEASE. "The areas listed below may be good candidates for National Monument designation and the Antiquities Act."
Click here to view a list of the sites and a brief description of each one.
Presidential use of the Antiquities Act is highly controversial because the White House, with the stroke of a pen, can lock up thousands of square miles of federal lands used for timber, ranching, mining and energy development without local input or congressional approval. The Act is generally interpreted to commemorate or protect a specific historical landmark, not prohibit development or deprive local communities of jobs and tax revenues.
"Any federal action that could lead to limited access should be done in an open and public manner using extraordinary caution," said Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., upon seeing the leaked report. "The fact that this administration is already circulating internal memos to bypass Congress and the public process is troubling."
In 1996, President Clinton turned 1.3 million acres of southern Utah into the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument without telling the Arizona or Utah congressional delegation. Highly controversial at the time, the designation has withstood numerous legal challenges to the president's authority, and the national monument remains one of Clinton's boldest environmental accomplishments.
While Western politicians are still digesting the report, several properties stand out.
-- Otero Mesa, New Mexico: The area stretches over 1.2 million acres and is home to 1,000 native species. Gov. Bill Richardson has sought protection for Otero Mesa for years, but the Bush administration targeted it for oil and gas development.
-- Heart of the Great Basin, Nevada: Researchers call it a "globally unique assemblage of cultural, wildlife and historic values" that includes thousands of petroglyphs and stone artifacts dating back 12,000 years.
-- Owyhee Desert, Oregon: Called one of the most remote areas of the United States, the Owyhee is home to the largest herd of California bighorn sheep.
-- Bodie Hills, California: Located in the fast growing eastern Sierra Nevada mountains, Bodie contains the Golden State's best preserved ghost town. But the area is also loaded with gold, and several mining permits are pending.
-- The Modoc Plateau, California: Spanning close to 3 million acres in the northwest corner of California, the Modoc Plateau is "laden with biological and archeological treasures." Interior officials call it the second largest unprotected landscape in the state.
The list contains a number of political land mines for the president, according to a former Bush Interior Department appointee familiar with the document who asked to remain anonymous.
"Right now a number of senior officials are going over the report," he told Fox News. "When Clinton did it, most of the West was red states and he didn't have any blowback. Obama has to ask himself, if he chooses a Nevada location, will it hurt (Senator Harry) Reid's re-election. The same is true in almost every (Western) state where Democrats have made serious inroads."
The list was leaked just days after a story appeared in the New York Times outlining the administration's plans to use executive power to advance his agenda in the face of congressional opposition. "We are reviewing a list of presidential orders and directives to get the job done, across a front of issues," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the newspaper.
Western representatives are planning a full-fledged assault on the report when Congress returns from its break next week.
Congressman Rob Bishop, R-Ut., co-founder of the Western States Coalition and now Chair of the Congressional Western Caucus, has also seen the leaked memo.
"We are taking this seriously. The tar is warming up. The pitchforks are ready. We will do what ever we need to make sure Congress is fully informed and fully aware of this action. This process should be open and transparent and President Obama should go though Congress and do it this the right way, not by presidential fiat," said Bishop.
"Outrage. In a country as dependent on foreign oil as this one, this kind of action on public lands is simply unacceptable."
Interior Department spokesman Craig Leff told Fox News late Wednesday the leaked document "reflects some brainstorming discussions within [the Bureau of Land Management], but no decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration."
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Internal DOI Document; Secret Plan To Create 14 Nat'l Monuments? $Billions For Land Acquisition
Click on title or go here for the post by The Westerner.
Friday, February 12, 2010
No change in federal grazing fee in 2010
The federal grazing fee for 2010 will be $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM) for public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and $1.35 per head month (HM) for lands managed by the Forest Service. The 2010 fee is the same as it was in 2009.
An AUM or HM – treated as equivalent measures for fee purposes – is the occupancy and use of public lands by one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.
The newly calculated grazing fee, determined by a congressional formula and effective on March 1, applies to nearly 18,000 grazing permits and leases administered by the BLM and more than 8,000 permits administered by the Forest Service.
The formula used for calculating the grazing fee, which was established by Congress in the 1978 Public Rangelands Improvement Act, has continued under a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986. Under that order, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per AUM, and any increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous year’s level.
The annually determined grazing fee is computed by using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM/HM for livestock grazing on public lands in Western states. The figure is then calculated according to three factors – current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production.
In effect, the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market conditions, with livestock operators paying more when conditions are better and less when conditions have declined.
The BLM manages more than 253 million surface acres. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres of Federal lands.
An AUM or HM – treated as equivalent measures for fee purposes – is the occupancy and use of public lands by one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.
The newly calculated grazing fee, determined by a congressional formula and effective on March 1, applies to nearly 18,000 grazing permits and leases administered by the BLM and more than 8,000 permits administered by the Forest Service.
The formula used for calculating the grazing fee, which was established by Congress in the 1978 Public Rangelands Improvement Act, has continued under a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986. Under that order, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per AUM, and any increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous year’s level.
The annually determined grazing fee is computed by using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM/HM for livestock grazing on public lands in Western states. The figure is then calculated according to three factors – current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production.
In effect, the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market conditions, with livestock operators paying more when conditions are better and less when conditions have declined.
