New Mexico Natural Heritage Conservation Act

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson recently signed the Natural Heritage Conservation Act, a bill passed during the recent legislative session to protect land, water, wildlife, and working farms and ranches across New Mexico. This new legislation, sponsored by state Senator Carlos Cisneros (D-Taos), will establish a program that will enable the state to make grants to fund conservation easement and restoration projects on private lands.

''For the first time, New Mexico will have a permanent mechanism for funding conservation projects across our state,'' said Governor Richardson at the signing ceremony for the Natural Heritage Conservation Act. ''I am also pleased that we were able to secure $5 million during the legislative session, so that we will be able to start funding these important initiatives right away.'' Despite the state's current financial problems, New Mexico House Speaker Ben Lujan (D-Santa Fe) said it was important to earmark land for conservation. At the signing ceremony, Lujan posed the question, ''If we don’t do it now, when? When the land is gone?''

With conservation easements, willing private landowners voluntarily enter into agreements with qualified conservation organizations or public agencies to restrict subdivision, development and certain incompatible uses of the land in order to protect the wildlife, agricultural, scenic open space, cultural and/or recreational values of the subject lands. Landowners who grant easements retain ownership of their land and can continue to farm, ranch and engage in other traditional forms of land use that are consistent with the purposes of the easement. They can also lease, sell or pass their land on to their heirs, but the easements run with the land and are binding on all future landowners.

''Every year, New Mexico is losing thousands of acres of productive farm and ranch land along with the associated conservation values they provide to unbridled growth and development,'' said Larry Winn, Chair of the New Mexico Soil & Water Commission. ''We view conservation easements as a way to keep agricultural land in family ownership and in production, and as an important option for farmers and ranchers to consider as an alternative to simply selling, subdividing and developing their lands.''

''Easements are as much a tax and financial planning mechanism as they are a conservation tool for private landowners,'' said Scott Wilber, Executive Director of the New Mexico Land Conservancy, a statewide non-profit land trust based in Santa Fe. He noted that landowners can receive significant federal and state tax incentives by donating part or all or the value of a conservation easement, but added that in a state like New Mexico where many of the landowners are land-rich and cash-poor, particularly within the agricultural community, tax benefits alone are not always enough to get the job done.

''Conservation easements and restoration cost money,” said Wilber. ''A combination of state funding and tax incentives will further enhance the ability of conservation organizations, public agencies, municipalities, land grants, tribes, and soil and water conservation districts to work with private landowners to conserve their lands.''

The program created by the Natural Heritage Conservation Act will also help leverage other sources of conservation funding, through federal programs such as the Land & Water Conservation Fund, the Farm Bill, the Clean Water Act, the USDA Farm & Ranchland Protection and Forest Legacy programs, as well as state wildlife grants and local conservation funding from New Mexico’s cities and counties. Studies have shown that New Mexico misses out on approximately $20 million in federal land and water conservation funding each year because it does not have adequate state matching funds. By creating this program, New Mexico is capitalizing on a major opportunity to draw more resources to the state to help preserve what makes it the ''Land of Enchantment'' – its natural, agricultural and cultural heritage.

Resource(s): http://www.nmlandconservancy.org/Publications/Images/NHCA%20PR%203-10-10.pdf

Enviro group sues to protect endangered species

At the end of April, the Center for Biological Diversity announced it plans to sue the Forest Service for not protecting rare species on lands throughout Arizona and New Mexico.

According to Taylor McKinnon, the center’s Public Lands Campaigns Director, the agency has continued to approve projects that destroy endangered species and their habitat without undertaking the monitoring required by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Five years ago, that agency—which enforces compliance with the Endangered Species Act—ordered the Forest Service to monitor rare species and their habitats on all 11 forests in the southwest.

But in a 2008 report, the Forest Service admitted it had not completed such monitoring. The following year, it also requested that the Fish and Wildlife Service change its opinion.

“The Forest Service manages expansive acreage of forests, and that public land is the cradle of life for a whole host of native species, including threatened and endangered species,” said McKinnon. “We need the Forest Service to manage its lands in a way that sustains life, rather than dragging species further toward extinction.”

The Center’s lawsuit will involve at least nine species listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act, including the Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake, Chiricahua leopard frog, Apache trout, Chihuahua chub, loach minnow, spikedace and ocelot.

McKinnon also said that the agency is rolling back existing wildlife protections as it revamps individual forest plans for New Mexico and Arizona.

“We’re seeing a really sharp turn away from providing habitat and protections for threatened and endangered species, and other species, in those plans,” said McKinnon. He pointed out that though they are inadequate, the current plans—written in the 1980s—do include protection measures for wildlife and their habitat.

But within the draft plans for Arizona, including the Coronado National Forest in southern Arizona, the Forest Service has essentially abandoned wildlife protections, he said. Along with the agency’s refusal to monitor the impacts of projects on endangered species, this trend of aggressive rollbacks troubles McKinnon.

