By: Ron Arnold
Examiner Columnist
September 28, 2010
Environmental activist Wendy Van Asselt was at the World Resources Institute in 2003 when officials from the Wilderness Society made her an offer she couldn’t refuse.
They wanted her to lead a huge project to remove 26 million acres of federal land in the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) from oil and gas production, grazing, timber harvesting, mining for strategic minerals, off-road recreation, and providing rural jobs.
Van Asselt was a logical choice for the job since she had shown in her position at WRI — and previously at the Mineral Policy Center, with its shrill “No Dirty Gold” campaign — that she had a decided preference for stopping natural resource development, especially on federal lands.
The Wyss Foundation would fund the new project, thanks to a Wilderness Society board member, Hansjorg Wyss, a Swiss entrepreneur whose net worth was estimated at $6 billion. The Hewlett Foundation would also give $1 million to the project.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which managed the NLCS, would be cooperative, too, since stopping all those productive activities would require real authority for the system, authority that would give it a real budget, and it didn’t have either of them. The BLM would need help in persuading Congress to go along.
That was because Bruce Babbitt, President Clinton’s secretary of interior, had created the NLCS in 2000 by bureaucratic decree without first getting congressional approval. His “system” was really just a bureaucratic name for more than 800 existing BLM areas, each authorized separately, all created for various purposes, at various times, under various laws, with various budgets.
So, Van Asselt’s new job would be to get Congress to authorize Babbitt’s NCLS and give it a real budget. The graduate of Smith College (economics) and Harvard (master’s in public policy) would soon prove very much up to the challenge.
By the end of 2004, Van Asselt had organized a coalition of 50 anti-development groups to cover the NCLS’ far-flung units. She had also tapped a former colleague to help wangle the National Trust for Historic Preservation into putting the entire NLCS on its popular “Most Endangered Places” report card. That in turn prompted an invitation from the National Academy of Sciences to co-author an article for its main publication.
Since 2005 was the fifth “birthday” of NLCS, Van Asselt used it for a celebratory blitz and a forum to keep up her finely tuned attack on developers who opposed stopping development on the 26 million acres Van Asselt was eyeing. She clearly understood the game and made things happen.
It was a classic Washington iron triangle: The TWS folks loved her; the funders loved her, and the BLM loved her. Soon, some key members of Congress would love Van Asselt, too.
The BLM’s Elena Daly, director of the NLCS, began working closely with Van Asselt. Daly’s official appointment book includes multiple entries indicating she and Van Asselt regularly shared lunch and other meetings.
By 2006, BLM, TWS, and the funders (who ultimately poured more than $5 million into the campaign) knew Van Asselt was a political whiz kid. With Van Asselt’s close ties to the BLM, she could do what BLM couldn’t, which was informally tell Congress what the agency sought for NCLS. It had to be done discreetly, however, because few congressmen were likely to vote for the kind of NCLS that Van Asselt and her allies at BLM really wanted.
Multiple congressional sources point to creation of the NLCS Caucus in Congress in 2006 as the key development in Van Asselt’s campaign, convinced that it was suggested by her to Arizona Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ultra-green chairman of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee.
Grijalva, who was Van Asselt’s most important congressional ally, convened the bipartisan caucus, selected three co-chairmen — Reps. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., and Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz. — and grew the caucus into an instrument of power.
Regardless who suggested the caucus, Van Asselt was clearly counting votes on the Hill, as shown in a June 27, 2006, e-mail from her to Daly in which she gleefully reported that Rep. Sue Kelly, R-N.Y., had just joined the newly formed caucus.
“Bring on the Rs!” Van Asselt crowed. “Keep ‘em coming!”
Then, on April 4, 2007, Van Asselt left TWS to work for House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., as a member of the panel’s Democratic legislative staff. It was the perfect position from which Van Asselt could guide NCLS across the finish line, because the job put her at the coordinating center of the iron triangle pushing for the project.
Shortly after Van Asselt was hired by Rahall, Grijalva introduced the first NLCS bill, which was barely a page long, with only a vague paragraph authorizing the new system, and listing Bureau of Land Management areas to be included.
Republican legislators were horrified. “This bill goes well beyond a codification of what already exists,” their bill report said. “The [NLCS] is to be managed “in a manner that protects the values for which the components of the system were designated. The term `values’ is a wholly new concept to the BLM,” plucked from a national parks bill “to purposefully mandate broad and vague new management practices” with “this nebulous, malleable term.”
The National Park Service enforces things like “viewscapes,” “soundscapes,” and “smellscapes” — indefinable concepts inappropriate for productive BLM lands.
“For us to pass legislation to enforce legislatively undefined ‘values’ on a vast, resource rich part of the country is an unacceptable abdication of our responsibility as the policy setting branch of the government,” the Republicans concluded.
Grijalva’s 2007 bill went nowhere, but Van Asselt’s work as a Rahall legislative staffer in keeping information flowing to the interested parties within and without government paid off two years later.
In January 2009, Grijalva’s NLCS bill was lumped into the grab bag Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which passed Congress and was signed into law March 30, 2009, by President Obama.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Ron-Arnold--103896534.html#ixzz10oY4ghiy
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
New gas pipeline fires up Western ranchers, counties
A new sagebrush rebellion has spread across the West from Wyoming to Oregon. But this time the target is a big energy company , not the federal government.
El Paso Corp., the owner of the nation's largest natural gas pipeline system, angered ranchers and county officials this summer when it agreed with two environmental groups to set up the funds.
Even after El Paso Corp. cut a separate deal with the Public Lands Council, a group that promotes livestock grazing on public land, the anger has not subsided.
Construction has begun on the 675-mile "Ruby" natural gas pipeline that will run from Opal, Wyo., west to Malin, Ore.
Four counties have sued the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over its approval of the right-of-way for the pipeline, which will run just south of the Idaho border. And a coalition of counties -- including Cassia, Franklin, Oneida, Owyhee and Twin Falls counties in Idaho -- is trying to get El Paso to change the contract with the Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association.
These challenges come despite projections of 5,000 jobs, $70 million in state and local taxes during construction, and $280 million in annual property taxes to counties along the 675-mile route. At a time when unemployment is running at more than 14 percent in Nevada, El Paso's contractors are paying welders more than $75,000 a year.
"It's very troubling to me that many of these counties are willing to jeopardize these huge economic and social benefits," said Jim Cleary, president of El Paso's Western Pipeline Group.
Kent Connelly, chairman of the Lincoln County Commission in Wyoming, said the county wants the BLM to require El Paso to ensure there is no net loss of ranchers.
"We want Ruby in the ground. We want them paying taxes," he said. "We also want protection for the surface. We do not want to give up our ranchers."
Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association agreed not to challenge the pipeline in exchange for establishing two new nonprofit funds, operated independently of the groups. Each fund will be managed by a three-member board, with each environmental group appointing one representative, El Paso selecting a second representative, and both sides agreeing upon a third.
The Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund, established with Western Watersheds, got $15 million from El Paso. A fund set up with the Oregon Natural Desert Association got $7 million. The money will go for conservation easements and land purchases and to voluntarily retire
grazing permits.
But that can happen now only under very specific conditions under federal law.
"This notion that this fund will be used to end grazing on public lands in the West is not true," Cleary said.
At the heart of the protests is the underlying premise of the two funds: that ending grazing in the sagebrush steppe that covers much of the West will improve habitat for sage grouse and nearly a dozen other species.
"They say taking cattle off of the range will help the grouse," said Jay Hardy, a county commissioner from Box Elder County in Utah. "I don't see that."
Ranchers also are skeptical that the people who end up selling their ranches and grazing privileges to the El Paso-funded nonprofits will actually be willing sellers.
"The Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund is not a coercive fund," said Brian Ertz, a spokesman for Western Watersheds. "Nevertheless, it might be economical for public lands ranchers to pull their cattle off of public land. It's a hugely subsidized endeavor."
Many of the grazing permits will be up for renewal in the next two years, and ranchers say Western Watersheds will challenge the permits, tying the ranchers up in court until they will be forced to sell.
"That's just not the American way," said Jeff Faulkner, a Gooding rancher who is the executive director of the Western Legacy Alliance.
Ertz said Western Watersheds goes to court to enforce the nation's environmental laws.
"If they are saying they want the stick, we're ready to produce that," he said. "We're holding the threat of enforcement of existing laws over their head. We have no stick unless they're breaking the law."
El Paso's Cleary says he understands where the ranchers are coming from, but he had to make a business decision that also is critical to the counties and the states that will share in the economic benefits. He said Idaho would benefit since it will have access to the natural gas that will be carried nearby.
"We need to consider where we would be had we not settled with Western Watersheds," Cleary said.
The Great Basin Resource Watch, Toiyabe Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife also have filed lawsuits over grouse. The Center for Biological Diversity has sued to stop the pipeline to protect fish species and habitat, and two American Indian tribes have sued over sacred archaeological sites.
El Paso's problem was that it didn't do its homework before wading into a long-simmering battle it did not understand, said John Freemuth, senior fellow at the Andrus Center for Public Policy and a political science professor at Boise State University. It was not just about economics.
"Culture does matter," Freemuth said.
Rocky Barker: 377-6484
El Paso Corp., the owner of the nation's largest natural gas pipeline system, angered ranchers and county officials this summer when it agreed with two environmental groups to set up the funds.
Even after El Paso Corp. cut a separate deal with the Public Lands Council, a group that promotes livestock grazing on public land, the anger has not subsided.
Construction has begun on the 675-mile "Ruby" natural gas pipeline that will run from Opal, Wyo., west to Malin, Ore.
Four counties have sued the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over its approval of the right-of-way for the pipeline, which will run just south of the Idaho border. And a coalition of counties -- including Cassia, Franklin, Oneida, Owyhee and Twin Falls counties in Idaho -- is trying to get El Paso to change the contract with the Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association.
These challenges come despite projections of 5,000 jobs, $70 million in state and local taxes during construction, and $280 million in annual property taxes to counties along the 675-mile route. At a time when unemployment is running at more than 14 percent in Nevada, El Paso's contractors are paying welders more than $75,000 a year.
"It's very troubling to me that many of these counties are willing to jeopardize these huge economic and social benefits," said Jim Cleary, president of El Paso's Western Pipeline Group.
Kent Connelly, chairman of the Lincoln County Commission in Wyoming, said the county wants the BLM to require El Paso to ensure there is no net loss of ranchers.
"We want Ruby in the ground. We want them paying taxes," he said. "We also want protection for the surface. We do not want to give up our ranchers."
Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association agreed not to challenge the pipeline in exchange for establishing two new nonprofit funds, operated independently of the groups. Each fund will be managed by a three-member board, with each environmental group appointing one representative, El Paso selecting a second representative, and both sides agreeing upon a third.
The Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund, established with Western Watersheds, got $15 million from El Paso. A fund set up with the Oregon Natural Desert Association got $7 million. The money will go for conservation easements and land purchases and to voluntarily retire
grazing permits.
But that can happen now only under very specific conditions under federal law.
"This notion that this fund will be used to end grazing on public lands in the West is not true," Cleary said.
At the heart of the protests is the underlying premise of the two funds: that ending grazing in the sagebrush steppe that covers much of the West will improve habitat for sage grouse and nearly a dozen other species.
"They say taking cattle off of the range will help the grouse," said Jay Hardy, a county commissioner from Box Elder County in Utah. "I don't see that."
Ranchers also are skeptical that the people who end up selling their ranches and grazing privileges to the El Paso-funded nonprofits will actually be willing sellers.
"The Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund is not a coercive fund," said Brian Ertz, a spokesman for Western Watersheds. "Nevertheless, it might be economical for public lands ranchers to pull their cattle off of public land. It's a hugely subsidized endeavor."
Many of the grazing permits will be up for renewal in the next two years, and ranchers say Western Watersheds will challenge the permits, tying the ranchers up in court until they will be forced to sell.
"That's just not the American way," said Jeff Faulkner, a Gooding rancher who is the executive director of the Western Legacy Alliance.
Ertz said Western Watersheds goes to court to enforce the nation's environmental laws.
"If they are saying they want the stick, we're ready to produce that," he said. "We're holding the threat of enforcement of existing laws over their head. We have no stick unless they're breaking the law."
El Paso's Cleary says he understands where the ranchers are coming from, but he had to make a business decision that also is critical to the counties and the states that will share in the economic benefits. He said Idaho would benefit since it will have access to the natural gas that will be carried nearby.
"We need to consider where we would be had we not settled with Western Watersheds," Cleary said.
The Great Basin Resource Watch, Toiyabe Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife also have filed lawsuits over grouse. The Center for Biological Diversity has sued to stop the pipeline to protect fish species and habitat, and two American Indian tribes have sued over sacred archaeological sites.
El Paso's problem was that it didn't do its homework before wading into a long-simmering battle it did not understand, said John Freemuth, senior fellow at the Andrus Center for Public Policy and a political science professor at Boise State University. It was not just about economics.
"Culture does matter," Freemuth said.
Rocky Barker: 377-6484
NM cap and trade plan stirs debate
SANTA FE (AP) - After driving more than 200 miles, Matt Hinkle of Roswell hobbled down the auditorium walkway to the front of the nearly empty room. He jostled the chairs around to make room for his crutches and then laid out his opposition to a pair of proposals aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in New Mexico.
"From what I can see," he told a panel of state regulators, "the public in the state of New Mexico doesn't have a clue. ... They are completely uninformed as to what's going on. Really, in the end, they're going to be the ones paying for it."