The BLM manages more than 253 million surface acres. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres of Federal lands.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Environmentalists to lose land linked to preserve
An environmental group stands to lose land linked to its signature Idaho wildlife preserve because federal land managers contend they've been misled over how the site would be managed.
Western Watersheds Project oversees three BLM grazing allotments totaling about 7,000 acres, or 11 square miles, connected to its Greenfire Preserve near the East Fork of the Salmon River.
Valley Sun LLC, a company headed by Gordon Younger, a Seattle environmentalist and a financial supporter of Western Watersheds, has a permit for the allotments but doesn't graze cattle there.
BLM officials from Challis, located 280 miles north of Boise in the mountains, this month told Younger he "knowingly or willfully made false statements or representations" about his plans for the allotments. As a result, they were canceling his permit "in its entirety."
Western Watersheds Project has nine pending federal lawsuits targeting the BLM as part of its campaign to end public land grazing. Younger has become a lightning rod for his role in buying up land in the region and for going toe-to-toe with ranchers for control of traditional grazing ground.
"Valley Sun, LLC and Western Watersheds Project have provided BLM with baffling, contradictory and apparently false statements," BLM Field Manager David Rosenkrance told Younger in a Feb. 2 letter that the permit was being canceled. "I can only conclude Valley Sun, LLC never intended to purchase livestock to activate their permit."
Rosenkrance, who was out of the Challis office and didn't immediately return a call, gave Younger 15 days to protest.
In 2000, Younger bought a 432-acre ranch near Challis that became Western Watersheds Project's Greenfire Preserve.
The ranch came with permits to BLM and U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments totaling more than 50,000 acres, according to the group.
Jon Marvel, director of the Hailey-based Western Watersheds, has managed Younger's allotment near Challis under a conservation agreement for a decade. He plans to protest Rosenkrance's decision to cancel the permit, which Marvel says stems from the federal agency's support of ranching interests.
"There has been and continues to be a bias in the BLM against conservation," Marvel said, adding keeping the allotments remains a priority. "It's very important. Not having livestock on these landscapes is hugely beneficial for wildlife and fisheries."
Livestock interests accuse Younger, a Seattle packaging business owner, of forming "fake ranches" to buy land, compete for leases, squeeze livestock off prime grazing ground - and then manage it as wildlife habitat. Since 2006, Younger has been embroiled in a federal court lawsuit against Idaho that it settled late last year for $50,000, an agreement to end discrimination and a rewrite of rules governing how Idaho awards competitive grazing leases.
Ranching groups embittered by Younger's and Marvel's activities greeted the BLM's move to cancel the permit near Challis, saying federal action has been long overdue.
"He's just not playing with a level playing field," said Stan Boyd, executive director of the Idaho Woolgrower's Association. "Finally, the BLM got fed up. It's about time."
Western Watersheds Project oversees three BLM grazing allotments totaling about 7,000 acres, or 11 square miles, connected to its Greenfire Preserve near the East Fork of the Salmon River.
Valley Sun LLC, a company headed by Gordon Younger, a Seattle environmentalist and a financial supporter of Western Watersheds, has a permit for the allotments but doesn't graze cattle there.
BLM officials from Challis, located 280 miles north of Boise in the mountains, this month told Younger he "knowingly or willfully made false statements or representations" about his plans for the allotments. As a result, they were canceling his permit "in its entirety."
Western Watersheds Project has nine pending federal lawsuits targeting the BLM as part of its campaign to end public land grazing. Younger has become a lightning rod for his role in buying up land in the region and for going toe-to-toe with ranchers for control of traditional grazing ground.
"Valley Sun, LLC and Western Watersheds Project have provided BLM with baffling, contradictory and apparently false statements," BLM Field Manager David Rosenkrance told Younger in a Feb. 2 letter that the permit was being canceled. "I can only conclude Valley Sun, LLC never intended to purchase livestock to activate their permit."
Rosenkrance, who was out of the Challis office and didn't immediately return a call, gave Younger 15 days to protest.
In 2000, Younger bought a 432-acre ranch near Challis that became Western Watersheds Project's Greenfire Preserve.
The ranch came with permits to BLM and U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments totaling more than 50,000 acres, according to the group.
Jon Marvel, director of the Hailey-based Western Watersheds, has managed Younger's allotment near Challis under a conservation agreement for a decade. He plans to protest Rosenkrance's decision to cancel the permit, which Marvel says stems from the federal agency's support of ranching interests.
"There has been and continues to be a bias in the BLM against conservation," Marvel said, adding keeping the allotments remains a priority. "It's very important. Not having livestock on these landscapes is hugely beneficial for wildlife and fisheries."
Livestock interests accuse Younger, a Seattle packaging business owner, of forming "fake ranches" to buy land, compete for leases, squeeze livestock off prime grazing ground - and then manage it as wildlife habitat. Since 2006, Younger has been embroiled in a federal court lawsuit against Idaho that it settled late last year for $50,000, an agreement to end discrimination and a rewrite of rules governing how Idaho awards competitive grazing leases.
Ranching groups embittered by Younger's and Marvel's activities greeted the BLM's move to cancel the permit near Challis, saying federal action has been long overdue.
"He's just not playing with a level playing field," said Stan Boyd, executive director of the Idaho Woolgrower's Association. "Finally, the BLM got fed up. It's about time."