“Rather than increasing and enhancing wildlife protections in the Southwest forest plans, forest plans under the Obama administration seems to be heading in the opposite direction,” he said. “They seem to be weakening those protections, and we think that’s the opposite of what wildlife in the forests need.”

Forest management plans are being updated

In 1976, Congress passed the National Forest Management Act (NMFA), which required each of the nation’s forests to have plans that would then guide local management, activities and projects.

Now the agency is updating those plans to incorporate “current thinking and current ways of doing business,” Matt Turner, head of regional planning for the agency’s Southwest Region, told the Independent. In New Mexico, for example, there are five national forests, as well as the grasslands of the Cibola National Forest. Plans for the grasslands are currently being updated and managers will soon revise the other five plans once the new national rule is in place.

One issue that has become more important in recent years, Turner said, is climate change. “Other issues, based on what was in NFMA, [include] how to address the diversity of plants and animals and maintain their sustainability,” he said. “Also, how do we restore and maintain our watersheds? How do we ensure that our communities, rural and urban, maintain their relationships with the forest? And how do the forests provide for the needs of those communities?”

The agency must also manage fire, recreation—everything from hiking and cross-country skiing to off-road vehicle travel—and business. Oil and gas development, for example, is prevalent on the Carson National Forest in northern New Mexico. The planning process, he explained, provides the overall framework for the Forest Service to work on individual projects, including recreation, grazing, energy development and mining.

“Much of the beef people eat comes from cattle grazed on National Forest lands, and, not so much in the Southwest, but in other Forest Service regions, much of the wood that goes to build your homes—and keeps the price of wood construction down—comes off National Forest lands,” said Turner. “There’s quite a bit National Forest lands throughout the country provide—even if you never step foot on Forest Service land, it provides goods and services.”

Now’s the time for wilderness

In 1976, Congress also passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which guides another federal land agency—the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Among other things, that law required the BLM to inventory its lands for wilderness characteristics, and to re-examine those lands as time passed in order to designate new wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are permanently protected as off-limits to development and motorized travel.

But the Forest Service has no such mandate, said Nathan Newcomer, associate director of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance. It has completed what are called Roadless Area Review and Evaluations: “But they have no mandate, nothing written that says they need to look at their forests and do periodic wilderness inventories,” Newcomer told the Independent. “This rule should have that—it should direct districts to go out there and study their lands for wilderness-quality designations.”

The alliance is also looking ahead to the development of New Mexico’s individual forest plans, which will be guided by the new national rule.

Of the 9.3 million acres of National Forest lands in the state, 1.6 million of those are roadless, according to Newcomer. Although activists in New Mexico have long focused on wilderness-worthy areas on BLM lands, they’re now looking more actively at the National Forests: “The [revised plan] is one example of why we need to do that: The federal agency is giving us the opportunity,” he said. “We need to make sure that the bevy of beautiful, wild places we have in this state are left intact—not just for the people, but for the land’s sake.”

Sagebrush stirrings

By David Harrison, Stateline Staff Writer


Utah State Representative Chris Herrod has gotten a lot of attention since his bill to explore seizing federal land through eminent domain became law last month. Colleagues in other Western legislatures have called seeking tips on replicating his success in their states. And the law was a topic of discussion this week when U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar paid a visit to Salt Lake City.

A majority of the land in Utah, as in many Western states, is owned by the federal government. Herrod’s measure treats the federal government like any other property owner in the state. It allows Washington to keep the rights and title to the land but not ultimate jurisdiction over it. That jurisdiction rests with Utah, and it means that federal land holdings may be subject to state eminent domain authority.

To Herrod, the law is an expression of long-simmering anger. Last year, he watched as the new Obama administration canceled 77 leases to oil and gas companies that had been approved by President George W. Bush. Then he saw a leaked administration memo that purported to list 14 sites as possible new national monuments, two of them in Utah.

Outrage over federal land policies is nothing new in Western states, where local officials have long sought to develop public land and collect tax revenue from it. Now, with Democrats in charge in Washington and conservative activists energized in their opposition towards the Obama administration’s health care, energy and budget policies, some in the West are trying to counter what they see as federal heavy-handedness in land-use matters. Herrod, a Republican, has spoken at Tea Party rallies trying to tap into that anger, although he is wary of calling his bill a “Tea Party bill.”

“It’s a natural outflow of the frustration,” he says. “We kind of feel like we’re serfs. We have this land and we have to beg Washington to see if we can use it.”

So far, there are few signs that the West is gearing up for a full-scale renewal of the Sagebrush Rebellion, the 1970s movement that challenged Washington’s control of public lands. While numerous bills have cropped up in Western legislatures attempting to wrest control of land from the federal government, few have been as radical as Herrod’s and few have received anywhere near the same attention. By contrast, when President Bill Clinton designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument on 1.9 million acres of public land in southern Utah, he touched off a fury in Western states that had many comparing it to the earlier uprising.

