Idaho Court Grazing Decision Adds To Economic Woes, Fails To See Whole Picture

MORELAND, Idaho – In an ongoing effort to eliminate grazing and other uses of public lands, Western Watersheds Project (WWP) challenged 18 Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) prepared by 18 separate Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offices in six different Western states. The BLM and stakeholders immediately filed a motion to dismiss parts of the complaint and asked that the case be handled separately in U.S. Courts in each of the affected states, rather than as one large lawsuit. In early May, Judge B. Lynn Winmill, Chief U.S. District Judge, ordered that the motion be granted in part and denied in part in a decision that ultimately unfairly favors the original complaint.

“The judge looked at this as a decision simply about sage grouse and failed to see the whole picture, that this is a range resource and habitat issue,” said Dan Gralian, President of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association. “As ranchers, we work with agencies like the BLM to manage our public lands responsibly. Sweeping attacks and generalizations like this case misuse stakeholders’ time, take our agency folks away from their real jobs of managing the land and wastes taxpayers’ money.”

“You simply can’t paint 25 million acres of the Western United States with the same broad brush as Judge Winmill has in this case,” said John O’Keeffe, Chair of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association Public Lands Committee. Making the BLM waste federal resources on paperwork, legal fees and defending their efforts to protect threatened species ultimately does not protect the environment, sage grouse or rangelands.”

Rangeland resource management and associated environmental issues permeate nearly every aspect of life in the West. Various interconnected ecosystems make each area under the lawsuit intrinsically different. Rangelands provide critical wildlife habitat, water resources, oil, gas, mineral reserves, and recreational opportunities. Local economies are closely associated with the use of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources as well as rural and wildland resources for tourists. Individual local ecosystems and resources need to be considered as they were when the BLM developed the different Resource Management Plans that govern the different BLM districts.

“Instead of wasting resources on blanket lawsuits, the Western Legacy Alliance and its members advocate for science-based options for resolving environmental and natural resource management issues and incorporating an interdisciplinary approach to problem solving and conflict resolution,” said John McLain, a resource and rangeland specialist and member of WLA.

By filing complaints against 18 individual plans, WWP has demonstrated their ignorance of the uniqueness and regional diversity inherent to the states and areas in question, something an “environmentalist” organization should be ashamed of. Driven by the absence of balanced and objective information, WWP is furthering rangeland resource conflicts that will ultimately ruin the local economies and way of life inherent to the West.

Livestock production in many of these states relies on maintaining healthy native rangelands. The members of the Western Legacy Alliance believe that true conservation groups, industry and all other interests that use public lands can work together to find sustainable solutions that best meet the needs of people and the environment. Misrepresentation and extremist activity on anyone’s part hinder the progress that has been made and ultimately make it more difficult to preserve the natural, cultural and economic facets of the American West.

Herbicide Plan Threatens Endangered Species in New Mexico

Comments Note Failures to Analyze Toxic Effects to Groundwater and Wildlife

The Center for Biological Diversity today filed comments detailing concerns about the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s proposal to apply chemical herbicides for noxious-weed control on nearly 1.5 million acres of public land in eastern New Mexico, including source-water zones that feed groundwater springs in the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

The agency issued its proposal in an Environmental Assessment on April 20.

The Center comments note failures of the Bureau’s field office in Roswell to properly assess how herbicides may poison groundwater and wildlife. They also question why the agency did not consider how ongoing management practices contribute to the spread of noxious weeds.

Under a 2007 decision authorizing herbicide use on public land in 17 western states, the Bureau is required to designate “herbicide-specific” buffer zones for local water bodies. In addition, it must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when its actions may affect threatened or endangered species.

The Roswell assessment meets neither of those conditions, according to Jay Lininger, a Center ecologist.

“The Bureau of Land Management admits that toxic herbicides can poison groundwater and wildlife,” Lininger said. “But agency disregard for basic protections seriously threatens the environment.”

In addition to the Bitter Lake refuge, one of the most biologically significant wetland areas in the Pecos River watershed, the public lands managed by the Roswell office host 11 animals and three plants listed under the Endangered Species Act, as well as five other species that are candidates for listing.

Some of the wildlife that could be affected by chemical spraying live in small areas and can’t escape if their habitat becomes toxic.

“Spraying chemicals without consideration for wildlife that may be affected poses an existential threat to some species,” Lininger said.

The Bureau also should carefully consider how grazing, oil and gas leasing, and recreation activities spread noxious weeds and create a need to use toxic herbicides, he said. “Noxious weeds pose a serious threat to native plant communities and wildlife, too, necessitating active management to contain infestations,” Lininger added.

“Weeds are a major problem, and there are many ways to control them besides using toxic chemicals,” he said. “Before using chemicals, the Bureau needs to show that it’s the best method and that it’s safe.”

Editorial: Environmentalists threaten livestock industry in Oregon

If there was any doubt the livestock industry is in a fight for its life, the events of recent weeks surely erased such thoughts.

In Eastern Oregon, Grant County ranchers had heard for months that environmental groups were planning to seek new injunctions on Malheur National Forest grazing allotments. Rumor became reality in early April when the Oregon Natural Desert Association, Western Watershed Project and the Center for Biological Diversity asked a federal judge to halt grazing on six allotments, contending federal land managers have failed to prevent cattle grazing from harming endangered fish.

The new injunction would affect 17 ranchers and an estimated 250,000 acres of land. The environmentalists filed their request just as ranchers were preparing for a new grazing season, one now in limbo. It also came just as the ranchers' legal defense group, the Five Rivers Grazing Permittees, had worked with forest officials to craft a plan for drastically reduced grazing on two allotments environmentalists successfully targeted last year.

Attorneys for the ranchers in mid-April asked the federal court to accept the plan and allow some grazing to resume on the Murderers Creek and Lower Middle Fork grazing allotments. Judge Ancer Haggerty, who granted the injunction on the two allotments in May 2008, is expected to consider both the grazing proposal and the request to bar grazing on the additional six allotments at a hearing in June.

Rural communities are watching with concern as events unfold.

The ranchers whose operations are at stake are on hold are awaiting the judge's decision. They are hopeful - but as one rancher put it, not optimistic - there will be a ruling that will enable them to stay in business.They also are aware this skirmish is just part of a larger battle.

The environmental group WildEarth Guardians' recent report blamed cattle grazing for the demise of nearly every endangered or threatened creature in the woods. It asked us to believe cattle are the cause of a host of sins against nature, just about everything except swine flu.

Never mind climate change, wrong-headed firefighting policies of the past, juniper encroachment and invasive species - cows, pure and simple, are the problem, the report says.

In response, resource managers said the conclusions were simplistic; they stressed grazing is an important tool in the management tool box. While some dismissed the report as extremist, it likely served its purpose - drawing headlines and luring more dollars from urban wallets to fund the fight against grazing.

Such tactics underscore the fact that this situation is about as polarized as any political war could be.

In Grant County, the legal wrangling dates back six years. The court filings have pitted environmentalist groups against federal agencies, but the ramifications go far beyond the realms of just these parties.

Stockmen, landowners, resource agencies, recreationists and more all claim a personal stake in the outcome.

Among the stakeholders who seem to get short shrift are the rural communities - communities that began dealing with recessionary times long before the current economic collapse. For Grant County, already constrained by a straitjacketed timber industry, the loss of the livestock industry could be a crippling blow.

The impact may seem hard to comprehend for urbanites in populous metro areas. To be sure, cattle ranchers don't hire hundreds of shift workers, but each may take on a few ranchhands or a part-timer or two to handle seasonal ranch work in a county where every single job is critical. They hire local contractors to build fences, dig ditches and maintain buildings. They spend needed dollars at feed stores, building supply places, tire stores, auto repair shops and more. The impacts ripple through the local economy; stifle them and the entire county will suffer.

It would be tragic if litigation forced the cattle ranchers out of business and pushed communities a step closer toward ghost towns, but it's not an unimaginable scenario.

It's time to look for creative solutions that work for the both fish and people.

The ranchers are doing that with their grazing compromise; the question remains as to whether theirs will be the only voice of reason in the courtroom in June.

Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board, comprised of Editor George Murdock, Associate Publisher Kathryn Brown, General Manager Wendy DalPez, Managing Editor Skip Nichols and News Editor Daniel Wattenburger. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the East Oregonian.

Influencing Congress: Defenders’ Effective Offense

It’s a deceptively simple political strategy but it works for the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife.

Rather than trying to elect dozens of friendly lawmakers, it’s been concentrating its money on just a few high-profile races and flooding them with money and volunteers.

It was this strategy in 2006 that allowed the group to help defeat Richard W. Pombo, the California Republican who at the time chaired the House Natural Resources Committee.

Armed with $60,000 worth of polling that suggested Pombo was vulnerable, the group spent $1.7 million through two political funds and fielded canvassers across his district with the message that Pombo was “America’s No. 1 wildlife villain” for helping developers, miners, and the oil and gas industry.

A Web site called PomboInTheirPocket.org posted more information. Pombo lost to Democrat Jerry McNerney by 13,000 votes.

The Washington-based wildlife group, founded in 1947 primarily to fight fur trapping, still mainly focuses on the welfare of predators such as wolves and coyotes. And it’s become an example of a shift in the direction of advocacy groups away from general issue campaigns and toward targeted efforts against individual politicians, while at the same time shielding the identity of political contributors.