Friday, January 29, 2010
Forest officials modify plan for bighorn sheep
The Payette National Forest has released a set of proposed updates to its plan to keep domestic sheep from intermingling with wild bighorns, a species susceptible to pneumonia that can be passed along by their domestic cousins.
Forest officials are taking public comment on the 184-page document that spells out five new alternatives to keep the herds segregated. It also includes the latest scientific analysis on the health risks wild bighorns face in sharing habitat with domestics.
Forest managers have been working to update the plan since 2005 when the chief of the U.S. Forest Service declared that the previous plan failed to adequately protect wild sheep in north-central Idaho.
The draft, citing field observations and scientific research, finds bighorn sheep have a high probability of contracting fatal pneumonia after contact with domestic sheep.
One alternative in the draft plan calls for reducing domestic grazing by about 60 percent in Hells Canyon and allotments in the Salmon River Canyon.
"We want to keep the contact rate as low as possible, 2 to 5 percent is where you would prefer that number to be," Patty Soucek, a planner for the forest, told the Lewiston Tribune. "The higher the contact rate, the less likely the (bighorn) population is going to persist."
The draft's alternatives also include extremes for grazing, from an all-out ban on domestic grazing to no reductions.
Suzanne Rainville, supervisor of the Payette National Forest, said the new document also focused on plugging in information from about 15 years of data gleaned from bighorn sheep fitted with radio collars.
"Instead of trying to assume what bighorns will do, we said we have all this information, let's use that to tell us what they have done and make as few assumptions as possible," she said.
Environmental groups, the Nez Perce Tribe and bighorn advocates said any new policy approve by the Payette National Forest could have broader implications in other western states where bighorns may have contact with domestic sheep.
Jon Marvel, executive director of the Hailey-based Western Watershed Projects, said the decision made on the Payette forest could have far-reaching implications for management of domestic sheep across the West.
"And that will be, I think, a very good thing because there are so many places where we have this kind of conflict," he said.
Idaho bighorn numbers have dwindled by half since 1990, to about 3,500 animals. Many wildlife scientists are convinced contact between domestic sheep and bighorns reintroduced into the region in the 1970s is behind deadly disease outbreaks. Disease transmission concerns figured prominently in an Oct. 14 federal court ruling that banished a rancher from his family's historic grazing ground along the Salmon River.
The forest is taking public comment through March 19 before issuing a final decision later this year.
Forest officials are taking public comment on the 184-page document that spells out five new alternatives to keep the herds segregated. It also includes the latest scientific analysis on the health risks wild bighorns face in sharing habitat with domestics.
Forest managers have been working to update the plan since 2005 when the chief of the U.S. Forest Service declared that the previous plan failed to adequately protect wild sheep in north-central Idaho.
The draft, citing field observations and scientific research, finds bighorn sheep have a high probability of contracting fatal pneumonia after contact with domestic sheep.
One alternative in the draft plan calls for reducing domestic grazing by about 60 percent in Hells Canyon and allotments in the Salmon River Canyon.
"We want to keep the contact rate as low as possible, 2 to 5 percent is where you would prefer that number to be," Patty Soucek, a planner for the forest, told the Lewiston Tribune. "The higher the contact rate, the less likely the (bighorn) population is going to persist."
The draft's alternatives also include extremes for grazing, from an all-out ban on domestic grazing to no reductions.
Suzanne Rainville, supervisor of the Payette National Forest, said the new document also focused on plugging in information from about 15 years of data gleaned from bighorn sheep fitted with radio collars.
"Instead of trying to assume what bighorns will do, we said we have all this information, let's use that to tell us what they have done and make as few assumptions as possible," she said.
Environmental groups, the Nez Perce Tribe and bighorn advocates said any new policy approve by the Payette National Forest could have broader implications in other western states where bighorns may have contact with domestic sheep.
Jon Marvel, executive director of the Hailey-based Western Watershed Projects, said the decision made on the Payette forest could have far-reaching implications for management of domestic sheep across the West.
"And that will be, I think, a very good thing because there are so many places where we have this kind of conflict," he said.
Idaho bighorn numbers have dwindled by half since 1990, to about 3,500 animals. Many wildlife scientists are convinced contact between domestic sheep and bighorns reintroduced into the region in the 1970s is behind deadly disease outbreaks. Disease transmission concerns figured prominently in an Oct. 14 federal court ruling that banished a rancher from his family's historic grazing ground along the Salmon River.
The forest is taking public comment through March 19 before issuing a final decision later this year.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Critical Habitat Is Now Prudent for Jaguars?
By Judy Keeler and Sue Krentz
The recent ruling from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declaring critical habitat for jaguars in the U.S. is now prudent reverses every “finding” the Service has issued up until this time. In our opinion, it is one of the most ignorant, egregious and politically motivated decisions they’ve ever made.
We’ve served on the Jaguar Conservation Team since its inception in March of 1997. Through those years the Team has gathered the historical sightings records of jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico, consulted with wildlife biologists that are experts in jaguar behavior and habitat suitability, developed a jaguar conservation strategy based on this information, and an educational plan that promotes critical thinking skills in students.
The Service would benefit by using some of these critical thinking skills. In our opinion, their “finding” is not supported by the best available science, but based upon their fear of the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuits, pseudo-science and for political expediency.
Although the Service claims to have reached their decision using the best available science, it’s obvious, to us, they didn’t.