“I can’t see really anything in the Obama administration that would be cause to start another Sagebrush Rebellion,” says John Freemuth, a political scientist at Boise State University.

For instance, Interior Secretary Salazar is a Colorado rancher who last year decided to keep wolves off the endangered species list, furthering a Bush-era policy that angered environmentalists but pleased Western ranchers. The administration has spurned calls to list the sage grouse as an endangered species, a move that would close off vast swaths of land to development. Instead, Salazar has indicated he is willing to let states work through their own procedures for protecting the birds, which scientists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say need to be protected.

George Nickas, executive director of the environment group Wilderness Watch, is not worried. The Utah bill is little more than “political theater,” he says. “Every so often some of these folks in these states kind of rebel. They like to pick on the federal government and say ‘We resist any federal government control on these lands.’ My guess is it’s wrapped up in the anti-Obama, anti-federal government, anti-Washington, D.C., rhetoric that seems to be so hot right now.”

Herrod says his bill was intended to do more than send a message. He wants to use money generated from developing public lands to fund Utah schools. And he believes that if and when the law is subjected to a federal court test, it could win a 5-to-4 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. Even some of Herrod’s supporters are skeptical of that view. “I’d say go for it but I think that’s a bit of a stretch,” says Lynn Luker, a lawyer and Republican state representative in Idaho.

Luker sits on the State Affairs Committee in the Idaho House, which last month approved a measure to explore suing the federal government to get control of parcels of federal land in Idaho. Members of the committee say that claiming the land could open it up for logging, which, Luker says, would reduce the risk of forest fires while also providing electricity from burning dead timber.

Other Western states are looking for ways to take on the federal government. Wyoming lawmakers approved a resolution that claimed sovereignty from Washington under the 10th Amendment. An almost identical resolution was debated but defeated in Nevada last year. Montana lawmakers voted on — and turned down — a bill to assert the state's right to manage its own wolf population.

It’s still unclear whether Utah’s sweeping eminent domain legislation is a sign of things to come. “We’ve got this sort of opening shot from the Utah Legislature, and I think it remains to be seen whether any other Western state will adopt or pursue similar sorts of policies,” says Robert Keiter, a law professor and public lands expert at the University of Utah.

Utah’s anti-Washington sentiment did not stop state officials from warmly receiving Salazar this week as he tried to smooth over differences. But lawmakers and Governor Gary Herbert grilled the interior secretary on Utah’s effort to open old roads in federally protected areas and on the new eminent domain law.

Salazar said he got the message.

Lawsuit to Be Launched to Protect Endangered Species in Arizona and New Mexico National Forests

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.— Today the Center for Biological Diversity formally notified the U.S. Forest Service that it will sue the agency for failing to protect endangered species in Arizona and New Mexico national forests, where it continues to approve projects that destroy endangered species habitat without carrying out legally required monitoring of the species and their habitat. The lawsuit will involve at least nine threatened and endangered species, including the Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake, Chiricahua leopard frog, Apache trout, Chihuahua chub, loach minnow, spikedace, and ocelot.

“The Forest Service’s refusal to honor its responsibility to monitor and protect endangered species is not only illegal but potentially devastating to wildlife,” said Taylor McKinnon at the Center for Biological Diversity.

On June 10, 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency charged with enforcing the Endangered Species Act, issued a formal “biological opinion” on the impacts of implementation of forest plans for Arizona and New Mexico’s 11 national forests on threatened and endangered species. The document requires the Forest Service to monitor populations and habitats for the species that occur on the forests.

In October 2008 the Forest Service issued a report admitting that it had not done the monitoring. It also conceded that it might have exceeded the amount of harm, or “incidental take,” allowed by the biological opinion. On April 17, 2009, it requested that the Fish and Wildlife Service redo the opinion.

The Forest Service stated that it “[w]ill likely soon exceed the amount of take issued for at least one species, the Mexican spotted owl,” and that “it has become apparent that [we are] unable to fully implement and comply with the monitoring requirements associated with the Reasonable and Prudent Measures for several species (including MSO) in the [Biological Opinion].” The Fish and Wildlife Service has not responded to this letter or reinitiated formal consultation on the forest plans. Despite that, and despite its admitted failures, the Forest Service has continued to authorize forest-management activities that adversely affect the species in question.

“By refusing to monitor endangered species or ensure against their harm, the Forest Service is violating the Endangered Species Act and risks doing irreversible harm to species that are struggling to survive,” said McKinnon.

Today’s notice of intent to sue also requests that the Forest Service consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service about new information affecting endangered species. The new information includes impacts of climate change, increased threat of invasive species, severe wildfires, recent sighting of a critically endangered ocelot in southern Arizona, and new critical habitat designations for the Gila chub, southwestern willow flycatcher, loach minnow, and spikedace.