This new wave of groups, organized under section 501(c)4 of the tax code as “ideological education” groups, spent nearly $200 million in the 2007-2008 election cycle, more than each party’s congressional campaign committees, according to a study by the Campaign Finance Institute, an academic research group affiliated with George Washington University.

The Defenders in 2006 were involved in 26 races.

Its candidates won in 14, although most of the effort was against Pombo. “We decided that we’re going to be engaged and go after our weakest enemies,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife and its Action Fund. “We wanted to have an impact on legislation.”

Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, accused the group last fall of raising money by distorting legislation to help Democrats under the guise of environmental protection.

“Campaigns to ‘save the cuddly animals’ or ‘protect the ancient forests’ are really disguised efforts to raise money for Democratic political campaigns,” Inhofe said on the Senate floor. “Environmental organizations have become experts at duplicitous activity, skirting laws up to the edge of illegality and burying their political activities under the guise of nonprofit environmental improvement.”

Last year, the group narrowed its congressional sights even further — to races in Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and particularly the high-desert plains of eastern Colorado. The Action Fund’s $1.1 million spent to defeat Republican Marilyn Musgrave was particularly potent given that Musgrave and her Democratic challenger, Betsy Markey , each spent $2.9 million on the race.

The environmental group broadcast four television advertisements and two radio spots branding Musgrave “one of the most corrupt members of Congress” and in the pocket of Big Oil.

Musgrave called the ads “millions of dollars of garbage” and her campaign manager compared the third-party spending to a boxing match without referees.

The group also deployed 48 campaign staffers who knocked on 83,000 doors in the district. Markey ended up winning in a walk, with 56 percent.

“It did give us additional respect for our issues,” Schlickeisen said. “It sent a message.” Meanwhile, the group was enlarging its lobbying, which increased from $270,000 in 2004 to $906,000 last year.

It also didn’t relax after the election. Since January, the Defenders have been trading accusations with GOP Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska because of her decisions to allow, among other practices, wolf hunting from helicopters.

Palin has branded Defenders an “extreme fringe group” that uses audacious fundraising appeals to attack a program aimed at curbing predators of moose and caribou.

Other Republicans defend the group. Sen. Michael D. Crapo , R-Idaho, said Defenders of Wildlife works collaboratively on divisive issues such as endangered species. “They’ve been willing to work with us, although they have a strong perspective,” Crapo said.

Meantime, the group has stepped up its lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill, spending $906,000 last year compared to $270,000 in 2004.

The group’s interests range from protecting sea otters to conserving roadless areas, but its top goal this year is climate change. The group says it helped push the first climate-change bill from committee to the Senate floor in the 110th Congress.

Despite the collapse of that comprehensive bill, the group won creation of the National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center for monitoring climate change within the U.S. Geological Survey as part of the fiscal 2008 spending bill for Interior. Now Defenders of Wildlife has proposed designating 5 percent of the federal money from the sale of emissions allowances under a cap-and-trade proposal before Congress for efforts to curb global warming. “If you’re going to have a good program, you need it backed up by science,” Schlickeisen said.

The group also wants to force major federal landholders — the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service — to behave more like the National Park Service by taking wildlife management more into account.

Defenders of Wildlife recruited Rep. Ron Kind , a co-chairman last year of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, to sponsor the legislation as the group negotiated with interests such as Ducks Unlimited and state officials under the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

“Given the large organization that they’ve been able to form, they were able to activate a lot of organizations and interest groups to get in touch with various offices,” said Kind, a Wisconsin Democrat who serves on the Natural Resources and Ways and Means committees.

The Obama administration is considered friendlier to the group’s causes than the Bush administration, but not on every subject. Environmental groups were disappointed with the Interior Department would not revoke a Bush administration rule that limits the ability to curb greenhouse gas emissions in order to protect polar bears, a threatened species.

“Just because Obama isn’t George Bush doesn’t mean his administration is going to be as pro-conservation as we would like,” Schlickeisen said. “Obviously we’re going to have to work hard there.”

Ranchers fight to keep grazing in Grant County

Ranchers and environmentalists have locked horns over cattle grazing for years. Now a battered economy and a looming court decision are fueling a full-on battle in Grant County.

On one side, ranchers and the county chairman say proposed grazing limits could deal a knockout punch to more than a dozen cattle operations and, because of job losses and lost tax revenue, county social services.

On the other side, an environmental group says wild steelhead are in decline because of stream bank damage caused by grazing cattle.

"The mood here is not good," says Mark Webb, chairman of Grant County commissioners in Canyon City. "A lot of livelihoods" ride on the pending ruling by U.S. District Judge Ancer Haggerty in Portland. A hearing in the case is scheduled for June 9.

The debate affects an eastern Oregon county that has twice the space of Delaware but just 7,500 residents. Grant County is so sparsely populated that it has only one stoplight and three fast-food restaurants, plus a one-night-a-week movie theater in an old Rebekah Lodge. Towns are tiny, with frontier-style buildings harking to the gold rush.

More than 60 percent of the county's land is federally owned, and the John Day River system has more miles designated as wild and scenic than any in the nation.

Unemployment at 18.8 percent in county

The recession has hit the county especially hard. The unemployment rate in March, according to figures by the Oregon Employment Department, was 18.8 percent, compared with 12.9 percent statewide and 9 percent nationwide.

At issue are six grazing allotments on U.S. Forest Service land. The allotments, all in the Malhuer National Forest, encompass about 250,000 acres across a vast tapestry of mountains, canyons, meadows and pine forests.

Three environmental groups, including the Bend-based Oregon Natural Desert Association, filed a request April 10 for an injunction that would banish cattle from the allotments.

Brent Fenty, the group's executive director, says damage in the allotments is severe and threatens the survival of native Middle Columbia steelhead, federally listed as threatened in 1999.

"Something needs to be done about it," he says.

Fenty says the environmental group has collected data over a decade that show steelhead runs far below historic levels.

17 ranches use six allotments

Webb, the county chairman, says 17 ranches use the six allotments and that long-term closures could drive at least half of them out of business, worsening unemployment. The drop in tax revenues, in turn, would shrink funds for social services, hurting even Blue Mountain Hospital in John Day, he says.

And Webb says an injunction could actually hurt steelhead habitat by shifting cattle to private ranchland, where overgrazing could occur along streams. On the ungrazed federal land, grass could grow out of control in summer, raising wildfire risk. And ranches could even be broken up, he says, resulting in homebuilding and loss of rangeland and habitat.

Environmentalists, he says, forget how much fish and wildlife habitat ranches provide.

Spencer Hovekamp, spokesman for the National Marine Fisheries Service in La Grande, says the injunction, if granted, would mean eight allotments in the Upper and Lower John Day River and its North Fork and Middle Fork subbasins would be closed to livestock. Two allotments were closed by a May 2008 ruling.

He traces the grazing debate to two decades of fighting over timber sales in national forests. Without logging, tree canopies have expanded, he says, shading out grass. Cattle migrate toward streams, he says, where grass is more plentiful.

He declined to comment on steelhead numbers, saying only that the fish are not recovered. He says it's possible to have both steelhead and cattle on the Malheur National Forest, though it may mean more fences and more cowboys tracking cattle on horseback.

The Five Rivers Grazing Permittees

Ranchers, meanwhile, have formed a legal defense fund to fight for cattle grazing: The Five Rivers Grazing Permittees. The group's 42 Grant County ranchers have assessed themselves $10,000 each for attorney fees, says co-chairman Ken Holliday of John Day.

Holliday, 53, says cattle are sometimes blamed for stream bank damage caused by elk and wild horses. He also says a rule prohibiting more than 10 percent stream bank disturbance on some allotments was grabbed out of the sky by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The rule couldn't be met even if no cattle were present, he says.

Environmentalists "are beating ranchers over the head and trying to put us out of business," he says. "I don't understand it."

In February, about 500 supporters showed up at a benefit auction at the Grant County Fairgrounds, raising $77,000 for ranchers' legal costs.

But as bills mount, Holliday says, ranchers may not be able to keep up the fight much longer.

-- Richard Cockle; rcockle@oregonwireless.net

Fed appeals court rules against ranchers

A federal appeals court in Denver has ruled that a group of Wyoming ranchers had no right to formal hearings before the U.S. Bureau of Land Management reduced their livestock grazing under federal permits.

Ranchers with the Smithsfork Grazing Association had sued the BLM and various government officials. The lawsuit challenged the federal agency's 2005 order to reduce grazing on the 91,000-acre Smithsfork Allotment located north and east of Cokeville, in southwestern Wyoming.

A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on Tuesday upheld a Wyoming judge's earlier decision that ruled against the ranchers.

Several lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington represented the BLM. Carol A. Statkus, assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Wyoming also worked on the case. John Powell, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Wyoming, said Tuesday that Statkus had no comment.

Karen Budd-Falen, a Cheyenne lawyer, represented the grazing association. She did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment on the ruling on Tuesday.

Jonathan Ratner, director of the Wyoming office of the Western Watersheds Project in Pinedale, said Tuesday that his group has been following the dispute and is happy with the appeals court's ruling.

Ratner said there have been some improvements on the allotment since the BLM reduced grazing in the area. However, he said grazing is still causing major problems with streams in the area that support Bonneville cutthroat trout, a species that the BLM has listed as sensitive.

Ratner said he expects the issue of reducing grazing on the Smithsfork Allotment will now proceed to a federal hearing process. He said his group will continue to be involved in that.