The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board is considering two proposals — one from an environmental group and the other from the state Environment Department. The state's plan calls for a regional cap-and-trade program, and New Energy Economy wants to limit the emissions of the state's largest polluters — coal-fired power plants and the oil and gas industry.
While supporters say something needs to be done to combat climate change, critics are asking what cap and trade will end up costing New Mexico, a rural state where oil and gas contributes millions to state coffers, where small communities depend on mom-and-pop businesses and where a love for the land is shared by everyone from ranchers and environmentalists to Gov. Bill Richardson.
It's up to the seven board members to sift through days of testimony and 6,000 pages of documents before deciding whether carbon regulations can be woven into New Mexico's economic and cultural fabric.
The board is in the middle of a two-week hearing in Santa Fe on the state's proposal.
"It's a lot of work, but we take this seriously," board chairwoman Gay Dillingham said.
New Mexico's power plants and the oil and gas industry pump about 24 million metric tons of carbon emissions into the air each year. The state aims to curb the emissions of those that emit 25,000 metric tons or more, which roughly equals the annual emissions of 5,000 cars.
State officials say 63 facilities would fall under the rule, but that number could grow, as the Environment Department says it would eventually look to expand the scope of sources and emissions to account for industrial, commercial and residential buildings as well as transportation fuels.
Jim Norton, director of the department's Environmental Protection Division, said this is the first step to getting a handle on New Mexico's emissions.
"We have a serious problem that were facing in New Mexico and the world," Norton said. "In New Mexico, we're looking at hotter temperatures, reduced snowpack, more forest fires, less water in our streams and health impacts. The effects are just really severe and in a dry state like New Mexico, we're going to get hit harder."
But Hinkle and other critics argue that New Mexico's emissions are only a fraction of the global problem and that handicapping the state's businesses with another regulation could prove economically disastrous.
Armies of lawyers from all sides have been debating the economics for much of the week. State experts contend coal and refining industries would be negatively impacted but the overall cost to New Mexico's economy would be very small if the board approved the cap-and-trade plan.
Attorneys for the opposition tried to poke holes in the economists' predictions.
"A big question mark is what it is in terms of the true impacts on the state," said Karin Foster, an attorney for the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico.
Both Public Service Company of New Mexico, the state's largest electric utility, and Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc., which provides power to rural co-ops, say there will be costs to comply with the proposed regulations and those costs will have to be passed on to customers.
Officials in more than a dozen rural counties along the New Mexico-Arizona border are also concerned about the potential impacts.
"We keep putting these burdens on our rural communities, on agriculture, on mining, on our productive sectors in this state, and we're going to break their backs and everything that the urban consumer depends on is either going to disappear or skyrocket in price, from food to electricity," said Howard Hutchison of the Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties For Stable Economic Growth.
"There's a lot riding on it," he said.
Dozens of environmental groups and New Mexico residents who have testified on behalf of the proposals agree that this is an important issue. They say industry is overreacting and that regulators need to take steps to mitigate public health concerns and environmental degradation from unchecked pollution.
Judy Williams, a Santa Fe resident and member of the League of Women Voters, urged regulators to protect New Mexico's blue skies for future generations.
"Business as usual is not sustainable," she said.
Supporters also say this is New Mexico's chance to be a leader, something Richardson has pushed for since rolling out his emissions reduction goals in
"From what I can see," he told a panel of state regulators, "the public in the state of New Mexico doesn't have a clue. ... They are completely uninformed as to what's going on. Really, in the end, they're going to be the ones paying for it."
The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board is considering two proposals — one from an environmental group and the other from the state Environment Department. The state's plan calls for a regional cap-and-trade program, and New Energy Economy wants to limit the emissions of the state's largest polluters — coal-fired power plants and the oil and gas industry.
While supporters say something needs to be done to combat climate change, critics are asking what cap and trade will end up costing New Mexico, a rural state where oil and gas contributes millions to state coffers, where small communities depend on mom-and-pop businesses and where a love for the land is shared by everyone from ranchers and environmentalists to Gov. Bill Richardson.
It's up to the seven board members to sift through days of testimony and 6,000 pages of documents before deciding whether carbon regulations can be woven into New Mexico's economic and cultural fabric.
The board is in the middle of a two-week hearing in Santa Fe on the state's proposal.
"It's a lot of work, but we take this seriously," board chairwoman Gay Dillingham said.
New Mexico's power plants and the oil and gas industry pump about 24 million metric tons of carbon emissions into the air each year. The state aims to curb the emissions of those that emit 25,000 metric tons or more, which roughly equals the annual emissions of 5,000 cars.
State officials say 63 facilities would fall under the rule, but that number could grow, as the Environment Department says it would eventually look to expand the scope of sources and emissions to account for industrial, commercial and residential buildings as well as transportation fuels.
Jim Norton, director of the department's Environmental Protection Division, said this is the first step to getting a handle on New Mexico's emissions.
"We have a serious problem that were facing in New Mexico and the world," Norton said. "In New Mexico, we're looking at hotter temperatures, reduced snowpack, more forest fires, less water in our streams and health impacts. The effects are just really severe and in a dry state like New Mexico, we're going to get hit harder."
But Hinkle and other critics argue that New Mexico's emissions are only a fraction of the global problem and that handicapping the state's businesses with another regulation could prove economically disastrous.
Armies of lawyers from all sides have been debating the economics for much of the week. State experts contend coal and refining industries would be negatively impacted but the overall cost to New Mexico's economy would be very small if the board approved the cap-and-trade plan.
Attorneys for the opposition tried to poke holes in the economists' predictions.
"A big question mark is what it is in terms of the true impacts on the state," said Karin Foster, an attorney for the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico.
Both Public Service Company of New Mexico, the state's largest electric utility, and Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc., which provides power to rural co-ops, say there will be costs to comply with the proposed regulations and those costs will have to be passed on to customers.
Officials in more than a dozen rural counties along the New Mexico-Arizona border are also concerned about the potential impacts.
"We keep putting these burdens on our rural communities, on agriculture, on mining, on our productive sectors in this state, and we're going to break their backs and everything that the urban consumer depends on is either going to disappear or skyrocket in price, from food to electricity," said Howard Hutchison of the Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties For Stable Economic Growth.
"There's a lot riding on it," he said.
Dozens of environmental groups and New Mexico residents who have testified on behalf of the proposals agree that this is an important issue. They say industry is overreacting and that regulators need to take steps to mitigate public health concerns and environmental degradation from unchecked pollution.
Judy Williams, a Santa Fe resident and member of the League of Women Voters, urged regulators to protect New Mexico's blue skies for future generations.
"Business as usual is not sustainable," she said.
Supporters also say this is New Mexico's chance to be a leader, something Richardson has pushed for since rolling out his emissions reduction goals in
Farmington City Councilor Jason Sandel said he's worried New Mexico is being treated like a "lab rat," and that cap and trade would push jobs and investment dollars to neighboring states.