Meanwhile, the Forest Service has begun writing new forest plans for Arizona and New Mexico that roll back protections for threatened, endangered, and other species. A new draft forest plan released for the Coronado National Forest in southeastern Arizona eliminates virtually all forest-wide protective standards for wildlife and their habitat – including the requirement to maintain viable populations of species in the forest.

“The big picture for endangered species recovery in southwestern national forests has become pretty bleak,” said McKinnon. “The Forest Service is adding insult to injury by not only refusing to monitor threatened and endangered species, as already required under the law, but also rolling back species protections in new forest plans.”

President Obama Launches Initiative to Develop a 21st Century Strategy for America’s Great Outdoors

Effort will Promote and Support Community-Level Efforts to Conserve Outdoor Spaces

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Barack Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum today establishing the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative to promote and support innovative community-level efforts to conserve outdoor spaces and to reconnect Americans to the outdoors. The President spoke before leaders representing the conservation, farming, ranching, sporting, recreation, forestry, private industry, local parks and academia communities from all 53 states and territories.

The Presidential Memorandum calls on the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to lead the Initiative, in coordination with the Departments of Defense, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Labor, Transportation, Education, and the Office of Management and Budget. The Initiative will support a 21st century conservation agenda that builds on successes in communities across the country, and will start a national dialogue about conservation that supports the efforts of private citizens and local communities.

“Today, with 80 percent of Americans living in cities and suburbs, it is more important than ever for people to have access to outdoor space. Just as we cherish our childhood memories of hiking and sledding, fishing and camping, and just as we enjoy spending time outdoors with our families, we must guard these places and traditions for new generations,” said CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley. “Through this Initiative we hope to identify new opportunities to work with Americans on a modern approach to conservation that begins at the ground level, and to reinvigorate the national conversation about our outdoors.”

“Since President Theodore Roosevelt held the first White House conference on conservation in 1908, we as Americans have taken extraordinary steps to protect our land, water, wildlife, and history for future generations, but today the places we love face new challenges that require new ideas and new strategies to solve,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. “President Obama’s America’s Great Outdoors Initiative will start a much-needed dialogue about conservation in our country so that we can hear directly from Americans about the places they care about and how they are working to protect them. This is about listening, learning, and finding common-sense ways to support the good work that is happening in communities across the country.”

“President Obama’s America’s Great Outdoors Initiative will play an important role in confronting the serious challenges our natural resources face today: climate change, air and water pollution, landscape fragmentation and loss of open space,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “This effort will bring Americans from across the country together to look for new approaches to protect our national treasures. And it will highlight the importance of working across ownership boundaries to restore and conserve both private and public lands in a way that recognizes that conservation and economic vitality are inextricably linked.”

“Too many of our cities have limited access to parks for children, low-income residents and communities of color. Improving access to open areas and green space in our urban communities should be a focus of a 21st century conservation strategy,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “It makes me proud that generations to come will know that we took action to preserve, restore and protect vital natural treasures.”

The full text of the Memorandum can be found at http://doi.gov/americasgreatoutdoors/upload/2010outdoors-mem-rel-2.pdf

Idaho rancher may lose grazing permit

Mike Hanley, a well-known rancher who helped Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo pass legislation to protect ranching and wilderness in the remote southwest corner of the state, could lose his privileges on public land.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has proposed denying a permit to Hanley, who lives in Jordan Valley, Ore., and grazes his cattle in Owyhee County. Hanley is a historian and author who reached out to environmentalists seeking common ground on wilderness and grazing issues in Owyhee County.

He said he could not talk about the BLM decision, which he is appealing, upon advice of his lawyer. But he said it had nothing to do with the legislation passed in 2009, which he still supports.

It has a lot to do with the Western Watersheds Project, which had challenged 68 grazing permits in Owyhee County demanding the BLM do extensive environmental reviews to protect water quality and endangered species. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill had upheld these challenges, and upon further lawsuits Hanley and others had been forced to reduce grazing.

Now he is in the same boat as Jon Marvel and Western Watersheds Project. The BLM has proposed taking away the project's grazing permit on federal lands connected with its Greenfire Preserve near Challis. Hanley's situation demonstrates that it's not easy for the BLM to take away the permits from either ranchers or the project.

BLM Owyhee Field Manager Buddy Green said in his decision that from 2002 to 2009, Hanley "repeatedly grazed the Trout Springs Allotment outside the season of use," put out more cows than he was allowed, and had cows on the allotment in 2009 when it was closed.

"This conduct is unacceptable, and therefore I have concluded that Hanley Ranch Partnership's record of performance under the existing federal grazing permit/authorization has been unsatisfactory," Green said.