If they intend to use the best available science to prepare their proposed rulemaking for jaguars they would not include some of the literature cited in their federal register notice as the “best available science”; i.e., Robinson 2006 and Sierra Institute 2000.
These reports were not taken seriously by most of the members of the Jaguar Conservation Team. In fact, the Sierra Institute’s report and recommendations to develop a captive breeding program and reintroduction plan for jaguars were challenged by the Jaguar Scientific Advisory Group. Yet, these reports are included in the Service’s notice.
The federal register notice also states that the Service will continue to subject “proposed” critical habitat in the U.S. to conservation actions under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, even though there is no science to support their assumption that jaguars currently occupy any area in the borderlands. What has been proven is there are corridors the recently sighted jaguars have used to enter the U.S. from Mexico.
These “corridors” should not be confused with historical jaguar reports and land-use suitability characteristics. Anyone that has lived in the borderland areas for any length of time is only too aware of drying trends over the last 500 years. It is well documented that jaguars are the only cats in the world that enjoy water. Where are they going to find it in the Borderlands?
The wildlife biologists that served on the jaguar advisory group believed "for at least the last century the jaguar has been a regular, albeit infrequent, visitor to a small area of the borderlands region.” They also surmised that "if there had been a resident breeding population of jaguars in the U.S. in the recent past, it was probably a very small population, short-lived, and not viable.”
So where’s this science in the federal register notice?
The Jaguar Conservation Team always tended to agree that Mexico and the countries in Central and South America were sovereign and we had no right to impose our jaguar conservation strategies on them. Not the Service. They will be using their “authority” to work with other agencies to conserve and recover jaguars in these nations.
Mexico will probably hate our arrogance but love the money we’ll be sending them to “conserve” jaguars in their country.
It saddens us that our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sold out their integrity to comply with a federal judge’s order and the threat of more lawsuits when the Center doesn’t get its way.
Mark our words; this decision is just another step towards more lawsuits. If the Service does not comply with the Center’s every request, they will sue again, and again and again.
In an effort to be transparent, let’s lay all our cards on the table. The agenda behind the lawsuits, protests and media coverage is a plan called the Wildlands Project, or Wildlands Network as it is now named. These lawsuits are not meant to protect jaguars, wolves, polar bears, bats or any other “endangered” species. The animals are just the surrogates to implement the “plan”.
The Endangered Species Act is their tool and the citizen’s lawsuit provision is the means by which these radical organizations continue to hammer the economies of the small, rural communities that must live under their “Rewilding” scheme.
Sue Krentz and her husband Rob ranch in the Chiricahua Mountains of Southeast Arizona. The family has ranched in Arizona for over 100 years.
Judy Keeler and her husband Murray ranch in the Peloncillo Mountains in Southwest New Mexico. The family has ranched in New Mexico for over 100 years.
Both ladies are dedicated members of the Jaguar Conservation Team.
For additional information call:
Judy Keeler: 575-548-2520
The recent ruling from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declaring critical habitat for jaguars in the U.S. is now prudent reverses every “finding” the Service has issued up until this time. In our opinion, it is one of the most ignorant, egregious and politically motivated decisions they’ve ever made.
We’ve served on the Jaguar Conservation Team since its inception in March of 1997. Through those years the Team has gathered the historical sightings records of jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico, consulted with wildlife biologists that are experts in jaguar behavior and habitat suitability, developed a jaguar conservation strategy based on this information, and an educational plan that promotes critical thinking skills in students.
The Service would benefit by using some of these critical thinking skills. In our opinion, their “finding” is not supported by the best available science, but based upon their fear of the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuits, pseudo-science and for political expediency.
Although the Service claims to have reached their decision using the best available science, it’s obvious, to us, they didn’t.
If they intend to use the best available science to prepare their proposed rulemaking for jaguars they would not include some of the literature cited in their federal register notice as the “best available science”; i.e., Robinson 2006 and Sierra Institute 2000.
These reports were not taken seriously by most of the members of the Jaguar Conservation Team. In fact, the Sierra Institute’s report and recommendations to develop a captive breeding program and reintroduction plan for jaguars were challenged by the Jaguar Scientific Advisory Group. Yet, these reports are included in the Service’s notice.
The federal register notice also states that the Service will continue to subject “proposed” critical habitat in the U.S. to conservation actions under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, even though there is no science to support their assumption that jaguars currently occupy any area in the borderlands. What has been proven is there are corridors the recently sighted jaguars have used to enter the U.S. from Mexico.
These “corridors” should not be confused with historical jaguar reports and land-use suitability characteristics. Anyone that has lived in the borderland areas for any length of time is only too aware of drying trends over the last 500 years. It is well documented that jaguars are the only cats in the world that enjoy water. Where are they going to find it in the Borderlands?
The wildlife biologists that served on the jaguar advisory group believed "for at least the last century the jaguar has been a regular, albeit infrequent, visitor to a small area of the borderlands region.” They also surmised that "if there had been a resident breeding population of jaguars in the U.S. in the recent past, it was probably a very small population, short-lived, and not viable.”
So where’s this science in the federal register notice?
The Jaguar Conservation Team always tended to agree that Mexico and the countries in Central and South America were sovereign and we had no right to impose our jaguar conservation strategies on them. Not the Service. They will be using their “authority” to work with other agencies to conserve and recover jaguars in these nations.