Sandel and supporters of the proposals have been busy urging more people to testify before the board.
Hinkle said it was important for him to be at the hearing. He said wanted to speak for the grandmothers, the plumbers and the school teachers who can't make the trip to Santa Fe and those who have yet to hear about the debate.
He pointed to the sparse crowd, suggesting there would be standing room only if people knew their utility bills could be impacted.
"If you had an informed public, they would be here," he said. "It's not good policy to set policy when the public is uninformed."
Norton said the state has "bent over backward" to make the process accessible to anyone who's interested.
"Is New Mexico really represented? I think so. It's a good process," he said.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Water Proposal Puts Pressure on N.M. Regulators
By Susan Montoya Bryan
Associated Press
New Mexico regulators listened to testimony Thursday from an environmental group that wants more protections than what state officials are proposing for headwater streams, lakes and wetlands across the state, while critics continued to hold out hope for intervention from the state's highest court.
The New Mexico Supreme Court cleared the way for the hearing to begin in Santa Fe earlier this week. But an attorney for the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association said the court has yet to issue a final ruling on whether the state Environment Department's petition to designate the streams and lakes in a dozen wilderness areas as "outstanding national resource waters" meets regulations.
The court struck down a temporary restraining order so the hearing could begin, but it also requested the ranchers' group to file a response by Sept. 24.
Dan Dolan, an Albuquerque attorney who represents the group, told The Associated Press during a break in the hearing that he hopes the court's action means it will take a closer look at the state's proposal.
"It has been a moving target. They've changed it three separate times," Dolan said, adding that the public has not been given an adequate chance to comment on the latest version of the petition.
Supporters said they don't expect the court to interrupt the ongoing proceedings.
"I highly doubt that the Supreme Court would condone an attempt by a disgruntled party to silence the public's right to speak out in favor of clean water before an agency has even reached a decision. That would be quite the injustice," said Erik Schlenker-Goodrich of the Western Environmental Law Center.
The Richardson administration began pushing an outstanding waters designation in 2008. It would protect streams, lakes and wetlands by prohibiting any activities that would degrade water quality.
The first plan called for protecting all waters — even those that flow intermittently — in wilderness and roadless areas around the state. That was scaled back after concerns were raised during 11 public meetings and after state lawmakers came out in opposition.
More changes were made after a second round of public meetings last fall, and it wasn't until May that the state presented its final petition to the Water Quality Control Commission.
State officials testified this week that they have tried to address the public's concerns — including those of the ranchers' group and some water associations — and that development of the petition has been the most extensive public participation process the department has under taken for any water quality initiative.
Sen. Phil Griego, D-San Jose, accused the department of going against the Legislature's intention by proceeding with the petition. More public meetings need to be held and the commission, which is appointed by the governor, should not be making decisions that have the potential to impact so many of the state's residents, he said.
"That's not right. The Legislature is the one that's empowered to do that type of stuff," Griego said.
The group WildEarth Guardians asked the commission Thursday to go beyond what the state was proposing and approve an amendment that would add 450,000 acres of adjacent roadless areas to the outstanding waters designation. The group contends those lands are also ecologically important.
The state's petition calls for designating as outstanding about 700 miles of rivers and streams, 29 lakes and more than 4,900 acres of wetlands in a dozen wilderness areas. The amendment would add another 800 miles of waterways.
Critics argued that the proposal is already too broad and that waters should be considered on an individual basis.
Dolan was also concerned about a letter sent to the commission by U.S. Forest Service regional officials days before the hearing said it was changing its position and would not be opposing the petition after all. The agency — which would be responsible for managing the headwaters under an outstanding designation — earlier questioned the accuracy of the state's maps and lack of water quality data for many of the nominated waters.
The Forest Service declined to immediately comment on the letter.
Dolan said ranchers and others who have Forest Service permits need to know how the agency plans to implement management practices in wilderness areas before an outstanding waters designation is approved.
"The cattle growers are not saying that we don't believe ONRW has value. What we're really saying is that we don't believe interjecting the U.S. Forest Service in this process makes a lot of sense," he said. "This could have a critical impact on a lot of livelihoods."
Associated Press
New Mexico regulators listened to testimony Thursday from an environmental group that wants more protections than what state officials are proposing for headwater streams, lakes and wetlands across the state, while critics continued to hold out hope for intervention from the state's highest court.
The New Mexico Supreme Court cleared the way for the hearing to begin in Santa Fe earlier this week. But an attorney for the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association said the court has yet to issue a final ruling on whether the state Environment Department's petition to designate the streams and lakes in a dozen wilderness areas as "outstanding national resource waters" meets regulations.
The court struck down a temporary restraining order so the hearing could begin, but it also requested the ranchers' group to file a response by Sept. 24.
Dan Dolan, an Albuquerque attorney who represents the group, told The Associated Press during a break in the hearing that he hopes the court's action means it will take a closer look at the state's proposal.
"It has been a moving target. They've changed it three separate times," Dolan said, adding that the public has not been given an adequate chance to comment on the latest version of the petition.
Supporters said they don't expect the court to interrupt the ongoing proceedings.
"I highly doubt that the Supreme Court would condone an attempt by a disgruntled party to silence the public's right to speak out in favor of clean water before an agency has even reached a decision. That would be quite the injustice," said Erik Schlenker-Goodrich of the Western Environmental Law Center.
The Richardson administration began pushing an outstanding waters designation in 2008. It would protect streams, lakes and wetlands by prohibiting any activities that would degrade water quality.
The first plan called for protecting all waters — even those that flow intermittently — in wilderness and roadless areas around the state. That was scaled back after concerns were raised during 11 public meetings and after state lawmakers came out in opposition.
More changes were made after a second round of public meetings last fall, and it wasn't until May that the state presented its final petition to the Water Quality Control Commission.
State officials testified this week that they have tried to address the public's concerns — including those of the ranchers' group and some water associations — and that development of the petition has been the most extensive public participation process the department has under taken for any water quality initiative.
Sen. Phil Griego, D-San Jose, accused the department of going against the Legislature's intention by proceeding with the petition. More public meetings need to be held and the commission, which is appointed by the governor, should not be making decisions that have the potential to impact so many of the state's residents, he said.
"That's not right. The Legislature is the one that's empowered to do that type of stuff," Griego said.
The group WildEarth Guardians asked the commission Thursday to go beyond what the state was proposing and approve an amendment that would add 450,000 acres of adjacent roadless areas to the outstanding waters designation. The group contends those lands are also ecologically important.
The state's petition calls for designating as outstanding about 700 miles of rivers and streams, 29 lakes and more than 4,900 acres of wetlands in a dozen wilderness areas. The amendment would add another 800 miles of waterways.
Critics argued that the proposal is already too broad and that waters should be considered on an individual basis.