Green also said Hanley had been out of compliance repeatedly from 1992 to 2001.

Hanley's attorney, Alan Schroeder, has filed a response saying that the BLM's decision would harm Hanley's ability to graze his cattle on his private property and that fencing off that property from the public land, assuming he could do that legally, would cost him more than $30,000.

The case now is before the Department of Interior's Office Hearings and Appeals.

Katie Fite, Western Watershed Project's Biodiversity director, said Hanley has been able to continuously flout grazing rules because of years of political interference. A host of BLM range conservationists and managers were transferred when they tried to enforce the terms of the permits over the last two decades, she said.

"They had a lot of political power when Larry Craig was still around," Fite said, referring to the former U.S. senator from Idaho.

But now, after more than 10 years of litigation, WWP has won a settlement from the BLM that it would end grazing practices Fite said dramatically lowered the water table, dried up streams in the Trout Springs area, and threatened the rare redband trout that live there.

"You're talking a millennium before it recovers," Fite said.

Schroeder declined comment, saying he did not want to fight his case in the media.

Hanley's appeal now will be decided by an administrative law judge.

Rocky Barker: 377-6484

Judge hears grazing arguments

How to gauge harm to threatened steelhead was a central question in a three-way courtroom battle last week between ranchers, environmentalists and the federal government.

U.S. District Judge Ancer Haggerty heard arguments in the case Tuesday, March 30, in Portland.

The debate stems from a legal challenge against cattle grazing in Eastern Oregon's Malheur National Forest. An environmental group, the Oregon Natural Desert Association, claims the federal government violated the Endangered Species Act by permitting grazing to degrade steelhead habitat in the national forest.

A key measure of cattle grazing's impact on steelhead is bank alteration, which is basically the percentage of the streambank that's altered by hoof prints.

Ranchers on 13 allotments in the forest are expected to keep bank alteration below 10 percent to 20 percent, depending on the area, as part of the federal requirements that allow grazing.

The environmental group claims that exceeding those thresholds is equivalent to killing steelhead, an "unlawful take" that constitutes a violation of the Endangered Species Act.

Ranchers who rely on the forest to graze their cattle allege those thresholds were arbitrarily set by the federal government and aren't based on the best available science, as required by the ESA.

"There isn't a connection between bank alteration and actual death and injury to steelhead," said Elizabeth Howard, an attorney representing ranchers during oral arguments. "There isn't any evidence of that."

David Becker, an attorney for the Oregon Natural Desert Association, countered that bank alteration has been linked to increased sedimentation, higher stream temperature and damage to fish egg-laying habitat.

"Habitat damage occurred and that was enough to show take," said Becker.

The group claims past "exceedances" of the bank alteration thresholds indicate the federal government's grazing rules for the national forest haven't been properly enforced.

No further evidence is needed to prove a "take" of protected species, he said. "There are no photographs of sediment being knocked down and fish scrambling away."

Both the environmental group and the ranchers are challenging the validity of a "biological opinion" and related documents issued by the federal government in 2007, which set standards for grazing in the forest.

The Oregon Natural Desert Association claims the government delegated too much responsibility for riparian health to the ranchers, without reasonable assurances that its conservation measures would be followed.

The ranchers, meanwhile, contend that the federal government should use more accurate standards to measure the viability of steelhead habitat in the allotments.

"What we really should be evaluating is bank stability," said Howard, rather than bank alteration.

The federal agencies involved in the lawsuit - the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Forest Service - had to defend the bank alteration standard while acknowledging its limitations.

Stephen Odell, an attorney representing the federal government, disagreed with the ranchers' view that bank alteration is an arbitrary standard. It's a legitimate method that will continue to be used for measuring riparian health, he said.

When the thresholds for alteration are exceeded, the federal agencies evaluate the damage and find ways to remedy it in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, he said.

However, bank alteration is just one method for gauging impacts from grazing, Odell said. Other factors, such as stream vegetation, must also be considered, he said.

"Bank alteration itself is not sufficient to establish a take," Odell said.

The federal government is caught between two groups which claim its standards are either too lenient or too restrictive, he said.

In this situation, the court should defer to the agencies' expertise and let the federal government's decision stand, Odell said.

Oral arguments on the legal validity of the biological opinion were held March 30 in a federal district court in Portland.

Judge Haggerty said he's taking the matter under advisement and will "get a ruling out shortly."

Meanwhile, ranchers expect to turn cattle out on the allotments between May 15 and June 1.

Idaho wool growers file lawsuit over bighorns

The Idaho Wool Growers Association and Shirts Brothers Sheep has filed a lawsuit against the Idaho Department of Fish and Game concerning bighorn sheep management.

The groups in the lawsuit filed earlier this week contend Fish and Game has not lived up to a 1997 agreement the groups say was designed to protect domestic sheep growers from potential adverse effects to their businesses from bighorn sheep introductions.