"We'll be keeping a very careful eye on this whole process, because the Smithsfork area is one of the last few Bonneville trout populations left in Wyoming, and the BLM is doing really a stunningly poor job of protecting this species."

An attempt to reach John Christensen, field manager at the BLM's office in Kemmerer, on Tuesday was unsuccessful.

The New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association and New Mexico Federal Lands Council entered an appearance in the lawsuit and filed "friend of the court" briefs supporting the Smithsfork Grazing Association's position.

Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, said Tuesday that her group is deeply concerned with the appeals court decision and needs to review it further.

"We got involved because it had to do with the ability to administratively appeal decisions for grazing allotment owners," Cowan said. "That's a universal issue, whether you're in Wyoming, New Mexico or what state you're in.

"Allotment owners need to have the ability to appeal decisions, and feel like they have fairness as they're working with the agency," Cowan said.

BLM Website Statement regarding Grazing Regulations

Following an adverse decision in Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, the Bureau of Land Management is presently applying its livestock grazing regulations that were in effect immediately prior to July 12, 2006, with certain exceptions noted below. The grazing regulations in effect immediately prior to July 12, 2006, are found at 43 CFR Part 4100 (2005). Applying these regulations will not have any practical effect on the Bureau’s current management of livestock grazing on BLM-managed public lands.

On February 28, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho issued a Judgment in the Kraayenbrink decision, enjoining in all respects the BLM grazing regulations published at 71 FR 39402 (July 12, 2006). On June 15, 2007, the BLM issued an instruction memorandum (IM 2007-137) to its field offices advising them to not implement any changes of the grazing regulations promulgated on July 12, 2006. A revised instruction memorandum was published on April 20, 2009 (IM 2009-109).

The BLM has elected to apply the grazing regulations found in the 2005 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR part 4100 (2005 grazing regulations) to grazing matters administered by the BLM on lands outside of Alaska, with the exception of regulations addressing conservation use, which have not been in use since they were held to be invalid in Public Lands Council v. Babbitt. Any future changes to the 2005 grazing regulations will be pursued in a new rulemaking proceeding. A copy of the regulations at 43 CFR part 4100 (2005) may be viewed on the Internet at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/43cfr4100_05.html.
For further information, contact Robert Bolton, (202) 452-7792.

Study: Grazing threatens wildlife habitat in West

Conservationists say livestock grazing poses a threat to a wide variety of fish and other wildlife across more than three-fourths of their dwindling habitats on federal land in the West.

Using satellite mapping and federal records, WildEarth Guardians began a study last year matching wildlife habitat and U.S. grazing allotments across more than 260 million acres of federal land in the West.

It includes practically all of the remaining habitat of the Greater sage grouse, a hen-sized game bird the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering adding to the list of threatened or endangered species in 11 Western states from California to Wyoming. The environmental group wants the bird protected.

"The results confirm - in graphic form - previous research finding that incessant, ubiquitous public lands grazing has contributed to the decline of native wildlife," concludes the report entitled "Western Wildlife Under Hoof." The report is scheduled to be released Friday.

The group said continued grazing in ever-shrinking habitat hampers the recovery of fish and wildlife and in some cases threatens them with extinction.

Cattle and sheep trample vegetation, damage soil, spread invasive weeds, spoil water and deprive native wildlife of forage, the report said. It notes that then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said in 2005 that livestock grazing "is the most damaging use of public land."

Mark Salvo, WildEarth Guardians' grazing program specialist and author of the report, said the new data suggest livestock have "done more damage to the Earth than the chain saw and bulldozer combined."

Jeff Eisenberg, director of federal lands for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, criticized the findings as part of an effort to shut down grazing on federal lands.

"There's a number of environmental groups that have decided the best way to spend their time and the money of their funders is to eliminate the families and communities that have made the West what it is today," he told AP in an e-mail. "These groups don't deserve a dignified response."

Don Kirby, president of the Society for Range Management and director of North Dakota State University's School of Natural Resource Sciences, said livestock grazing is an important part of a "landscape management toolbox" that can be used to reduce wildfires and improve wildlife habitat.

"Western rangelands and the wildlife species that live there have coexisted with grazing by large herbivores for tens of thousands of years," Kirby said.

The report found livestock grazing is permitted on 91 percent of the Greater sage grouse's habitat and that grazing operations are active on 72 percent of the habitat. Grazing is active on 55 percent of the federal range of the Gunnison sage grouse and is permitted on 84 percent of it.

Likewise, grazing is permitted on about 80 percent of public land in the historic range of several cutthroat trout species, including 88 percent of the Lahontan and 76 percent of the Bonneville.

It's also permitted on about 75 percent of the federal habitat of four species of prairie dogs.

"The species included in our report are representative of the hundreds of wildlife species that are threatened by public lands grazing," said Salvo, whose group has offices in Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.

The bulk of the federal land studied is managed by the Bureau of Land Management, which issued grazing permits and leases to 15,799 ranchers and other operators covering 128 million acres of U.S. land in 2006.

BLM spokesman Jeff Krauss said the agency has not fully reviewed the report but maintains "well-managed grazing provides numerous ecological and environmental benefits."

Among other things, WildEarth Guardians recommends buying out permits from ranchers and others willing to remove their livestock from grazing land.

"There is a greater economic value in non-consumptive uses of public land - hunting, fishing, birdwatching, hiking, camping - than livestock grazing," the report said.

The Nevada Department of Wildlife shares concerns about dwindling wildlife populations but believes there is a place for grazing on public land, spokesman Chris Healy said.

If ranchers end up selling their land, it could be subdivided and lead to development even more problematic for wildlife, he said.

"It behooves us to get everybody who uses the land to be part of the solution and that's what we've been trying to do with the sage grouse. If one sector or user of the land feels like they are being ganged up on, the odds of coming up with a solution that will work are not good," he said.

Lawyers ask judge to split sweeping grazing suit

The federal government is asking a judge to break apart a sweeping lawsuit that accuses federal land managers of putting grazing and energy interests ahead of preserving sage grouse across millions of acres of public land in six western states.

The lawsuit, filed last year in U.S. District Court here, challenges 16 separate land use plans developed by the Bureau of Land Management to manage 25 million acres in Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming and northern California.

The Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project contends the BLM violated federal environmental laws, as well as its own policies, in writing those plans. In its lawsuit, the group accuses the agency of failing to fully consider the impacts livestock grazing, oil and gas drilling and other activities would have on the sage grouse and its diminishing habitat.

Thursday's hearing before U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill focused on procedure instead of the legal merits of the case.

According to government lawyers, the case right now is too broad to address the distinct differences and nuances of the agency's 16 management plans.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Ferguson, representing the BLM, wants Winmill to split case so it can be argued separately in federal courthouses in each of the six states. Keeping the case in Boise and wrapped in one, all-encompassing legal challenge ignores the unique nature of each 20-year management plan and the local involvement that went into crafting them, she said.

"It's not a case of if you've seen one, you've seen them all," Ferguson told the judge.

The Wyoming Stock Growers Association and the Petroleum Association of Wyoming have joined the government's attempt to split and dismiss the case.

Laird Lucas, a lawyer for Western Watersheds, said the case should remain consolidated because it's based on the same common legal thread: In developing each of the 16 management plans, BLM decision makers neglected to consider a no-grazing option as a way to protect and enhance sage grouse habitat.

As a result, Lucas said, the agency violated the National Environmental Policy Act and its own sage grouse management plan developed in 2004 to avoid having the bird listed under the Endangered Species Act.

"All these plans have the same defects," Lucas said. "It makes no sense to break these into six different cases."

Winmill said he intends to rule quickly, but did not indicate when.

In recent years, Western Watersheds has delivered several legal blows to the federal government's management of sage grouse, a chicken-sized bird that once proliferated in the sagebrush plains and high desert ecosystems from Colorado to northeastern California and into southern Canada.

Government scientists say as many as 16 million sage grouse lived in western states in the early 1800s, but its numbers have dwindled to about 100,000, according to a 2005 estimate.

Conservationists and biologists attribute the drop to rapid declines in sagebrush habitat from urban development, energy development, wildfires, invasive weed growth, global warming and livestock grazing.

Despite an appeal by conservationists, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the bird didn't deserve to be listed as a threatened or endangered species in 2005. Western Watersheds responded with a lawsuit challenging that decision, and in 2007 Winmill sided with the organization.

In his ruling, Winmill concluded the decision by the wildlife service ignored key science and was tainted by political meddling by Bush administration appointees. The wildlife service was ordered to revisit the listing decision and is expected to issue a new decision later this year.

Suit says grazing, drilling rules threaten bird

Conservationists say federal rules that allow livestock grazing and oil and gas development across 25 million acres of public land in the West are illegal because they fail to acknowledge the harm being done to sage grouse.

A lawsuit recently filed in federal court accuses the Bureau of Land Management of violating two major environmental laws and its own regulations by allowing commercial activities to continue on those lands in California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Utah.

But in a switch in strategy, the environmentalists aren't asking a judge to immediately halt those operations. They want to talk, and they think they may have a willing listener in the new Obama administration.

"What we are after is finding a way to do things differently than in the past and better manage these public lands into the future," said Laird Lucas, a lawyer for the Western Watersheds Project, which filed the suit.

Since taking office, President Obama has distanced himself from several Bush administration policies on the environment and suspended some administrative orders Bush signed in the waning days of his term that could lead to the easing of protections for threatened wildlife on federal land.