Mexico will probably hate our arrogance but love the money we’ll be sending them to “conserve” jaguars in their country.
It saddens us that our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sold out their integrity to comply with a federal judge’s order and the threat of more lawsuits when the Center doesn’t get its way.
Mark our words; this decision is just another step towards more lawsuits. If the Service does not comply with the Center’s every request, they will sue again, and again and again.
In an effort to be transparent, let’s lay all our cards on the table. The agenda behind the lawsuits, protests and media coverage is a plan called the Wildlands Project, or Wildlands Network as it is now named. These lawsuits are not meant to protect jaguars, wolves, polar bears, bats or any other “endangered” species. The animals are just the surrogates to implement the “plan”.
The Endangered Species Act is their tool and the citizen’s lawsuit provision is the means by which these radical organizations continue to hammer the economies of the small, rural communities that must live under their “Rewilding” scheme.
Sue Krentz and her husband Rob ranch in the Chiricahua Mountains of Southeast Arizona. The family has ranched in Arizona for over 100 years.
Judy Keeler and her husband Murray ranch in the Peloncillo Mountains in Southwest New Mexico. The family has ranched in New Mexico for over 100 years.
Both ladies are dedicated members of the Jaguar Conservation Team.
For additional information call:
Judy Keeler: 575-548-2520
Jaguars Don’t Live Here Anymore
By ALAN RABINOWITZ
EARLIER this month, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service announced it would designate “critical habitat” for the endangered jaguar in the United States and take the first steps toward mandating a jaguar recovery plan. This is a policy reversal and, on the surface, it may appear to be a victory for the conservation community and for jaguars, the largest wild cats in the Western Hemisphere.
But as someone who has studied jaguars for nearly three decades, I can tell you it is nothing less than a slap in the face to good science. What’s more, by changing the rules for animal preservation, it stands to weaken the Endangered Species Act.
The debate on what to do about jaguars started in 1997, when, at the urging of many biologists (including me), the Fish and Wildlife Service put the jaguar on the United States endangered species list, because there had been occasional sightings of the cats crossing north over the United States-Mexico border. At the same time, however, the agency ruled that it would not be “prudent” to declare that the jaguar has critical habitat — a geographic area containing features the species needs to survive — in the United States. Determining an endangered species’ critical habitat is a first step toward developing a plan for helping that species recover.
The 1997 decision not to determine critical habitat for the jaguar was the right one, because even though they cross the border from time to time, jaguars don’t occupy any territory in our country — and that probably means the environment here is no longer ideal for them.
In prehistoric times, these beautiful cats inhabited significant areas of the western United States, but in the past 100 years, there have been few, if any, resident breeding populations here. The last time a female jaguar with a cub was sighted in this country was in the early 1900s. (Jaguars — the world’s third-largest wild cats, weighing up to 250 pounds, with distinctive black rosettes on their fur — are a separate species from the smaller, tawny mountain lions, which still roam large areas of the American West.)
Two well-intentioned conservation advocacy groups, the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife, sued the Fish and Wildlife Service to change its ruling. Thus in 2006, the agency reassessed the situation and again determined that no areas in the United States met the definition of critical habitat for the jaguar. Despite occasional sightings, mostly within 40 miles of the Mexican border, there were still no data to indicate jaguars had taken up residence inside the United States.
After this second ruling was made, an Arizona rancher, with support from the state Game and Fish Department, set infrared-camera traps to gather more data, and essentially confirmed the Fish and Wildlife Service’s findings. The cameras did capture transient jaguars, including one male jaguar, nicknamed Macho B, who roamed the Arizona borderlands for more than a decade. But Macho B, now dead, might have been the sole resident American jaguar, and his extensive travels indicated he was not having an easy time surviving in this dry, rugged region.
Despite the continued evidence, the two conservation advocacy groups continued to sue the government. Apparently, they want jaguars to repopulate the United States even if jaguars don’t want to. Last March, a federal district judge in Arizona ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to revisit its 2006 determination on critical habitat.
The facts haven’t changed: there is still no area in the United States essential to the conservation of the jaguar. But, having asserted this twice already, the service, now under a new president, has bent to the tiresome litigation. On Jan. 12, Fish and Wildlife officials claimed to have evaluated new scientific information that had become available after the July 2006 ruling. Lo and behold, they determined that it is now prudent to designate critical habitat for the jaguar in the United States.
This means that Fish and Wildlife must now also formulate a recovery plan for the jaguar. And since jaguars have not been able to reestablish themselves naturally over the past century, the government will likely have to go to significant expense to attempt to bring them back — especially if the cats have to be reintroduced.
So why not do everything we can, at whatever cost, to bring jaguars back into the United States? To begin with, the American Southwest is, at best, marginal habitat for the animals. More important, there are better ways to help jaguars. South of our border, from Mexico to Argentina, thousands of jaguars live and breed in their true critical habitat. Governments and conservation groups (including the one I head) are already working hard to conserve jaguar populations and connect them to one another through an initiative called the Jaguar Corridor.
The jaguars that now and then cross into the United States most likely come from the northernmost population of jaguars, in Sonora, Mexico. Rather than demand jaguars return to our country, we should help Mexico and other jaguar-range countries conserve the animals’ true habitat.