The groups are asking for unspecified damages "in an amount to be proven at trial."

The lawsuit comes several months after the Payette National Forest released a set of proposed updates to its plan to keep domestic sheep from intermingling with wild bighorns, citing disease transmission that kills bighorns.

One alternative in the draft calls for reducing domestic grazing by about 60 percent in Hells Canyon and allotments in the Salmon River Canyon.

"The Idaho Department of Fish and Game took no action to block the Forest Service from modifying the grazing allotments for Shirts and Shirts Brothers and took insufficient action to prevent Shirts and Shirts Brothers from being harmed by these actions," the lawsuit says.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game did not immediately return a call from The Associated Press on Saturday.

Idaho bighorn numbers have dwindled by half since 1990, to about 3,500 animals.

The 1997 agreement with wool growers included Fish and Game, federal land management agencies, and a bighorn sheep conservation group. The lawsuit contends that in 2007 the Forest Service began reducing domestic sheep grazing to protect bighorns.

Crapo seeks tax credits for endangered species work

In 2008, U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo accomplished part of his plan to encourage landowners to work with the Endangered Species Act, securing a permanent tax deduction for species expenditures on private land.

But that was only half of what Crapo, R-Idaho, set out to do. He’s now trying once more to get Congress to approve similar tax credits, competing with a number of other tax proposals in the wake of the mortgage crisis and recession.

The senator on March 24 introduced the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2010, which would provide credits for both habitat protection easements and restoration work. Co-sponsored by eight other senators both Republican and Democrat — including fellow Idahoan Jim Risch, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Jon Tester of Montana — it’s been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, where Crapo is a member.

The bill is another step in Crapo’s pursuit of piece-by-piece ESA reform. On Friday, he told the Times-News that he believes he has support for the bill’s substance, but is concerned its cost may once again block its passage. The credits would cost nearly $1 billion in the first five years and more than $1 billion in the second five years.

“There’s only a certain amount of flexibility in the budget for that sort of” cost, he said.

Pay-as-you-go rules — where the Senate must offset every new expense with a cut somewhere else — stopped the bill the last time and are still a concern now. But the new version’s odds might improve this fall, Crapo said, once the Senate starts looking at tax packages focused on broader issues than just mortgages. The credits, he said, would help generate natural-resources jobs in rural areas that desperately need the employment right now.

“It’s hard to predict right now how that will play out,” he said of passing the bill.

Crapo has previously said large-scale ESA reform would be very difficult. But he’s considering proposing a broader change once his tax credit passes: paring down the current “centralized command and control” approach to species listing and recovery in favor of consensus-based decisions involving local governments and groups.

Whether he pursues it will depend heavily on the makeup of Congress after this fall’s election, he said. And, of course, it will depend on when he gets the rest of his tax incentives passed.

“We’re not going to stop until we get the entire bill put into place,” he said.

Nate Poppino may be reached at npoppino@magicvalley.com or 735-3237.

Guv approves use of eminent domain to take federal land

ed up with federal ownership of more than half the land in Utah, Republican Gov. Gary Herbert on Saturday authorized the use of eminent domain to take some of the U.S. government's most valuable parcels.

Herbert signed a pair of bills into law that supporters hope will trigger a flood of similar legislation throughout the West, where lawmakers contend that federal ownership restricts economic development in an energy-rich part of the country.

Governments use eminent domain to take private property for public use.

The goal is to spark a U.S. Supreme Court battle that legislators' own attorneys acknowledge has little chance of success.

But Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and other Republicans say the case is still worth fighting, since the state could reap millions of dollars for state schools each year if it wins.

More than 60 percent of Utah is owned by the U.S. government, and policy makers here have long complained that federal ownership hinders their ability to generate tax revenue and adequately fund public schools.

Utah spends less per student than any other state and has the nation's largest class sizes. Under the measure Herbert has approved, the state will set aside $3 million to defend the law.

Lawmakers recently slashed education funding by $10 million and raised taxes on cigarettes by $1 a pack. Democrats have decried the eminent domain measure as a waste of money, and Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Peter Corroon is making it an issue in this year's special election.

But if the law is as bad as Democrats say it is, a court will quickly overturn it and the state won't have to spend much money defending it, Herbert said.

Initially, the state would target three areas for the use of eminent domain, including the Kaiparowits plateau in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which is home to large coal reserves.

Many people in Utah are still angry that then-President Bill Clinton's designated the area as a national monument in 1996, a move that stopped development on the land and greatly pleased environmentalists as he ran for re-election.

Utah lawmakers contend the federal government should have long ago sold the land it owns in the state. Because it hasn't, the federal government has violated a contract made with Utah when statehood was granted, they say.

Eminent domain would also be used on parcels of land where Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last year scrapped 77 oil and gas leases around national parks and wild areas.