Dolan was also concerned about a letter sent to the commission by U.S. Forest Service regional officials days before the hearing said it was changing its position and would not be opposing the petition after all. The agency — which would be responsible for managing the headwaters under an outstanding designation — earlier questioned the accuracy of the state's maps and lack of water quality data for many of the nominated waters.
The Forest Service declined to immediately comment on the letter.
Dolan said ranchers and others who have Forest Service permits need to know how the agency plans to implement management practices in wilderness areas before an outstanding waters designation is approved.
"The cattle growers are not saying that we don't believe ONRW has value. What we're really saying is that we don't believe interjecting the U.S. Forest Service in this process makes a lot of sense," he said. "This could have a critical impact on a lot of livelihoods."
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Judge orders agency to release Idaho ranchers' addresses
A U.S. District Court in Idaho ruled Monday that the public’s right to know outweighed personal privacy interests in a federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought against the Bureau of Land Management by two environmental groups, according to court documents.
In August 2007, Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians filed a FOIA request for the identities of livestock grazing permit holders in an attempt to evaluate the bureau’s management of grazing on Idaho’s public lands. The bureau refused to disclose the contact information of its permit holders, citing FOIA Exemption 6, which allows government agencies to withhold “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
The bureau was primarily concerned with the privacy of family-owned or closely-held ranching businesses. It claimed that the disclosure of individuals’ addresses, paired with already public information regarding the size of herds, could result in inferences being made regarding the individual’s personal finances.
The environmental groups filed suit under FOIA, arguing that releasing the names and addresses of grazing permit holders “would not reveal damaging, embarrassing, or specific financial information,” and thus did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Moreover, the groups contended that a list of permit holders’ names, which the bureau was willing to disclose, is not enough to know the identities of permit holders, how many grazing authorizations were held by each and how many were grazing a single land allotment.
Judge Candy W. Dale balanced the privacy interests of Idaho’s grazing permit holders against the public interests of those wishing to shed light on the agency action related to the permitting scheme.
She found “a substantial public interest in understanding the scope of the grazing and rangeland program, particularly in light of the environmental impacts associated with grazing and the amount of tax dollars spent on the grazing program itself,” according to her opinion. Judge Dale also noted that with both a name and address, the public could determine if a permit holder was grazing on other allotments that have been classified as ecologically damaged.
The privacy interests of Idaho’s grazing permit holders, she ruled, were not threatened by the release of their addresses and were outweighed by the public interest. The documents were, therefore, ordered disclosed.
In August 2007, Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians filed a FOIA request for the identities of livestock grazing permit holders in an attempt to evaluate the bureau’s management of grazing on Idaho’s public lands. The bureau refused to disclose the contact information of its permit holders, citing FOIA Exemption 6, which allows government agencies to withhold “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
The bureau was primarily concerned with the privacy of family-owned or closely-held ranching businesses. It claimed that the disclosure of individuals’ addresses, paired with already public information regarding the size of herds, could result in inferences being made regarding the individual’s personal finances.
The environmental groups filed suit under FOIA, arguing that releasing the names and addresses of grazing permit holders “would not reveal damaging, embarrassing, or specific financial information,” and thus did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Moreover, the groups contended that a list of permit holders’ names, which the bureau was willing to disclose, is not enough to know the identities of permit holders, how many grazing authorizations were held by each and how many were grazing a single land allotment.
Judge Candy W. Dale balanced the privacy interests of Idaho’s grazing permit holders against the public interests of those wishing to shed light on the agency action related to the permitting scheme.
She found “a substantial public interest in understanding the scope of the grazing and rangeland program, particularly in light of the environmental impacts associated with grazing and the amount of tax dollars spent on the grazing program itself,” according to her opinion. Judge Dale also noted that with both a name and address, the public could determine if a permit holder was grazing on other allotments that have been classified as ecologically damaged.
The privacy interests of Idaho’s grazing permit holders, she ruled, were not threatened by the release of their addresses and were outweighed by the public interest. The documents were, therefore, ordered disclosed.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Two Court Victories for Western Watersheds Project
Western Watersheds Project Victorious in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals & Wins Another Federal Court Settlement Against the Forest Service on 386 Allotments in Seven Western States.
Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Western Watersheds Project victory in Idaho District Court overturning the Bush Administration's attempt to fundamentally change federal grazing regulations impacting hundreds of millions of acres of public lands in the West. WWP was joined in this litigation by co-plaintiffs National Wildlife Federation, Idaho Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Idaho Conservation League, and famed Idaho conservationist and WWP Board member Dr. Ralph Maughan of Pocatello.
The Bush Era Grazing Regulations would have :
* Removed public involvement from grazing decisions affecting public lands and wildlife.
* Granted ranchers private property-interest in public livestock grazing installations and developments including fences, water developments, and buildings on public lands.
* Granted ranchers water-rights on public lands currently held in trust by the American public.
This significant victory at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is a welcome smack-down of Bush anti-environmentalism. The win emboldens public participation and accountability, stymies the most recent livestock industry land and water grab, and maintains public ownership of the West's vast water resources to benefit wildlife and future generations.
Thanks to our attorneys Laird Lucas of Advocates for the West, Joe Feller of Arizona State University Law School and Johanna Wald of the Natural Resources Defense Council for their excellent legal representation.
WWP would also like to acknowledge the decades-long legal work on the issue of public lands ranching by the late Tom Lustig of the National Wildlife Federation. Before his untimely death in May 2008 Tom provided invaluable legal counsel on this critical litigation.
Tom Lustig
Read the Decisionpdf
Western Western Watersheds Project Secures a Federal District Court Ordered Settlement with the Forest Service Halting the Agency's End-Run Around the National Environmental Policy Act in Authorizing Livestock Grazing on 386 Grazing Allotments Across the West.
WWP was joined in this litigation by Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, California Trout, Environmental Protection Information Center, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Los Padres Forest Watch, Sierra Forest Legacy, Sequoia Forestkeeper, Grand Canyon Trust, Utah Environmental Congress, Red Rock Forests, and Oregon Natural Desert Association.
This significant victory affects livestock grazing administration on National Forests in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico and California and will ensure compliance with the nation's most important environmental statute, NEPA.
Read the Court Orderpdf
Thanks to Laurie Rule of Advocates for the West's Boise office for her stellar legal representation in this case.
Jon Marvel
Executive Director
Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Western Watersheds Project victory in Idaho District Court overturning the Bush Administration's attempt to fundamentally change federal grazing regulations impacting hundreds of millions of acres of public lands in the West. WWP was joined in this litigation by co-plaintiffs National Wildlife Federation, Idaho Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Idaho Conservation League, and famed Idaho conservationist and WWP Board member Dr. Ralph Maughan of Pocatello.
The Bush Era Grazing Regulations would have :
* Removed public involvement from grazing decisions affecting public lands and wildlife.
* Granted ranchers private property-interest in public livestock grazing installations and developments including fences, water developments, and buildings on public lands.