The recent move by the Fish and Wildlife Service means that the sparse federal funds devoted to protecting wild animals will be wasted on efforts that cannot help save jaguars. It also stands to weaken the Endangered Species Act, because if critical habitat is redefined as any place where a species might ever have existed, and where you or I might want it to exist again, then the door is open for many other senseless efforts to bring back long-lost creatures.
The Fish and Wildlife officials whose job it is to protect the country’s wild animals need to grow a stronger backbone — stick with their original, correct decision and save their money for more useful preservation work. Otherwise, when funds are needed to preserve all those small, ugly, non-charismatic endangered species at the back of the line, there may be no money left.
Alan Rabinowitz, the president and chief executive of Panthera, a wild cat conservation group, is the author of “Jaguar: One Man’s Struggle to Establish the World’s First Jaguar Preserve.”
EARLIER this month, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service announced it would designate “critical habitat” for the endangered jaguar in the United States and take the first steps toward mandating a jaguar recovery plan. This is a policy reversal and, on the surface, it may appear to be a victory for the conservation community and for jaguars, the largest wild cats in the Western Hemisphere.
But as someone who has studied jaguars for nearly three decades, I can tell you it is nothing less than a slap in the face to good science. What’s more, by changing the rules for animal preservation, it stands to weaken the Endangered Species Act.
The debate on what to do about jaguars started in 1997, when, at the urging of many biologists (including me), the Fish and Wildlife Service put the jaguar on the United States endangered species list, because there had been occasional sightings of the cats crossing north over the United States-Mexico border. At the same time, however, the agency ruled that it would not be “prudent” to declare that the jaguar has critical habitat — a geographic area containing features the species needs to survive — in the United States. Determining an endangered species’ critical habitat is a first step toward developing a plan for helping that species recover.
The 1997 decision not to determine critical habitat for the jaguar was the right one, because even though they cross the border from time to time, jaguars don’t occupy any territory in our country — and that probably means the environment here is no longer ideal for them.
In prehistoric times, these beautiful cats inhabited significant areas of the western United States, but in the past 100 years, there have been few, if any, resident breeding populations here. The last time a female jaguar with a cub was sighted in this country was in the early 1900s. (Jaguars — the world’s third-largest wild cats, weighing up to 250 pounds, with distinctive black rosettes on their fur — are a separate species from the smaller, tawny mountain lions, which still roam large areas of the American West.)
Two well-intentioned conservation advocacy groups, the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife, sued the Fish and Wildlife Service to change its ruling. Thus in 2006, the agency reassessed the situation and again determined that no areas in the United States met the definition of critical habitat for the jaguar. Despite occasional sightings, mostly within 40 miles of the Mexican border, there were still no data to indicate jaguars had taken up residence inside the United States.
After this second ruling was made, an Arizona rancher, with support from the state Game and Fish Department, set infrared-camera traps to gather more data, and essentially confirmed the Fish and Wildlife Service’s findings. The cameras did capture transient jaguars, including one male jaguar, nicknamed Macho B, who roamed the Arizona borderlands for more than a decade. But Macho B, now dead, might have been the sole resident American jaguar, and his extensive travels indicated he was not having an easy time surviving in this dry, rugged region.
Despite the continued evidence, the two conservation advocacy groups continued to sue the government. Apparently, they want jaguars to repopulate the United States even if jaguars don’t want to. Last March, a federal district judge in Arizona ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to revisit its 2006 determination on critical habitat.
The facts haven’t changed: there is still no area in the United States essential to the conservation of the jaguar. But, having asserted this twice already, the service, now under a new president, has bent to the tiresome litigation. On Jan. 12, Fish and Wildlife officials claimed to have evaluated new scientific information that had become available after the July 2006 ruling. Lo and behold, they determined that it is now prudent to designate critical habitat for the jaguar in the United States.
This means that Fish and Wildlife must now also formulate a recovery plan for the jaguar. And since jaguars have not been able to reestablish themselves naturally over the past century, the government will likely have to go to significant expense to attempt to bring them back — especially if the cats have to be reintroduced.
So why not do everything we can, at whatever cost, to bring jaguars back into the United States? To begin with, the American Southwest is, at best, marginal habitat for the animals. More important, there are better ways to help jaguars. South of our border, from Mexico to Argentina, thousands of jaguars live and breed in their true critical habitat. Governments and conservation groups (including the one I head) are already working hard to conserve jaguar populations and connect them to one another through an initiative called the Jaguar Corridor.
The jaguars that now and then cross into the United States most likely come from the northernmost population of jaguars, in Sonora, Mexico. Rather than demand jaguars return to our country, we should help Mexico and other jaguar-range countries conserve the animals’ true habitat.
The recent move by the Fish and Wildlife Service means that the sparse federal funds devoted to protecting wild animals will be wasted on efforts that cannot help save jaguars. It also stands to weaken the Endangered Species Act, because if critical habitat is redefined as any place where a species might ever have existed, and where you or I might want it to exist again, then the door is open for many other senseless efforts to bring back long-lost creatures.
The Fish and Wildlife officials whose job it is to protect the country’s wild animals need to grow a stronger backbone — stick with their original, correct decision and save their money for more useful preservation work. Otherwise, when funds are needed to preserve all those small, ugly, non-charismatic endangered species at the back of the line, there may be no money left.
Alan Rabinowitz, the president and chief executive of Panthera, a wild cat conservation group, is the author of “Jaguar: One Man’s Struggle to Establish the World’s First Jaguar Preserve.”