Where would we be if Jon Marvel was nice?

The news that Hailey conservationist Jon Marvel had been cited for making false statements to the Bureau of Land Management spread through the ranching community like the Murphy Springs fire.

Cattlemen have been sitting around country cafes gleefully talking about how the outspoken anti-grazing activist is getting a dose of his own medicine.

Marvel and Gordon Younger paid the fine on the charge they liken to a traffic ticket. Marvel and his attorney say the charge is unfounded. By paying, they avoided a long costly legal battle that would put the72-year-old Younger through an ordeal he wants to avoid while he fights cancer.

It also would have kept Marvel from what he considers more important work, like challenging the BLM public lands grazing program.

If this wasn’t Jon Marvel, Idahoans who are skeptical of government agents exercising power might be open to his attorney Laird Lucas’ argument that this was retaliation. Lucas argues the proposal to cancel the grazing permit and the criminal charges were attempts by BLM officials to get back at Marvel for all of the hassles he’s caused them by repeatedly beating them in court.

But Marvel has often callously carried out his agenda to drive cattle ranchers off public lands, ignoring the impacts he has had on ranchers and their families. He has shown neither mercy nor understanding, so I suspect he will get little from them.

The story that most illustrates this side of Marvel to me was when he and I were outside of U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill’s courtroom after a hearing on a lawsuit his Western Watersheds Project had brought against Owyhee ranchers several years ago. The ranchers and their families were milling around in anxiety because they didn’t know whether they were going to be able to put their cattle out on public land in the spring. If they couldn’t, they might face bankruptcy.

I had quoted an environmentalist in my first book, “Saving All the Parts,” comparing ranchers, loggers and miners to the ghost-dancing Indians who thought their dances would drive the Blue Coats away the 1890s. I had said that ranchers’ early 1990s protests and activism were no more successful in driving away urban environmentalists from the rural West.

So sitting outside that courtroom, with the ranchers looking on, Marvel holds his arms out straight and asks, “Rocky, what am I holding?”

“I don’t know what you are talking about,” I replied.

“Blankets, Rocky. I’m holding the smallpox-contaminated blankets,” he said — likening his efforts to eliminate the ranchers to those of some early white Americans who intentionally sickened the Indians.

Marvel is a complex person who is often painted in black-and-white terms. He nearly single-handedly reshaped the environmental agenda on grazing in the 1990s and has personally done more to point out and pick at the flaws of the current system than the rest of the conservation community combined.

He also has driven the Idaho Department of Lands to take its trustee responsibility for school children seriously even though politics forces it to consider special interests.

He has built support on his sharp wit and great speaking ability. But he loses his temper easily and sometimes in public. He often displays the arrogance he said he disdained in the old ranchers whose behavior drove him to his current advocacy.

He strongly dislikes the cowboy mythology that is pervasive in the West and of course throughout American life.

But he loves the West, its sagebrush ecosystem and the native creatures that live there.

I’ve had more than one of Marvel’s allies describe him as “his own worse enemy.”

Former Idaho Democratic State Sen. John Peavey said it another way at an Idaho Woolgrowers meeting a few years ago.

“Imagine where we would be if Jon Marvel was nice?”

Rocky Barker covers environmental issues for the Idaho Statesman.

Idaho panel supports state control of federal lands

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - A Senate panel is supporting a resolution asking the governor and legislative leaders to get Idaho more involved in managing federal lands that fall within the state's boundaries.

Priest Lake Republican Rep. Eric Anderson told the Senate Resources and Environment Committee Monday the state should maintain some of the federal lands that make up at least 61 percent of Idaho's territory.

Anderson says the state sometimes does a better job taking care of forests than the federal agencies and that Idaho could use the land to raise money for public schools.

Colorado officials have contracted with the U.S. Forest Service to get rid of brush that could easily catch fire growing on federal land bordering state and private property. Utah has a similar agreement with the agency.

The resolution now goes to the Senate.

Public Lands Council Holds Spring Legislative Conference In DC

Public Lands Council (PLC) members representing 11 western states are in Washington, DC this week for the annual legislative fly-in. During the two-day conference, members will meet with agency and congressional representatives to discuss legislative and regulatory issues affecting public lands ranchers, including: sage grouse and wild horse and burro management; Equal Access to Justice Act reform; Forest Service land management; and death tax relief.

“Our legislative conference is an important opportunity for us to meet with lawmakers and help put a face on America’s ranchers,” said Skye Krebs, PLC President and rancher from Ione, Oregon. “Our ranchers work day-in and day-out to feed the world and take care of the land. We can’t do this without sound public policies that promote a stable business climate for producers and the conservation of our Western resources and heritage.”

The conference kicks off this morning with briefings by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Bob Abbey and Natural Resources Conservation Service Chief Dave White. Later today, the group will head to Capitol Hill to attend a joint-meeting with Arizona Senators John Kyl and John McCain.