* Granted ranchers water-rights on public lands currently held in trust by the American public.
This significant victory at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is a welcome smack-down of Bush anti-environmentalism. The win emboldens public participation and accountability, stymies the most recent livestock industry land and water grab, and maintains public ownership of the West's vast water resources to benefit wildlife and future generations.
Thanks to our attorneys Laird Lucas of Advocates for the West, Joe Feller of Arizona State University Law School and Johanna Wald of the Natural Resources Defense Council for their excellent legal representation.
WWP would also like to acknowledge the decades-long legal work on the issue of public lands ranching by the late Tom Lustig of the National Wildlife Federation. Before his untimely death in May 2008 Tom provided invaluable legal counsel on this critical litigation.
Tom Lustig
Read the Decisionpdf
Western Western Watersheds Project Secures a Federal District Court Ordered Settlement with the Forest Service Halting the Agency's End-Run Around the National Environmental Policy Act in Authorizing Livestock Grazing on 386 Grazing Allotments Across the West.
WWP was joined in this litigation by Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, California Trout, Environmental Protection Information Center, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Los Padres Forest Watch, Sierra Forest Legacy, Sequoia Forestkeeper, Grand Canyon Trust, Utah Environmental Congress, Red Rock Forests, and Oregon Natural Desert Association.
This significant victory affects livestock grazing administration on National Forests in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico and California and will ensure compliance with the nation's most important environmental statute, NEPA.
Read the Court Orderpdf
Thanks to Laurie Rule of Advocates for the West's Boise office for her stellar legal representation in this case.
Jon Marvel
Executive Director
Nevada Department of Agriculture Brings Criminal Charges against BLM Employees
(Elko, NV) In a complaint filed by Blaine Northrup, Nevada State Brand Inspector, certain Battle Mountain BLM employees will be charged with violations of the Nevada brand law, including a Class C Felony.
The BLM employees in question were in the process of seizing livestock from Dalton Wilson’s ranch in an ongoing quiet title action and civil trespass case before Federal District Court Judge, Edward C. Reed. In an effort to obtain brand clearance certificates, a precursor for the lawful removal and transport of the horses in question, the BLM not only removed the horses from the property without authorization, but then misrepresented the facts to a state official to obtain his approval on the brand certificate.
In an August 26 letter to Ron Wenker, State Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Agriculture Department Director, Dr. Anthony Lesperance, notified the BLM that the Brand Department would not issue any further brand clearance certificates to the BLM, “until the above matter is explained to the Department’s satisfaction, and the Department receives the assurances that correct procedures will be followed henceforth by the BLM…. My policy is such that when facts are misrepresented in regard to brand inspection certificates, I automatically terminate any and all future brand inspection certificates with the party in question until such matter is fully resolved.”
Lesperance wrote, “My initial investigation of this matter indicates BLM employees not only committed fraud to a state official, they also appear to have clearly violated several other provisions of Nevada law and federal criminal statutes as well. This constitutes a serious breach of trust which I, as a state officer by virtue of my oath of office, cannot lawfully ignore. Mr. Blaine Northrop, of the Brands Division, is in the process of filing a criminal complaint against the BLM with the Lander County District Attorney in regard to these matters.”
The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 specifically reserves civil and criminal jurisdiction and police powers to the states respectively. “As a state official, it is my job to enforce the brand laws equally under the Equal Protection Under the Law Clause of the Constitution, and that includes federal employees,” wrote Lesperance.
A Nevada Dept. Ag press release'.
The BLM employees in question were in the process of seizing livestock from Dalton Wilson’s ranch in an ongoing quiet title action and civil trespass case before Federal District Court Judge, Edward C. Reed. In an effort to obtain brand clearance certificates, a precursor for the lawful removal and transport of the horses in question, the BLM not only removed the horses from the property without authorization, but then misrepresented the facts to a state official to obtain his approval on the brand certificate.
In an August 26 letter to Ron Wenker, State Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Agriculture Department Director, Dr. Anthony Lesperance, notified the BLM that the Brand Department would not issue any further brand clearance certificates to the BLM, “until the above matter is explained to the Department’s satisfaction, and the Department receives the assurances that correct procedures will be followed henceforth by the BLM…. My policy is such that when facts are misrepresented in regard to brand inspection certificates, I automatically terminate any and all future brand inspection certificates with the party in question until such matter is fully resolved.”
Lesperance wrote, “My initial investigation of this matter indicates BLM employees not only committed fraud to a state official, they also appear to have clearly violated several other provisions of Nevada law and federal criminal statutes as well. This constitutes a serious breach of trust which I, as a state officer by virtue of my oath of office, cannot lawfully ignore. Mr. Blaine Northrop, of the Brands Division, is in the process of filing a criminal complaint against the BLM with the Lander County District Attorney in regard to these matters.”
The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 specifically reserves civil and criminal jurisdiction and police powers to the states respectively. “As a state official, it is my job to enforce the brand laws equally under the Equal Protection Under the Law Clause of the Constitution, and that includes federal employees,” wrote Lesperance.
A Nevada Dept. Ag press release'.
Sheriff Unger Abdicates Law Enforcement Duties to BLM; Armed BLM Bureaucrats Bulldoze Wilson’s Ranch
(Austin, NV) Tuesday, a private inspection of Dalton Wilson’s Grass Valley ranch with a sheriff’s escort revealed RS 2477 roads which were blocked by BLM employees, and that the BLM had bulldozed Wilson’s 100 year-old ranch and home.
Wilson has been in a David and Goliath battle with the BLM and Lander County to quiet title on 80 of 160 acres of what is known as the Brackney Ranch. The BLM sought Wilson’s forcible removal by charging him several years ago with criminal trespass. Wilson said, “I would be in jail right now”, if he hadn’t been acquitted by then Federal District Judge Sandoval, now running for Governor.
The BLM, not satisfied with Sandoval’s acquittal, charged Wilson again, this time with civil trespass raising the issue of double jeopardy. The new federal Judge, Edward C. Reed, rather than hearing the facts of the case, without allowing a single appearance by Wilson, issued what is tantamount to an edict from the bench ordering the removal of Wilson from his property. Wilson appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which granted a stay until the issues were resolved by the lower court and a final order issued. This stay was ignored by Judge Reed, the BLM, District Attorney Hy Forgeron, and Unger.
“In order to deprive anybody of life, liberty or property in this country, there has to be due process of law and that is what is lacking in this situation. There has been no final judgment, no mandatory abstract of judgment filed in the state, and there has been no writ of execution issued. Nobody is above the law, especially public officials,” remarked Ramona Morrison, Director, Nevada Live Stock Association.”
Morrison, who spoke with Unger Tuesday remarked, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially when one has been entrusted to enforce it. The sheriff claims he was unaware of the stay. However, it is hard to believe he was unaware of Chapter 31 of the Nevada Revised Statutes which mentions the word “sheriff” 145 times, and specifically outlines his duties as sheriff to be present to enforce a writ of execution when property is confiscated.”