The change in administrations prompted the new approach from the Idaho-based environmental group that has spent much of the past eight years in court battling land-use rules adopted by the BLM and Forest Service.

Kendra Barkoff, press secretary for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, said Friday "we are in the preliminary stages of litigation and as a result can't comment."

Ranchers and drillers said the suit is part of an effort to keep livestock, energy development and other commercial activities off an area of the West bigger than the state of Indiana.

"They are trying to tie up 25 million acres and close it down to livestock operators altogether," said Ronald Opsahl, a lawyer for the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which represents the Wyoming Stock Growers Association and the Petroleum Association of Wyoming. "As far as the scope of this case, it has to be unprecedented."

The focus of the lawsuit is a chicken-size game bird - mottled brown, black and white - found on sagebrush plains and high desert from Colorado to California and into southern Canada. The government estimates as many as 16 million sage grouse inhabited the West in the early 1800s when they were first observed by Lewis and Clark. Today their numbers have dwindled to as low as 100,000, according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service census in 2005.

At issue in the lawsuit is the BLM's National Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. The agency adopted it in 2004 as an interim plan to help protect the bird and guide management of federal rangeland while the Fish and Wildlife Service considered whether to protect the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act.

The wildlife service determined in 2005 not to list the sage grouse as an endangered or threatened species, but a federal judge overturned the decision. The agency is expected to deliver a new decision on whether to protect the bird this year.

Feds agree to look at jaguar's capture

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will open a criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the capture and euthanization of the jaguar Macho B, service officials said Thursday.

The federal agency, legally responsible for protecting endangered species such as the jaguar, said it would look into "all aspects of the incident" involving Macho B's capture and death. It said the decision to investigate — previously sought by a congressman and two environmental groups — was based on "new information received in the last 48 hours that called into question the circumstances of the initial capture."

The announcement came after the Arizona Daily Star published an article raising the possibility that the Feb. 18 capture of Macho B was deliberate and not accidental, as State Game and Fish officials had said. In an interview, Janay Brun, a field technician for a non-profit jaguar research group, said she was told on Feb. 4 by a biologist for the group, Emil McCain, to place female jaguar scat at the snare trap site where Macho B was later captured. McCain has denied Brun's allegation.

A service spokesman said "I can't say that it is one specific thing" that triggered the investigation.

"It is the circumstances around the trapping of the jaguar in general," said spokesman Jose Viramontes in Albuquerque.

The federal investigation had been sought by U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, of Tucson, and environmental groups the Center for Biological Diversity and the Defenders of Wildlife. The center and Grijalva said that they didn't want the Game and Fish Department to investigate itself.

In a letter to the service this week, Grijalva asked for a probe into:

• Whether the capture was legal, and whether it was intentional or unintentional.
• The status of state and scientist guidelines for capturing and handling jaguars, and how Game and Fish and the contractors carried out the protocol.
• Factors leading to the jaguar's recapture on March 2, the recapture itself and its propriety.
• Macho B's health before its euthanization and whether the animal should have gotten more time before being euthanized.
• Why a more thorough autopsy was not performed, instead of what was called a cosmetic necropsy that was designed to preserve the jaguar's hide so it could be used for scientific, educational or religious purposes.
• The Fish and Wildlife Service's involvement in decision-making in the capture and death.

Viramontes would not comment on what items will be covered in the federal investigation.

The service's entry into this case came two days after Game and Fish announced it was investigating Macho B's capture — also based on unstated "new information."

On Thursday, the state agency said it welcomes the federal investigation and will fully cooperate with it. On Wednesday, Game and Fish said the state investigation would be led by the Arizona Attorney General's office. The service said Thursday that it would investigate in concert with the Attorney General.

"We will not speculate on its outcome," Game and Fish said in a statement. "In the event this investigation reveals any inappropriate conduct or actions, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and department will take appropriate measures. The Department and commission did not authorize or condone the intentional initial capture of this jaguar."

In an interview, Brun was pleased at the service's decision to investigate.

"I think that there is responsibility that needs to be taken for mistakes that were made, if any were made. I think there was a lot that seems to have been left out and a lot that wasn't done by the book. I think it is fantastic that they are investigating so hopefully something like this won't happen again," said Brun, an Arivaca resident who is out of state on family matters.

Bob Hernbrode, the Tucsonan who chairs the Game and Fish Commission, declined to comment in detail because of the ongoing investigations.

"I'm not going to make any judgments till we hear from the investigation," he said.

He noted that he initially defended the commission at a press briefing held by state and federal officials in Tucson, three days after the jaguar's death. But that was before information emerged suggesting the capture of the jaguar was intentional.

"This stuff is as painful to me as it is to anyone. I guarantee you we will follow through whatever happens."

Contact reporters Tony Davis at 806-7746 or tdavis@azstarnet.com and Tim Steller at 807-8427 or tsteller@azstarnet.com

Judge sides with environmentalists in wolf case

A lawsuit is still alive, challenging the way the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is managing a reintroduction program aimed at returning the endangered Mexican gray wolf to the Southwest.

A federal judge rejected a motion by the federal agency to throw out the case, which was filed nearly a year ago by several conservation organizations that have concerns about certain rules governing the reintroduction effort.

"The important thing to us is now that the case is not being dismissed it means we do have a valid argument and it will be heard and hopefully it will give Mexican wolves a chance to recover," Eva Sargent, director of Defenders of Wildlife's Southwest program, said Thursday.

A Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman said Thursday the agency has reviewed the ruling issued this week by U.S. District Judge David Bury in Tucson, Ariz. The agency plans to argue the merits of its actions related to the wolf program.

The Mexican wolf, a subspecies of the gray wolf, was exterminated in the wild in the Southwest by the 1930s. In 1998, the government began reintroducing wolves along the Arizona-New Mexico line in a 4 million acre-plus territory interspersed with forests, private land and towns.

Biologists had hoped to have at least 100 wolves in the wild by now and 18 breeding pairs. The most recent survey shows there were 52 wolves, including two breeding pairs, scattered between New Mexico and Arizona at the end of 2008.

Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups are challenging the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to create an oversight committee to manage reintroduction efforts.

The groups claim the agency relinquished its powers to other agencies rather than maintaining final authority to recover the wolves.

The groups also are challenging a controversial rule that calls for wolves to be permanently removed from the wild or killed if they prey on livestock three or more times within one year.

The agency did not remove any wolves in 2008 due to depredation, but it has said illegal killings were what hampered the species' recovery over the last year. Five wolves were illegally shot and two others suffered a "suspicious demise."

However, environmentalists accuse the agency of deflecting blame from its own management.

The Center for Biological Diversity points out that the agency removed 19 wolves from the wild in 2007 through trapping and shooting. That's nearly three times the number of suspicious wolf deaths in 2008.

Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity said the pending lawsuit seeks to rescind the three-strikes rule and restore authority from the Adaptive Management Oversight Committee to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

If the groups get their way, Robinson said: "At least the Fish and Wildlife Service wouldn't be able to hide behind other agencies in shirking their responsibilities. The decision would be right back in their corner and they would be held accountable on the basis of how well they perform."

The plaintiffs in the case include Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project, New Mexico Audubon Council, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, University of New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, The Wildlands Project, Sierra Club, Southwest Environmental Center, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, WildEarth Guardians and The Rewilding Institute.

The Curious Case Of Jaguar Macho B

By David Alire Garcia

Fights over endangered species are nothing new in New Mexico. But one over the officially endangered jaguar — the Americas’ biggest big cat — now that’s new.

Over the last several days next door in Arizona, a drama has played out over a jaguar dubbed Macho B.

Environmentalists are demanding an investigation into the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s decision to put the big cat down last month — a demand bolstered by a story in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times that quotes the University of Arizona veterinary diagnostic laboratory pathologist who conducted the necropsy on the animal.

Arizona officials had said the approximately 15-year-old Macho B had terminal kidney failure, but that’s not what Sharon Dial told the L.A. Times:

“Nothing is absolute,” Dial said. “There is nothing to say that he absolutely would have recovered, but I can say by looking at the kidneys that there is no structural reason why he would not have.

“I’ve looked at a lot of cat kidneys, not jaguar kidneys,” Dial added. “For a supposed 15-year-old cat, he had damned good-looking kidneys.”

In turn, Arizona officials blasted Dial’s comments as “outrageous, unprofessional and speculative.”

Macho B was known to Arizona Game and Fish officials for years from the recordings of trail cameras used to conduct research south of Tuscon. There have only been a few reports of jaguars venturing into southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico over the past several decades. In fact, Macho B may have been the only jaguar to venture this far north in recent times.

On a Web site devoted to the saga of Macho B, Arizona Game and Fish Department officials have said they opted to put Macho B down to “end his suffering.”

Macho B was captured on Feb. 18 south of Tuscon by accident — in the course of a black bear and mountain lion research study. The rarest of “incidental” captures, the animal was then fitted with a satellite tracking collar and released. As you might imagine, such captures can prove to be awfully stressful. And in fact, subsequent monitoring seemed to indicate Macho B wasn’t well. So the Arizona officials decided to recapture the animal and send it to the Phoenix Zoo for more tests. The state agency concluded the following:

Through blood tests and physical exam, zoo veterinarians found the cat was suffering from severe and unrecoverable kidney failure.

I imagine that initial conclusion will be heavily scrutinized in the days and weeks to come.