Tomorrow, representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Forest Service and BLM will join the group for a discussion on the Endangered Species Act and other range-management issues.

Also during the conference, PLC members will meet with a number of congressional representatives from their respective states, including: Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) and Reps. Greg Walden (R-OR), Jim Matheson (D-UT) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Richardson supports monument status for Otero Mesa

Gov. Bill Richardson sent a letter Thursday to the Obama administration saying that any effort to consider national monument status for southern New Mexico's Otero Mesa has his support.

The governor's letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar referred to reports about an internal Interior Department document that lists 14 sites in nine states that could be designated as national monuments through the federal Antiquities Act, which gives presidents the authority to designate monuments without congressional approval.

Otero Mesa, which has become a battleground for environmentalists and the oil and gas industry, is on the list. The mesa is the largest publicly owned expanse of undisturbed Chihuahuan Desert grassland in the United States.

The department has said the list is just a product of brainstorming, but Richardson and environmentalists who have been seeking permanent protection for Otero Mesa say they are encouraged by the Obama administration's conservation initiatives thus far.

''The increased rigor and transparency of drilling reviews demonstrates a willingness to make needed improvements and learn from past actions in states like New Mexico,'' Richardson said in his letter.

The governor's letter also says Otero Mesa "encompasses approximately 1.2 million acres of Chihuahuan Desert, is a unique ecosystem that is home to rare desert grasslands, herds of pronghorn, prairie dog villages, mule deer, aplomado falcons and more than 345 of the world's 1,500 cacti species."

Nathan Newcomer, associate director of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, said the mesa's water, wildlife and cultural record deserve to be protected.

"We feel Otero Mesa is a wild and beautiful place," Newcomer said. "I think it would be huge for Otero County. Otero Mesa is the largest and wildest expanse of natural grasslands left in the country. I think it would be a tremendous boon for you guys (Otero County)."

Newcomer said with 200 species of birds inhabiting Otero Mesa, the birding community alone would bring people from around the world to the mesa.

One of the arguments heard against making places into national monuments is that the land is being locked up, Newcomer said. But the opposite is true, he claims.

"The land is already public land and this would guarantee that land would be protected forever," he said. "It would be elevating that area as a very important landscape. Nothing is being taken away from anybody. We want people to see it and we want people to understand grassland ecosystems."

Otero County is lucky to have Otero Mesa in its "backyard," Newcomer said.

In April 2009, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals defeated a Bureau of Land Management plan for Otero Mesa that would have opened the area to oil and gas drilling. Since then, the governor and the conservation groups have urged the BLM and the Department of the Interior to permanently protect Otero Mesa, Newcomer said.

Otero County Commissioner Ronny Rardin briefly commented on the governor's request. His view is that making Otero Mesa into a national park could affect Otero County residents' land use rights.

"You have government, like the federal government, coming down on county land without considering our land use," Rardin said.

Rardin was attending an Otero County Commission meeting Thursday evening and was planning to introduce the issue to the other commissioners at that time. The meeting was not over as of press time.

The Governor's letter is here.

Public Lands Council Announces New Executive Director

Dustin Van Liew has been named as the new Executive Director of the Public Lands Council (PLC), and Director of Federal Lands for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). Van Liew has been with PLC as a lobbyist since January, 2008, most recently serving in the role of interim director.

“Dustin brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table, and—most importantly—a passion for this great industry and the people who work in it,” said Skye Krebs, PLC president. “He has been an invaluable asset to the association over the past two years, and I’m excited to have him on board in this new leadership role.”

In his new position, Van Liew will seek to grow the presence of PLC both in the West and in Washington, DC to ensure a profitable business environment for America’s ranchers.

Van Liew comes from Woodland, Calif., where he is the seventh generation to work in livestock and production agriculture. He attended Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo where he received a Bachelor’s degree in Agricultural Business with a policy concentration. While at Cal Poly he was a member of the livestock judging team, competing in contests across the nation. After finishing at Cal Poly, Van Liew moved to College Station, Texas to attend Texas A&M University where he received a Masters degree in Agricultural Economics. His thesis focused on the economics of range management.

“PLC and NCBA have been strong allies over the years, and I’m looking forward to having Dustin at the helm as we continue to build upon this important partnership,” said Colin Woodall, NCBA vice president of government affairs.

The Public Lands Council (PLC) has represented livestock ranchers who use public lands since 1968, preserving the natural resources and unique heritage of the West. Public land ranchers own nearly 120 million acres of the most productive private land and manage vast areas of public land, accounting for critical wildlife habitat and the nation’s natural resources. PLC works to maintain a stable business environment in which livestock producers can conserve the West and feed the nation and world.

BLM cites Watersheds Project chief

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.”

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."

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.

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)

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

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."

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

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

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.

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-

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.”

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.

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)