Friday, January 15, 2010
Depredation reform a priority for NM environmental groups
Reforming a state law that allows landowners to kill wild game that cause property damage will be a priority issue for environmental groups at the state Legislature this year.
The Environmental Alliance of New Mexico announced its priorities this week at a briefing with reporters.
Depredation refers to the damage or loss caused by wildlife to private property, most notably when predators kill livestock or when grazing animals eat plants that have economic benefit to landowners. How to prevent or mitigate such damage has been an ongoing source of tension between ranchers, hunters, environmentalists, and farmers.
In 1997, the “Jennings amendment,” named for Sen. Tim Jennings, allowed property owners to kill wildlife if necessary to protect their property. Such killings have been a long simmering issue, but feelings boiled over in 2008 when a farmer near Cimarron killed at least 39 antelope that had been foraging on his winter wheat crop. Images of slaughtered antelope littering the property showed up on the evening news, igniting a vigorous public debate.
Because the state doesn’t own free roaming wildlife and people have the right to protect their property, how to mitigate wildlife damage to property without allowing landowners to kill the animals is a “contentious and difficult to resolve issue,” R.J. Kirkpatrick, Wildlife Management Division Chief with the Department of Game and Fish, said.
But while he expects it to continue being a controversial issue, wholesale killing of non-predatory animals isn’t an “ethical thing to do,” Kirkpatrick said. A bill that seeks a middle ground on the contentious issue will be sponsored this year by State Rep. Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque.
The 2010 legislation will separate animals into two categories: predators and grazers. Property owners would still be allowed to kill predators if they felt the animals were a threat to property, he said. But with foraging animals, property owners would have one of two options. The state will either purchase fencing for the property to cover the cost of keeping the animals out, or the state would help improve the property in such a way that wildlife could continue being on the property with minimal damage. This option would include purchasing seed for the animals to eat and improving water delivery systems.
When asked how the legislation is viewed by those in support of the current depredation law, Kirkpatrick said organizations like the Cattle Growers Association “weren’t high on the idea.” The main sticking point, he said, is that there continues to be no mechanism through which the state provides financial compensation for crops lost to foraging animals.
In addition to the depredation bill, the EANM will proactively support legislation by Sen. Howie Morales, D-Grants, to mandate energy efficient building codes for public structures. The legislation would mandate that buildings are designed to use half or less than half of the energy a conventional building of that type would use.
The EANM is composed of groups like Amigos Bravos, Conservation Voters New Mexico, the Sierra Club, and the NM Wildlife Federation. In addition to the proactive legislation they’re supporting this year–which has to be ruled germane to the 30 day budget session or be allowed by the Governor–they’ll also oppose legislation that seeks to rollback environmental regulations.
The Environmental Alliance of New Mexico announced its priorities this week at a briefing with reporters.
Depredation refers to the damage or loss caused by wildlife to private property, most notably when predators kill livestock or when grazing animals eat plants that have economic benefit to landowners. How to prevent or mitigate such damage has been an ongoing source of tension between ranchers, hunters, environmentalists, and farmers.
In 1997, the “Jennings amendment,” named for Sen. Tim Jennings, allowed property owners to kill wildlife if necessary to protect their property. Such killings have been a long simmering issue, but feelings boiled over in 2008 when a farmer near Cimarron killed at least 39 antelope that had been foraging on his winter wheat crop. Images of slaughtered antelope littering the property showed up on the evening news, igniting a vigorous public debate.
Because the state doesn’t own free roaming wildlife and people have the right to protect their property, how to mitigate wildlife damage to property without allowing landowners to kill the animals is a “contentious and difficult to resolve issue,” R.J. Kirkpatrick, Wildlife Management Division Chief with the Department of Game and Fish, said.
But while he expects it to continue being a controversial issue, wholesale killing of non-predatory animals isn’t an “ethical thing to do,” Kirkpatrick said. A bill that seeks a middle ground on the contentious issue will be sponsored this year by State Rep. Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque.
The 2010 legislation will separate animals into two categories: predators and grazers. Property owners would still be allowed to kill predators if they felt the animals were a threat to property, he said. But with foraging animals, property owners would have one of two options. The state will either purchase fencing for the property to cover the cost of keeping the animals out, or the state would help improve the property in such a way that wildlife could continue being on the property with minimal damage. This option would include purchasing seed for the animals to eat and improving water delivery systems.
When asked how the legislation is viewed by those in support of the current depredation law, Kirkpatrick said organizations like the Cattle Growers Association “weren’t high on the idea.” The main sticking point, he said, is that there continues to be no mechanism through which the state provides financial compensation for crops lost to foraging animals.
In addition to the depredation bill, the EANM will proactively support legislation by Sen. Howie Morales, D-Grants, to mandate energy efficient building codes for public structures. The legislation would mandate that buildings are designed to use half or less than half of the energy a conventional building of that type would use.
The EANM is composed of groups like Amigos Bravos, Conservation Voters New Mexico, the Sierra Club, and the NM Wildlife Federation. In addition to the proactive legislation they’re supporting this year–which has to be ruled germane to the 30 day budget session or be allowed by the Governor–they’ll also oppose legislation that seeks to rollback environmental regulations.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Forest Service will reconsider grazing policy in San Jacinto range amid concerns about bighorn sheep and an endangered butterfly
The U.S. Forest Service has agreed re-evaluate cattle grazing in parts of the San Jacinto Mountains after three environmental groups raised concerns that the animals could be damaging habitat needed by bighorn sheep and an endangered butterfly.