Meanwhile, the Center for Biological Diversity — no stranger to New Mexico’s endangered species wars — is calling for a federal investigation. Due to the fact that it was state officials who decided to capture and then euthanize the jaguar, the center argues that Arizona officials shouldn’t be allowed to investigate themselves.

The center further argues that the feds need to come up with a plan to “start the long, hard work of restoring the U.S. jaguar population.”

That’s from a news release sent out by the center March 31 — and it’s a line that makes me wonder.

While it’s true that a federal judge ruled on Tuesday (pdf) that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Bush administration was wrong to refuse to develop a recovery plan for jaguars, I can only imagine how contentious such a plan might be.

Think about it this way: If southern New Mexico ranchers are up in arms about the presence of critically endangered Mexican gray wolves — animals about the size of a medium dog — freely roaming the land, how will they react to the news a predator that can grow as large as 350 pounds might be coming next?

The Center for Biological Diversity points out that the historic range of the jaguar “stretched from San Francisco Bay to the Appalachians,” even though most probably think of jaguars as the majestic tree-scaling big cats of Mexico and Central and South America. Not the United States of America.

Jaguars have a special place in ancient Mexican history, in which both the Maya and Aztecs venerated the animal as a symbol of regal authority and raw power.

The unfortunate Macho B may well remain a symbol of government power — the power to capture and kill, and maybe, the power to also bring the species back.

Sabinoso Wilderness signed into law — in addition to 11 more N.M. specific provisions in wilderness bill

After a long process, an omnibus wilderness bill that includes a provision to designate more than 16,000 acres of wilderness in New Mexico was finally signed into law by President Barack Obama today in the East Room of the White House.

There are many other parts of the bill that affect New Mexico.

Both senators and all three representatives from New Mexico attended the signing ceremony. Jeff Bingaman sponsored the original Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 and Tom Udall originally wrote the Sabinoso Wilderness Act while in the House. President Joe Shirley of the Navajo Nation also attended the signing, and got a mention from the president.

The bill designates more than 2 million acres of land as wilderness. “Almost as much as was designated over the past eight years combined,” Obama declared.

“Giving this area wilderness status will allow us to showcase and protect another beautiful part New Mexico,” Bingaman said in a statement.

Of the newly designated Sabinoso Wilderness, Udall said, “The preservation of this incredible landscape will now remain for the permanent benefit and enjoyment of current and future generations.”

The new wilderness area will now be open for grazing, hunting and other recreational uses.

Rep. Ben Ray Luján, who replaced Udall when Udall left the House, said, “By protecting and enhancing the natural and cultural resources which are integral to the identity of New Mexico and America, this bill ensures the prolonged existence and availability of forest lands and natural resources for future generations.”

Rep. Harry Teague said, “From the Snowy River Cave in Lincoln County to the prehistoric trackways in the Robledo Mountains in Doña Ana this package of bills provides important protections for some of the natural treasures we have throughout southern New Mexico.”

Rep Martin Heinrich said, “In the West, we know the value of water and the value of the places where we hunt, fish and recreate with our families.”

In addition to the Sabinoso Wilderness Act, there are 11 separate provisions relating to New Mexico in the bill, including the Rio Grande Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Authorization Act, the Navajo-San Juan Indian Water Rights Settlement, the New Mexico Aquifer Assessment Act.

Udall said that he did not do this alone, saying, “The Sabinoso Wilderness is the product of years of work by the entire community, including local leaders, sportsmen, land owners and ranchers.”

National Wildlife Federation: Grazing Buyouts

Innovative Retirement Planning for Cows and Sheep

A new conservation model that minimizes litigation, sustains agriculture, and concentrates livestock grazing on public or private land where it has less impact.

Nowadays, many of us are re-thinking our retirement plan after giving away half our nest egg to people on Wall Street who don’t need it, but we should remember that the concept of retirement isn’t all about us. Those poor dumb animals need it, too, and at least one man is there for them, doing what he can to retire thousands of cows and sheep to greener pastures.

And it’s about time Hank Fischer received a little credit for it. As you’ll see, he’s obviously doing a lot better than most of us are with our retirement planning.

Hank Fischer manages a special program called Wildlife Conflict Resolution for the National Wildlife Federation (NWF). In English, that means he negotiates with ranchers to sell or “retire” public land grazing allotments to minimize conflicts between wildlife and domestic livestock.

Since the early 1900s, western stockgrowers have leased public land for livestock grazing. These grazing permits or “allotments” have grown in value through time and have essentially become false equity for ranchers. They’re used for collateral in bank loans, and you’ve seen the real estate ads selling ranches touting figures like: “5000 deeded and 10,000 leased acres.” The private landowner isn’t actually selling those “leased acres,” usually federal land managed by the Forest Service (FS) or Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Instead, he/she is selling or transferring the right to exclusively run cows or sheep on certain sections of public land.

Such transactions have, in essence, created an after-market for these grazing allotments, and the NWF has become a player in buying, selling and trading them as a way to solve chronic conflicts between livestock and controversial wild animals like bears, wolves and bison.

“At first, it was all about the conflict with bears and wolves,” Fischer told NewWest.Net. “Now we’re seeing we can also address the conflict between bison and cattle as it relates to the brucellosis problem.”

And the success has been sweet. To date, Fischer and his NWF comrades have raised more than $2,000,000 of mostly private money and retired 31 grazing allotments totaling 530,000 acres of conflict-ridden public pasture. That’s a land area roughly the size of Grand Teton National Park or about 10 percent of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Three of those retirements have been in designated wilderness areas. (See map. Click on image for larger version.)

Almost half of $2,000,000 has been raised to retire a 6,000-acre section of the controversial Royal Teton Ranch just north of Yellowstone National Park from livestock grazing, mainly to address a serious dispute with bison migrating out of the park. Fischer predicts he’ll close that deal, his first involving private land, by the end of the year.

“This program offers something for both livestock producers and wildlife,” he explains. “That’s why it works. We can bank on it working in any place where there’s a chronic conflict between wildlife and livestock.”

So far, all of Fischer’s efforts have been in the Greater Yellowstone Area, but he has recently started working on conflicts in other areas. It’s too soon to publicize any specific deals; like any real estate transaction, wildlife conflict resolutions require privacy until closed.

It’s mainly the selling price that counts, of course. It always is, and Fischer says the livestock producer always gets a fair deal for the allotment and in a few cases have gotten “a small premium” compared to appraised value.

Seems like a motherhood and apple pie program? Not quite. Critics have accused the program of secretly trying to remove all the livestock grazing from public lands, a claim Fischer disputes.

“We’re not trying to get rid of livestock grazing,” he counters. “It’s completely voluntary. There is no reason the livestock producer has to do this, but we’ve always found livestock producers willing to work with us.”

In fact, Fischer notes, in most cases ranchers use the money to purchase replacement grazing, public or private. Sometimes he even finds and purchases another public land grazing allotment and trades it for the problem allotment. It’s more like “re-distributing” the grazing, he notes.

“A market approach,” Fischer emphasizes, “can turn opponents into partners.”

To seal any deals on public land, the managing agency (FS or BLM usually) must agree to permanently retire the allotment instead of simply letting another rancher run cows or sheep on it--and perpetuate the problem. This has been a bigger problem for Fischer than getting cooperation from livestock producers, and a few deals with willing sellers have fallen apart because the agency wouldn’t agree to retire the allotment.

Another reason the program works, according to Fischer, is the support it receives from “a wide spectrum of the environmental community,” which the two of us agreed is something we don’t see enough of nowadays. Witness bitter disputes between green groups over issues like wilderness preservation and wolf delisting.

When he signed on for this challenge, Fischer ranked allotments from worst to best as far as seriousness of wildlife conflicts. “We’ve already retired the top five (translate, worst five) allotments,” he boasts, justly, “and with very little controversy.”

Looking at this issue practically, dealing with wildlife conflicts is hardly happiness for ranchers, so why wouldn’t they want to get out from under a chronic conflict and move to grazing lands with fewer clashes with wildlife?

From my perspective, here’s another example of how to do it. Cooperation almost always wins out over polarization. Now, can we get the same concept to work for issues like gun rights, wolf delisting and wilderness preservation?

Unlikely partners savor victory, but work's not done to protect Owyhee Canyonlands

Environmental groups and Owyhee County ranchers went from bitter enemies to friends and partners in their ambitious effort to preserve the awesome scenery of the Owyhee Canyonlands; miles of habitat for wild sheep, imperiled sage grouse and rare redband trout; and the cultural treasures of both cowboys and Indians.

But they're also looking ahead to the work to complete a hard-fought compromise that was included as one small measure in a sweeping public lands bill sent to President Obama on Wednesday. The bill could become law as soon as Monday.

The ranchers overcame their traditional opposition to wilderness and wild rivers restrictions to help conservative Republican Sen. Mike Crapo pass Idaho's first wilderness bill since 1980.

Now the burden shifts to environmentalists, who have to follow through on promises to find the money needed to keep ranchers whole as the region transforms.

They agreed to help raise at least $10 million in private money and convince a Democratic administration to back $15 million more in tax dollars to help pay for the land transfers, grazing buyouts and other accommodations for ranchers who now live and work in the area.

"That's where the hard work is going to come," said Brenda Richards, an Owyhee County rancher who was part of the collaborative collective that crafted the agreement.