Unger was not present during the BLM raid to ensure there was a proper writ, to prevent the unlawful closure of the roads in Grass Valley, or to ensure the peace. “The same Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 under which Wilson was charged with trespass not only protects preexisting rights owned by Wilson but specifically reserves civil and criminal jurisdiction and police power to the states. As a Nevada rancher who is runs cattle on BLM managed lands, I am concerned that Unger believes he is not responsible for keeping the peace on those lands, which is virtually all of Lander County, as state and federal law requires. We’ve had similar experiences with the Battle Mountain BLM office pertaining to preexisting rights. The sheriff’s job is to protect our Constitutional rights, they’ve sworn an oath to do so and they need to be held accountable,” remarked Mike Stremler, NLSA Director.
Wilson, an NLSA Director, who was denied access to his home during the raid, was deprived of his heart medication. He is now in an Ely hospital recovering from congestive heart failure.
“If Unger can ambivalently stand by, in a clear dereliction of duty, while Wilson’s property, livelihood and health are destroyed maybe it’s time for the citizens of Lander County to rethink Unger’s livelihood on the public taxpayer,” commented Don Alt, NLSA Chairman.
# # # # #
9732 State Route 445, #305 ž Sparks, Nevada 89436 ž 775.577.9048
Order and Mandate available upon request.
Contact: Dalton Wilson, 775.934.2281
Don Alt, 775.577.9048
Mike Stremler, 775.635.5445
Ramona Morrison 775.722.2517
Press Release from the NLSA
Wilson has been in a David and Goliath battle with the BLM and Lander County to quiet title on 80 of 160 acres of what is known as the Brackney Ranch. The BLM sought Wilson’s forcible removal by charging him several years ago with criminal trespass. Wilson said, “I would be in jail right now”, if he hadn’t been acquitted by then Federal District Judge Sandoval, now running for Governor.
The BLM, not satisfied with Sandoval’s acquittal, charged Wilson again, this time with civil trespass raising the issue of double jeopardy. The new federal Judge, Edward C. Reed, rather than hearing the facts of the case, without allowing a single appearance by Wilson, issued what is tantamount to an edict from the bench ordering the removal of Wilson from his property. Wilson appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which granted a stay until the issues were resolved by the lower court and a final order issued. This stay was ignored by Judge Reed, the BLM, District Attorney Hy Forgeron, and Unger.
“In order to deprive anybody of life, liberty or property in this country, there has to be due process of law and that is what is lacking in this situation. There has been no final judgment, no mandatory abstract of judgment filed in the state, and there has been no writ of execution issued. Nobody is above the law, especially public officials,” remarked Ramona Morrison, Director, Nevada Live Stock Association.”
Morrison, who spoke with Unger Tuesday remarked, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially when one has been entrusted to enforce it. The sheriff claims he was unaware of the stay. However, it is hard to believe he was unaware of Chapter 31 of the Nevada Revised Statutes which mentions the word “sheriff” 145 times, and specifically outlines his duties as sheriff to be present to enforce a writ of execution when property is confiscated.”
Unger was not present during the BLM raid to ensure there was a proper writ, to prevent the unlawful closure of the roads in Grass Valley, or to ensure the peace. “The same Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 under which Wilson was charged with trespass not only protects preexisting rights owned by Wilson but specifically reserves civil and criminal jurisdiction and police power to the states. As a Nevada rancher who is runs cattle on BLM managed lands, I am concerned that Unger believes he is not responsible for keeping the peace on those lands, which is virtually all of Lander County, as state and federal law requires. We’ve had similar experiences with the Battle Mountain BLM office pertaining to preexisting rights. The sheriff’s job is to protect our Constitutional rights, they’ve sworn an oath to do so and they need to be held accountable,” remarked Mike Stremler, NLSA Director.
Wilson, an NLSA Director, who was denied access to his home during the raid, was deprived of his heart medication. He is now in an Ely hospital recovering from congestive heart failure.
“If Unger can ambivalently stand by, in a clear dereliction of duty, while Wilson’s property, livelihood and health are destroyed maybe it’s time for the citizens of Lander County to rethink Unger’s livelihood on the public taxpayer,” commented Don Alt, NLSA Chairman.
# # # # #
9732 State Route 445, #305 ž Sparks, Nevada 89436 ž 775.577.9048
Order and Mandate available upon request.
Contact: Dalton Wilson, 775.934.2281
Don Alt, 775.577.9048
Mike Stremler, 775.635.5445
Ramona Morrison 775.722.2517
Press Release from the NLSA
Monday, August 30, 2010
Wolf, grizzly bear cases set back progress, biologists, managers say
Wolves and bears don't behave well in courtrooms.
But the two big predators are likely to spend the next 18 months there as their advocates and enemies try to untangle them from the federal Endangered Species Act.
Last week, Montana wildlife managers decided to appeal U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy's Aug. 5 decision placing the gray wolf back under federal protection. Meanwhile, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials in Missoula appealed another Molloy ruling that prevented state management of Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bears.
No one knows how the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will settle the two lawsuits. But wildlife managers for both wolves and bears fear that years of cooperation and compromise in the woods may wither while the animals' fate is debated - and ultimately decided - on paper.
"If people look in and realize how difficult it is for agencies to work together on anything, they would realize incredible steps were made," said Gregg Losinski, an Idaho Department of Fish and Game official who is part of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Committee. "All the mechanisms were there for bear recovery - that was the frustrating thing. This relisting put things back 20 years."
Molloy's 2009 decision blocked a FWS plan to let states manage about 600 grizzlies living around Yellowstone National Park.
His wolf ruling earlier this summer canceled public wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho for the 2010 season. Montana officials hoped hunters would kill 186 wolves and bring the state's population down to about 450 animals. Wolves are blamed for both falling elk and deer numbers and growing domestic livestock attacks.
***
If a wolf threatened Bob Rowland's cows last month, he could reach for his rifle. Now he has to reach for a telephone.
The Ovando area rancher sees some black irony in the Aug. 5 court decision placing gray wolves back under federal Endangered Species Act protection.
Molloy ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service improperly gave Montana and Idaho wildlife managers control of their wolves, but excluded Wyoming because its plan didn't meet federal standards. He wrote that threatened species should be managed by their habitat area, not by state lines.
"It makes you wonder when Mr. Molloy says we have to treat all three states the same, but we split Montana in half," Rowland said.
That's because wolves in the northern half of the state (including Rowland's ranch) moved in naturally from Canada and are considered threatened and federally protected. Wolves roughly south of Interstate 90 are assumed to descend from a population transplanted to Yellowstone Park and the Idaho wilderness in 1995. Those wolves are "experimental" and have considerably less stringent protections.