The decision affects about 50,000 acres of public land near the intersection of Highways 74 and 371, where ranchers have had permits to graze cattle.
In October, San Bernardino National Forest officials decided to let grazing continue in the area. The Western Watersheds Project, the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity filed an administrative appeal.
The groups contend an environmental assessment used to support the grazing decision did not address effects on habitat used by peninsular bighorn sheep and the Quino checkerspot butterfly, said Michael Connor, California director of the watershed group.
Shortly after Christmas, the Forest Service agreed to analyze how grazing affects the two species and to look for ways to reduce harm, said John Miller, a San Bernardino National Forest spokesman. The service will do wildlife surveys.
Grazing, which has been permitted there for a century, will continue in the area, Miller said. It is allowed under permits held by Rouse Paradise and Wellman ranches.
Measures may include fencing to keep cattle away from the more sensitive areas, he said.
Connor said cattle and bighorn sheep feed on the same limited supply of plants.
"And butterfly eggs and the larvae are on the plants that get eaten or trampled by the cattle," he said.
Cattle also stray from designated grazing areas and foul streams in the upper Palm Canyon area, he said.
The peninsular bighorn sheep population dwindled to less than 300 in the late 1990s and is now considered an endangered population.
The Quino checkerspot butterfly is found only in Riverside and San Diego counties but once was lived throughout Southern California.
Reach David Danelski at 951-368-9471 or ddanelski@PE.com
The decision affects about 50,000 acres of public land near the intersection of Highways 74 and 371, where ranchers have had permits to graze cattle.
In October, San Bernardino National Forest officials decided to let grazing continue in the area. The Western Watersheds Project, the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity filed an administrative appeal.
The groups contend an environmental assessment used to support the grazing decision did not address effects on habitat used by peninsular bighorn sheep and the Quino checkerspot butterfly, said Michael Connor, California director of the watershed group.
Shortly after Christmas, the Forest Service agreed to analyze how grazing affects the two species and to look for ways to reduce harm, said John Miller, a San Bernardino National Forest spokesman. The service will do wildlife surveys.
Grazing, which has been permitted there for a century, will continue in the area, Miller said. It is allowed under permits held by Rouse Paradise and Wellman ranches.
Measures may include fencing to keep cattle away from the more sensitive areas, he said.
Connor said cattle and bighorn sheep feed on the same limited supply of plants.
"And butterfly eggs and the larvae are on the plants that get eaten or trampled by the cattle," he said.
Cattle also stray from designated grazing areas and foul streams in the upper Palm Canyon area, he said.
The peninsular bighorn sheep population dwindled to less than 300 in the late 1990s and is now considered an endangered population.
The Quino checkerspot butterfly is found only in Riverside and San Diego counties but once was lived throughout Southern California.
Reach David Danelski at 951-368-9471 or ddanelski@PE.com
Monday, January 4, 2010
Western Watersheds Project Wins Major Court Victory on Idaho's Nickel Creek Allotment
Online Messenger #167
Friends,
On December 30, 2009 Western Watersheds Project won a major court victory overturning a BLM grazing decision for the Nickel Creek Allotment.
The Nickel Creek Allotment lies within the Owyhee River Watershed in far southwest Idaho and contains important sage grouse, bighorn sheep, redband trout, columbia spotted frog, and rare plants species' habitat.
However, the allotment has been severely abused by livestock grazing as shown in the Idaho Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands Assessments that determined the allotment failed all 8 Standards and that livestock grazing was the cause.
BLM managers response to the dire condition was to implement unenforceable "Management Guidelines", which amount to asking public land ranchers to voluntarily improve management, rather than requiring enforceable Terms and Conditions of grazing permits.
The court's Order confirmed WWP's legal claim that the BLM must include Mandatory Terms and Conditions.
This victory sets a clear standard that the BLM must protect public lands and wildlife habitat in every grazing permit issued by the agency.
Read the Decision
WWP was very ably represented in this important litigation by Natalie Havlina of Advocates of the West. Thanks Natalie !
Jon Marvel
Executive Director
Friends,
On December 30, 2009 Western Watersheds Project won a major court victory overturning a BLM grazing decision for the Nickel Creek Allotment.
The Nickel Creek Allotment lies within the Owyhee River Watershed in far southwest Idaho and contains important sage grouse, bighorn sheep, redband trout, columbia spotted frog, and rare plants species' habitat.
However, the allotment has been severely abused by livestock grazing as shown in the Idaho Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands Assessments that determined the allotment failed all 8 Standards and that livestock grazing was the cause.
BLM managers response to the dire condition was to implement unenforceable "Management Guidelines", which amount to asking public land ranchers to voluntarily improve management, rather than requiring enforceable Terms and Conditions of grazing permits.
The court's Order confirmed WWP's legal claim that the BLM must include Mandatory Terms and Conditions.
This victory sets a clear standard that the BLM must protect public lands and wildlife habitat in every grazing permit issued by the agency.
Read the Decision
WWP was very ably represented in this important litigation by Natalie Havlina of Advocates of the West. Thanks Natalie !
Jon Marvel
Executive Director
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)