"We had the same caliber of people who wrote the Constitution," said Fred Grant, the private property rights activist who prodded the county to start the process and then headed the group.

Environmental groups were just as proud Wednesday. For them, the battle started when the Air Force sought to build a bombing range over wildlands including Dickshooter's Ridge, Battle Creek and the forks of the Owyhee River.

"Sierra Club has worked for nearly 30 years to protect this spectacular desert landscape," said Jessica Ruehrwein, Sierra Club regional representative in Boise. "It is truly a historic day."

The groups restated their commitments made to local residents.

"The ranchers should be looking for us to make sure we get all these pieces together," said Craig Gehrke, the Idaho representative for the Wilderness Society who sat on the panel. "The solicitation of the private money and the federal appropriations are going to be a tough task, but we're going to do it."

The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes will get some of the federal money to protect cultural treasures spread out across an area that is Idaho's cross between Utah's canyonlands and Kenya's Serengeti Plain.

About $8 million is authorized for buying private lands in and around wilderness areas. But the $10 million from private sources, including foundations, would buy easements and water rights and pay ranchers to retire grazing permits.

Crapo said the "hard-fought, long-negotiated" settlement "will be an enduring testament to the power and potential of collaboration." He said he would make sure the promises are kept and that federal agencies follow through.

Democrats in the Senate required that Crapo take out the intricate deals needed to get each affected rancher in the county on board. And those changes made even Jon Marvel, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, all but drop his objections to the bill.

"The Owyhee Initiative actually is beneficial for our point of view as currently written," said Marvel, whose group helped spur the collaboration with anti-grazing lawsuits.

The listing of sage grouse as an endangered species, which Marvel expects another lawsuit to force, will overwhelm the benefits to ranchers in the bill, said Marvel, who was excluded from the initiative and says eliminating public lands grazing is one of his goals.

But Grant said a University of Idaho scientific review center established by the bill - and an independent grazing review process - will help ranchers find ways to protect sage grouse and continue grazing. The Wilderness Society's Gehrke agreed.

"The goal ... has always been to take a big-picture view of the sagebrush steppe issues," Gehrke said. "I'm not sure anyone has done that in Owyhee County."

Jordan Valley rancher Mike Hanley, who long supported the bill, said ranchers weren't looking for guarantees or even a hand up.

"All we ask is that we get a fair shot and it goes through a scientific process," Hanley said.

The omnibus lands bill that included 170 other public land bills passed 285-140 with the support of Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson and Democratic Rep. Walt Minnick. Minnick told the House he floated a remote upper stretch of the river last year.

He praised Crapo for his efforts "to preserve our cherished Owyhees."

Rocky Barker: 377-6484

For local cattle grazers, bill may bring painful transition

Wednesday was bittersweet for rancher Bob Miller, whose family has been running cattle for more than a century on what is now the 53,837-acre Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument southeast of Ashland.

He is one of five major lessees whose cattle grazing will end on the monument after the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 becomes law. Passed by the U.S. Senate last week, it was overwhelmingly approved by the House on Wednesday and is expected to be signed soon by President Obama.

"It's a relief to get the thing over," said Miller, 68, of Hornbrook, Calif. "We went through the crying stages long ago. This is a major step in what has been a long, rocky road."

He and other ranchers have been working with conservationists to come up with an agreement that would allow conservationists to pay the ranchers to retire their grazing leases. The act includes language that makes the grazing retirement possible. The buyout will include no funding from Uncle Sam.

"This is not what we wanted, but it's better than nothing," said Miller, who added he would have preferred to continue the lifestyle his family has long followed.

The amount being paid to the lessees has not been disclosed.

"Nobody is getting enough to start over again," he said. "It's like selling your house for 20 cents on the dollar. You can't replace it."

But health reasons, coupled with poor market conditions and growing opposition to grazing on public lands, persuaded him to make the difficult decision, he said.

"It's hard," he said. "I'm the fourth generation — for over 100 years my family has been running cattle up there."

The language in the act provides for permanent and voluntary retirement of public lands cattle grazing leases by private buyout on up to 106,672 acres of federal land in and around the monument. The monument is in the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Medford District.

The five lessees represent about 94 percent of the cattle grazing permitted on the monument.

U.S. House passes massive wilderness bill

The U.S. House passed a conservation plan that will protect 2 million acres of natural wilderness and preserve monuments, trails and rivers across the country.

The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, approved today 285-140, goes to President Barack Obama for his signature. The measure combines more than 160 environmental bills in 1,294 pages to conserve water and protect 1,000 miles of scenic rivers. It would block mining and drilling on millions of acres of land.

“This legislation is good for the land, and good for our children and our grandchildren,” said Representative Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat. The bill cleared the Senate last week.

The measure authorizes up to $10 billion in spending for wildlife and land protection. It would add 2 million acres, or about 800,000 hectares, in nine states to the National Wilderness Preservation System. That system currently consists of 10 million acres, or about 4 million hectares, in 44 states.

The measure is the culmination of years of effort by conservationists, sportsmen and localities to protect large and small swaths of land across the country.

Plan Opponents

Opponents of the plan said it had not been properly vetted for wasteful spending and that it would block access to tens of millions of acres of natural gas and oil reserves.

Representative Tom McClintock, a California Republican, called the bill a “massive land grab.” On the House floor, he said the public good is not served by “mindless and endless acquisition of property” that blocks access to natural gas and other resources.

Public land in Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, California, Idaho, West Virginia, Virginia, Utah and Michigan will get the new wilderness protection. The legislation also will safeguard rivers in Oregon, Idaho, Arizona, Wyoming, Utah, California and Massachusetts.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the 2 million wilderness acres that will be off-limits to oil and gas drilling won’t hamper domestic energy production.

“Those who argue that putting these kinds of lands into wilderness status is somehow pulling the rug out from under the oil and gas industry are flat wrong, because there are already millions upon millions of acres” open for drilling, Salazar told reporters after the vote.

‘Important’ Legislation

The measure “is the most important piece of conservation legislation Congress has considered in many years,” said Representative Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources.

“Passage of this bill is an expression of the home-grown support for one of the largest environmental protection measures in decades,” said Rebecca Wodder, president of American Rivers, an environmental group.

The legislation includes language from Representative Jason Altmire, a Pennsylvania Democrat, to allay concerns by sportsmen and gun-rights lobbyists that it might block hunting on federal land.

The House rejected an amendment from Representative Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican, to allow people to carry concealed weapons into national parks. The provision would have reversed an Interior Department firearms policy.

*******************************************************************************

New Mexico Rep's Heinrich, Lujan & Teague all voted YES on final passage.

Here are the statements of Heinrich & Lujan - Teague's website had no statement.


Rep. Heinrich Votes for Essential Public Lands Bill That Passes House

Representative Martin Heinrich (NM-01) today voted in favor of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 285-140. The legislation includes more than 160 separate provisions that will protect our national parks and forests, preserve historic places and invest in water infrastructure.

A strong advocate for this legislation, Representative Heinrich went to the House floor today to speak in favor of the bill and to highlight some of the positive effects it will have on the First Congressional District. The following are experts from Representative Heinrich’s floor statement:

“The Rio Grande has been the lifeblood of our community for thousands of years, and for the Pueblo of Sandia this bill will make possible much-needed investments in their water infrastructure and vital agricultural irrigation systems.

“And from east to west, this bill will reauthorize the Route 66 Corridor Program which is essential to preserving the historical character and vibrancy of our beloved Central Avenue.”

Representative Heinrich’s floor statement may be viewed in its entirety at: http://www.majorityleader.gov/multimedia/CSPAN_03-25-2009_13.16.42.wmv

The bill contains 12 separate provisions that help preserve New Mexico’s natural resources and specifically ensures access to public lands for hunters and fishermen. Of importance to New Mexico, this legislation protects the Sabinoso Wilderness, invests in irrigation infrastructure for pueblos in the Rio Grande Valley, and authorizes a comprehensive study of New Mexico’s groundwater resources.

The legislation now goes to President Obama for his signature.

Rep. Lujan Votes in Favor of Land Bill

Today, Rep. Ben Ray Luján voted in favor of the Omnibus Land Management Act of 2009, which will conserve thousands of acres of land for future generations and make water resources available to previously underserved communities. Five bills that Rep. Luján introduced were included in the package—including four pieces of legislation that address water availability (Rio Grande Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Authorization Act, the Navajo-San Juan Indian Water Rights Settlement, and the New Mexico Aquifer Assessment Act) and one piece of legislation that preserves valuable wilderness 40 miles east of Las Vegas, New Mexico (the Sabinoso Wilderness Act). The legislation passed the House by a vote of 285 to 140. The legislation will now go to President Barack Obama’s desk.

“New Mexico’s natural beauty marked by scenic vistas and natural forests is what makes our state beautiful and unique. Today, Congress made an historic statement to protect our beautiful landscapes and the natural resources contained within them by passing the Omnibus Public Land Management Act,” said Rep. Luján. “By passing the Land bill, the House made a commitment to conserving treasured land for the next generation and making water resources available to communities that need it.”

Rep. Luján introduced five pieces of legislation included in the Omnibus Bill. Those measures were originally introduced several years ago by Sen. Jeff Bingaman in the Senate and then-Rep. Tom Udall in the House. As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Bingaman authored the Omnibus Bill and shepherded it through the Senate.

"Water availability is a critical issue in New Mexico, and these pieces of legislation will provide many communities with stable access to water," said Rep. Luján. "Communities in New Mexico need access to this precious resource, and this legislation will help alleviate the problems they face with water availability and allocation."

The Rio Grande Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act would allocate federal resources to Indian tribes in New Mexico to assess and repair irrigation infrastructure in order to help conserve water resources in the area.

The Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Authorization Act would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority for the planning, design, and construction of the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System.

The Navajo-San Juan Indian Water Rights Settlement would resolve a water dispute that began in 1975 between the state of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation over the resources in the San Juan River. In 2005, a settlement was reached between the state of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation that resolved this dispute. However, it cannot be implemented without legislation that most notably authorizes a series of water infrastructure projects--including creating a water settlement and providing for funds for water resources. The passage of this legislation would resolve the Navajo Nation's claims to the San Juan River, provide the Tribe with an important and long-term water supply, and protect the interests of non-Indian water users in the basin.

The New Mexico Aquifer Assessment Act would authorize the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study on the water resources of New Mexico.

Rep. Luján also introduced the Sabinoso Wilderness Act that would designate approximately 16,000 wilderness acres located 40 milies east of Las Vegas, New Mexico. The land includes a unique and diverse ecosystem that contains vast woodlands and rocky canyons, as well as thriving wildlife and vegetation.

"New Mexico is known as the Land of Enchantment because of our people, beautiful landscapes, clear skies, and fresh air," said Rep. Luján. "The Sabinoso Wilderness embodies the value and beauty of our land. The ecosystem that represents the wilderness is unique to the region and supports diverse wildlife and vegetation—which is why the Sabinoso Wilderness Act is supported by hunters, ranchers, conservationists, and residents who want to preserve the land for future generations. The language will preserve valuable and treasured land, providing the next generation with the opportunity to enjoy it.”

Group pushes for more Gila wilderness, grazing buyout

The Gila National Forest in southwestern New Mexico is where famed naturalist Aldo Leopold first hatched the idea of setting aside the nation's untamed lands as wilderness.

Nearly 85 years ago, he helped carve the world's first designated wilderness out of the Gila.

Now, conservationists want the federal government to protect more land in the region, saying the diversity and remote roadless landscapes that straddle New Mexico and Arizona are on par with the country's top natural gems.

"It's because the wildlife and the wild landscapes down there are so exemplary that we think we have the Yellowstone of the Southwest," said Bryan Bird, public lands director for WildEarth Guardians.

The group released a report this month on what Bird calls a "novel" and "surgical" approach to protecting the greater Gila region, which includes parts of three national forests, a handful of wilderness areas and hundreds of thousands of acres managed by state and federal agencies.

The report recommends that roadless areas radiating from the Gila River and its headwaters be added to the nation's wilderness preservation system and that Congress authorize a voluntary grazing permit retirement program to elevate conflicts between the needs of ranchers and wildlife, namely the endangered Mexican gray wolf.

The area's old growth forests and iconic species are being threatened by the West's booming population, livestock grazing, mining and off-road vehicle recreation, Bird said.

"We think it's so important both ecologically and economically that it needs a new approach," he said.

But turning public land into wilderness takes an act of Congress, and that's no ease task.

Only the Wild Sky Wilderness in Washington state's Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest was designated last year, and conservationists say that proposal took several years to work through Capitol Hill.

The U.S. House is considering — for the second time — a massive public land package that would protect millions of acres in nine states. The measure has already been passed twice by the Senate and fell victim to parliamentary procedures during its first round in the House.

The other hurdle is that many ranchers aren't willing to retire their grazing rights and give up their livelihoods, said Caren Cowan, executive director of New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association.

"There are communities there, there are families there, there are businesses there," she said of the Gila region. "... I think they're just trying to perpetuate a myth that there's this great big pristine world that's untouched, and it's simply not true."

Cowan said the U.S. Forest Service has a mandate to manage lands like the Gila and neighboring Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona for multiple uses and that includes ranching.

She also questioned the timing of the proposal given the nation's economic woes.

"The idea that the government would have money to pay people not to produce and not work just seems ludicrous," she said. "Being able to produce things like food, minerals, timber and fiber are going to be what puts this country back on its feet."

Forest officials have seen the report, and say any designation of wilderness or the development of a grazing permit retirement program would have to be the wish of Congress.

Still, they agree with the report's characterization of the region as "majestic."

So do other outdoor enthusiasts.

"It's the marquee place," said The Wilderness Society's Michael Carroll, a Colorado resident who is fresh off a trip to the Gila. "It's hard to believe when you are down there that we have such a treasure that's tucked away there in southwestern New Mexico."

From a historical perspective, Carroll said the area is significant because of its connection to Leopold and the birth of the wilderness movement.

In 1924, Leopold urged his bosses at the U.S. Forest Service to seek protection for more than a half-million acres of roadless land within the forest and the Gila Wilderness was born.

It's also special because of its biological diversity and large swaths of untouched land.

"Because of these two assets, the bioregion is one of the increasingly rare landscapes in the American West where we can restore and save all the ecological parts," states the WildEarth Guardians report.

Bird said WildEarth Guardians wants to look strategically at grazing allotments in wolf territory or roadless areas. "This isn't just a blanket, one-size fits all approach," he said.

He also argued that protecting more wilderness would be a boon for property values, tourism and hunting and fishing.

The challenge, Carroll said, is protecting the land while still allowing people to use and enjoy it. He said wilderness protection has become more complicated than drawing lines on a map.

"It's about protecting the community and the way of life, looking really at the entire landscape around an area like the Gila and saying you can't divorce people from the landscape," Carroll said. "They are part of the landscape just as the landscape is part of them. It's what makes up the character of places like this."

Wyoming Gov. Freudenthal vetoes rangeland monitoring bill

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal has vetoed a bill that aimed to protect ranchers who use public lands for grazing by providing state funding for environmental assessments of rangelands.


CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal has vetoed a bill that aimed to protect ranchers who use public lands for grazing by providing state funding for environmental assessments of rangelands.

House Bill 213 would have provided $300,000 in grants to conservation districts, allowing them to conduct more rangeland monitoring. The monitoring helps federal agencies make decisions on renewal of public land grazing permits.

Bill supporters said federal land agencies are too backlogged to keep up with necessary monitoring. But law requires the agencies to issue grazing permits anyway. The bill's backers said this has allowed environmental groups to oppose grazing leases in court over procedural points.

In his veto explanation Wednesday, Freudenthal said the state budget is too tight to take on rangeland monitoring responsibilities currently overseen by federal land agencies and permit holders.

"For the permittee or federal land manager to ask for help is one thing — for us to step into their shoes is quite another," Freudenthal said in a letter to Secretary of State Max Maxfield.

Freudenthal also said the bill lacked consensus among conservation districts and permit holders.

Bobbie Frank, executive director of the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, said about 30 of Wyoming's 34 conservation districts supported the bill. He said they already participate in rangeland monitoring to the extent their budgets allow.

She said those districts that were uncomfortable with the proposed state program would not have been required to participate.

"For those districts that did have concerns, it wasn't a mandate — it was an option," Frank said.

Freudenthal acknowledged that the state has an interest in protecting public land grazing, but said the bill was the wrong vehicle.

Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, said the governor's objections were "shortsighted."

Magagna said the Bureau of Land Management will face about 700 permit renewal requests over the next five years that require environmental analysis. The overwhelming number of mineral permits can push grazing permits to the bottom of the pile, he said.

Freudenthal "has a discomfort level with the conservation districts and this isn't the first time it's showed itself," Magagna said.

Senate again passes bill to expand wilderness

For the second time this year, the Senate has passed a long-delayed bill to set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as protected wilderness, from a California mountain range to a forest in Virginia.

The 77-20 vote on Thursday sends the bill to the House, where final legislative approval could come as early as next week.

The Senate first approved the measure in January, but the House rejected it last week amid a partisan dispute over gun rights. The gun issue was not raised during Senate debate.

The legislation — a package of nearly 170 separate bills — would confer the government's highest level of protection on land ranging from California's Sierra Nevada mountain range and Oregon's Mount Hood to Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.

Land in Idaho's Owyhee canyons, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan and Zion National Park in Utah also would win designation as wilderness, and more than 1,000 miles of rivers in nearly a dozen states would gain protections. The proposals would expand wilderness designation — which blocks nearly all development — into areas that now are not protected.

Supporters called the legislation among the most important conservation bills debated in Congress in decades.

"The Senate shows great vision in making this bill a priority," said Paul Spitler of The Wilderness Society. "These wonderful landscapes are under tremendous pressure, and their value to local communities and to all Americans who treasure our natural heritage will remain long after the country has recovered from the economic crisis."

The bill also would let Alaska go forward with plans to build an airport access road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge as part of a land swap that would transfer more than 61,000 acres to the federal government, much of it designated as wilderness.

Critics have called the project a "road to nowhere." Backers say the road is needed for residents of a remote village on the Bering Sea who now use a hovercraft to reach an airport and hospital.

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, hailed the Idaho provision, which he has been seeking for eight years. The bill represents a compromise among a host of competing groups that have long disagreed over how to manage the rugged canyonland in southwestern Idaho.

"The people who worked on the Owyhee Initiative came from many groups and institutions that historically were battling head-to-head and instead were willing to work through things in a way that sets a tremendous example for how we should approach land management decisions and conflicts in this nation," Crapo said.

Lawmakers from both parties told similar tales in other states, praising the bill as a hard-fought compromise.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has battled Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., for months over the lands bill, said he was pleased the Senate was finally able to pass it on a bipartisan basis. Reid called the bill important to his home state, Nevada, and to the nation.

Coburn held up the bill's passage last year and again this year, arguing that it was unnecessary and would block energy development on millions of acres of federal land. The bill moved forward this week after Coburn was allowed to submit six amendments for approval. Five were defeated.

A sixth provision, softening a provision to impose criminal penalties for collecting some fossilized rocks on federal land, was included in the final bill.

Because of a parliamentary maneuver adopted in the Senate, the House is expected to take up the bill under a rule that blocks amendments or other motions to derail it. Republicans used the threat of an amendment to allow loaded guns in national parks to defeat the wilderness bill last week.

The bill is H.R. 146.
***********************************************************************************
From Senator Bingaman's website:

Senate Approves Bingaman's Public Lands Bills

WASHINGTON – For the second time this year, the United States Senate today approved a package of bills introduced by U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman, which contains several provisions to protect important sites in New Mexico. The package, which falls under the jurisdiction of Bingaman’s Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, passed the Senate in January but was revisited this week in hopes of ensuring speedy passage in the House of Representatives.

While the Senate overwhelmingly passed the measure two months ago, it failed to receive the support of two-thirds of the House of Representatives in a vote taken last week. The Senate took up the measure again today, this time with a clarification sought by some House members. Now, only a simple majority is needed to pass the House.

Among the measures included in the package is Bingaman’s “Prehistoric Trackways National Monument Establishment Act”, which seeks to protect 290 million-year old fossilized animal tracks in the Robledo Mountains in Doña Ana County. Specifically, the bill would create a new national monument out of approximately 5,367 acres of Bureau of Land Management land and preserve it for further scientific investigation.

“The fossilized tracks discovered in the Robledo Mountains are of incredible scientific value and this bill will ensure they are protected,” said Bingaman, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The package also includes Bingaman’s Forest Landscape Restoration Act, which authorizes $40 million annually for landscape-scale forest restoration projects that cover 50,000 acres or more. Competitive grants would be awarded for restoration projects that are developed in collaboration with local communities. Eligible projects must be in need of ecosystem restoration, utilize the best-available science, encourage the use of restoration byproducts such as woody biomass, and be located primarily on National Forest System land.

“Forest restoration is key to helping prevent wild fires,” Bingaman said. “This bill will provide grants to communities who otherwise might not be able to partake in these prevention measures.”

Additionally, the package includes legislation Bingaman introduced that clears title to several tracks of land and paves the way for the city of Albuquerque to complete its development of a Biological Park along the middle Rio Grande. The Biological Park incorporates the Rio Grande Botanical Garden, Tingley Beach, the Zoo and the Aquarium.

“This legislation will finally clear up this title issue and make it possible for the bio-park to continue expanding,” Bingaman said.

Also in the package is a bill Bingaman co-authored to provide federal protection to the Snowy River formation within the Fort Stanton Cave in Lincoln County.

The Fort Stanton-Snowy River Cave National Conservation Area Act, which was first introduced in the last Congress by then-Senator Pete Domenici, will provide permanent protection to the Snowy River formation and protect it for future research and educational purposes. The formation contains a more than 4-mile-long continuous calcite-crystal river bed that is believed to be the longest one of its kind in the world.

"The Snowy River Cave is one-of-a-kind treasure and I am pleased this bill will help protect it for scientific and educational purposes,” Bingaman said.

Additionally, the package contains the National Landscape Conservation System Act, a measure sponsored by Bingaman, which codifies the National Landscape Conservation System, the collection of national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers and other landscapes on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Finally, the bill contains two measures that allow for the exchange of land in the Santa Fe National Forest; Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange; Santa Fe National Forest Land Conveyance.

From Senator Udall's website:

SENATE AGAIN PASSES UDALL PROPOSAL TO CREATE SABINOSO WILDERNESS AREA

Legislation Contained in Bingaman Public Lands Package

WASHINGTON – By a vote of 77-20, the U.S. Senate today passed legislation to designate more than 17,000 acres in San Miguel County as wilderness. The Sabinoso Wilderness Act, legislation authored by Senator Tom Udall when he served in the House, was passed for a second time in a package of public land bills assembled by Senator Jeff Bingaman.

The proposed new wilderness area would contain lands currently included in the Sabinoso Wilderness Study Area. The land is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Udall, the BLM and local landowners worked together to develop this legislation to designate the area as wilderness, to protect the rugged and dramatic landscape. The area includes scenic canyons and mesas, which are home to a variety of wildlife, including mule deer, elk, mountain lions, and wild turkey. It is also rich in canyon vistas, including the 1,000-foot tall Canyon Largo, and impressive rock formations — all part of a vibrant Great Plains ecosystem.

“This legislation to protect and expand this amazing area for public us is the product of years of hard work on the local, state and federal level,” said Udall. “I want to thank Senator Bingaman for including it in his lands package, which has now passed the Senate twice, and I call on the House to pass it quickly. It is time the Sabinoso Wilderness Act became law.”

“This legislation gives Sabinoso the special attention it needs and deserves, and makes certain that it can be enjoyed by New Mexicans for years to come,” Bingaman said.

The New Mexico State House of Representatives, led by Representative Thomas Garcia, and the San Miguel County Commission both passed resolutions calling on the New Mexico Congressional delegation to support the establishment of the Sabinoso Wilderness Area. The wilderness area would be open for grazing, hunting and other recreational uses.

The legislation will now move to the House of Representatives for consideration. On March 11, 2009, the House fell two votes short of the two-thirds vote necessary to approve similar legislation under special rules for expedited consideration. The Senate previously passed the legislation by a vote of 73-22 in January.

Senate proceeds to placeholder bill for omnibus public lands bill

The Senate yesterday approved the first step of a Democratic plan designed to get the omnibus public lands, water and natural resources bill to the White House.

By a 73-21 vote, the Senate approved a cloture motion allowing it to proceed to a placeholder bill for S. 22 (pdf), the collection of more than 160 lands and water bills it first passed in January.

Senate leaders now plan to strip the contents of H.R. 146 (pdf), a proposal to protect Revolutionary War battlefields, and replace it with the omnibus lands bill in an attempt to make it palatable to the House. A cloture motion to cut off debate is likely before moving to final passage later this week.

The plan demonstrates the lengths lawmakers are going to in order to avoid another lengthy delay in the Senate or a potentially difficult vote on GOP amendments in the House.

The Senate first passed the omnibus in January, 74-21. But last week, the House fell two votes shy of passing the bill under suspension of the rules, a maneuver that shields legislation from amendment or a motion to recommit but requires a two-thirds majority for passage.

Because H.R. 146 has already passed the House, the House Rules Committee could approve a closed rule that would block a motion to recommit, the House parliamentarian said last week. That would eliminate the GOP's best procedural chance to stymie the bill. House Democrats could also choose to bring up the bill under suspension again, if they believe they can reach the two-thirds threshold.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who held many of the bills in the omnibus for months over the last year, said he will once again attempt to block the measure as the Democratic leadership prevents attempts to amend it. "I plan on using every tool, every tool, that I can to delay and obstruct this piece of legislation, because it's not in the best interest, long-term interest of our country," Coburn said prior to yesterday's vote.

After the vote, Coburn said he will see whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will allow him to offer amendments. Coburn declined to say which amendments he would want, adding, "Well I'd love to offer a hundred, but that's not what I'm asking."

A preliminary discussion on the floor went nowhere. "He said, 'I'm too tired to deal with it,'" Coburn said.

But Coburn said it is not a personal dispute with Reid. "He's got a tough job, he's got to run the floor and I understand his position and I'd probably be taking his same position -- but I'm not taking his same position."

A bill too far? critics ask

The omnibus would designate more than 2 million acres of wilderness in nine states and would establish three new national park units, a new national monument, three new national conservation areas, more than 1,000 miles of national wild and scenic rivers and four new national trails. It would enlarge the boundaries of more than a dozen existing national park units and establish 10 new national heritage areas.

It would also authorize numerous land exchanges and conveyances to help local Western communities address water resource and supply issues, and includes provisions to improve land management.

"This is collectively one of the most significant conservation measures considered by this body in the past decade," Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), whose committee put the omnibus together, said on the floor yesterday.

The revised omnibus bill will also include language from Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) meant to ensure that the omnibus would not close off lands that are already open to hunting and fishing.

But Coburn and House Republicans say the bill goes too far. Coburn noted that several provisions in the omnibus would preclude the opportunity for energy development on public lands, including one bill that would block the development of natural gas and oil in Wyoming.

"We're setting a precedent for a very weak foundation for our future energy needs," Coburn said.

Senate Energy Committee ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who supports the omnibus, noted that federal agencies have certified that none of the wilderness designations will negatively impact on the availability of oil or gas because the land was being managed for conservation purposes already. She said the country can maximize domestic energy development while protecting natural resources.

"I do not believe that this is an either-or situation," she said, adding that the Wyoming provision has the strong backing of the state's two Republican senators.

As for cost concerns, she said the bill does authorize some expenditure of funds, but each is dependent on future appropriations and the oversight that comes with the committee process.

While saying the omnibus process is not her "preferred method" for passing legislation, she urged senators to support it. "Overall this package will improve the nation's management of public lands and parks and will be a long-term benefit," Murkowski said.