It's a practical matter for Rowland. A fellow rancher 30 miles away in Avon can shoot a wolf that's harassing cattle. Rowland must call a federal Wildlife Services hunter if he has the same problem. And that's after he and other members of the Blackfoot Challenge landowners network spent years on innovative ways to co-exist with wolves.
"I don't think our tree-hugging friends want to piss us off," Rowland said. "We're to the point where we realize the carrot's just going to keep getting moved. Maybe it's time to buck a little bit."
Chris Servheen sounds equally frustrated. The head of the federal government's grizzly bear recovery program fears the bears he's spent decades trying to save may have turned a bad corner.
"It really breeds mistrust in the public and amongst all the agencies that do the work when we go to court," Servheen said. "We've seen it with the wolves, where people become angry and less likely to support these species. The law as it's written provides the guidance we need to recover (a threatened species). That's what we did with grizzly bears and that's what we did with wolves.
"When courts add their own requirements to these laws, it makes it almost impossible to achieve success in these recovery areas. Legal blockage makes it difficult for the public to invest in it. They become suspicious and cynical about the whole thing. It poisons the well when courts intervene in these things."
***
The legal work is taking place while both wolves and grizzlies are getting tabloid-style scrutiny. After a grizzly killed a camper near Yellowstone Park this summer, an Associated Press story reminded readers that grizzlies "have been known to peel off a man's face with a single swipe of their massive, clawed paws."
A widely distributed essay by a former Fish and Wildlife Service biologist warned of "increasingly stressful rural life where wolf attacks and sightings have placed parents and grandparents in fear when kids ask to go fishing or to go to or come from rural school bus stops or to take out garbage."
"Those stories kill bears," Servheen said of the AP article. "They're the National Inquirer-type crap that poisons people's minds. We could have all the cooperative efforts, 30 years in the Yellowstone, dissolve and disappear because people think it's futile."
There are other ways out of the courtroom, at least for wolves. And one leads through Congress.
Sen. Max Baucus pledged shortly after Molloy's wolf ruling he would "introduce legislation that puts wolves under Montana's management." Rep. Denny Rehberg said he would co-sponsor Texas Rep. Chet Edwards' H.R. 6028, which would amend the Endangered Species Act and remove wolves from its jurisdiction.
Another goes back into the rulebook. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks wolf program coordinator Carolyn Sime said the state is considering a 10-J exemption, which would give Montanans increased federal leeway to manage wolves.
Lots of unknowns dot that path. The 10-J rule probably wouldn't affect Montana's northern threatened population, but it might let ranchers protect livestock in southern counties. How that might affect some packs that appear to roam across the line is uncertain.
It's also unknown if the rule can be stretched to include population control - not just immediate threats. Hunter groups throughout the state want wolf numbers reduced.
"To change the rules for delisting based upon a vision of more wolves on the landscape ignores the evidence that wolves are recovered, and ready to be delisted and managed permanently in Montana and Idaho," Montana Wildlife Federation director Craig Sharpe wrote in a letter backing the FWP legal challenge. He was joined by the Montana Bowhunters Association and nine rod and gun clubs in the state.
Sharpe said the 1994 federal wolf reintroduction plans anticipated wolves could hurt big-game populations and could be controlled if elk and deer were suffering.
But Sime pointed out another potential snag. Even if Montana gets permission for greater local control, that could wind up in court too.
"We have to ask if pursuit (of a 10-J exemption) is a wise use of agency resources," Sime said. "Will it get litigated?"
The Blackfoot Challenge linked together ranchers like Rowland, state managers like Sime and federal biologists like Servheen to help humans and wildlife coexist. Its own wildlife manager, Seth Wilson, said the challenge now is to keep that linkage alive while the courts grind on.
"The networks and the trust we've worked very hard to build will survive this," Wilson said. "And whether they're listed or not listed, it doesn't really matter to a bear or wolf. They're going to continue to do what they do."
Reporter Rob Chaney can be reached at 523-5382 or at rchaney@missoulian.com.
But the two big predators are likely to spend the next 18 months there as their advocates and enemies try to untangle them from the federal Endangered Species Act.
Last week, Montana wildlife managers decided to appeal U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy's Aug. 5 decision placing the gray wolf back under federal protection. Meanwhile, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials in Missoula appealed another Molloy ruling that prevented state management of Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bears.
No one knows how the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will settle the two lawsuits. But wildlife managers for both wolves and bears fear that years of cooperation and compromise in the woods may wither while the animals' fate is debated - and ultimately decided - on paper.
"If people look in and realize how difficult it is for agencies to work together on anything, they would realize incredible steps were made," said Gregg Losinski, an Idaho Department of Fish and Game official who is part of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Committee. "All the mechanisms were there for bear recovery - that was the frustrating thing. This relisting put things back 20 years."
Molloy's 2009 decision blocked a FWS plan to let states manage about 600 grizzlies living around Yellowstone National Park.
His wolf ruling earlier this summer canceled public wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho for the 2010 season. Montana officials hoped hunters would kill 186 wolves and bring the state's population down to about 450 animals. Wolves are blamed for both falling elk and deer numbers and growing domestic livestock attacks.
***
If a wolf threatened Bob Rowland's cows last month, he could reach for his rifle. Now he has to reach for a telephone.
The Ovando area rancher sees some black irony in the Aug. 5 court decision placing gray wolves back under federal Endangered Species Act protection.
Molloy ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service improperly gave Montana and Idaho wildlife managers control of their wolves, but excluded Wyoming because its plan didn't meet federal standards. He wrote that threatened species should be managed by their habitat area, not by state lines.
"It makes you wonder when Mr. Molloy says we have to treat all three states the same, but we split Montana in half," Rowland said.
That's because wolves in the northern half of the state (including Rowland's ranch) moved in naturally from Canada and are considered threatened and federally protected. Wolves roughly south of Interstate 90 are assumed to descend from a population transplanted to Yellowstone Park and the Idaho wilderness in 1995. Those wolves are "experimental" and have considerably less stringent protections.
It's a practical matter for Rowland. A fellow rancher 30 miles away in Avon can shoot a wolf that's harassing cattle. Rowland must call a federal Wildlife Services hunter if he has the same problem. And that's after he and other members of the Blackfoot Challenge landowners network spent years on innovative ways to co-exist with wolves.
"I don't think our tree-hugging friends want to piss us off," Rowland said. "We're to the point where we realize the carrot's just going to keep getting moved. Maybe it's time to buck a little bit."
Chris Servheen sounds equally frustrated. The head of the federal government's grizzly bear recovery program fears the bears he's spent decades trying to save may have turned a bad corner.
"It really breeds mistrust in the public and amongst all the agencies that do the work when we go to court," Servheen said. "We've seen it with the wolves, where people become angry and less likely to support these species. The law as it's written provides the guidance we need to recover (a threatened species). That's what we did with grizzly bears and that's what we did with wolves.
"When courts add their own requirements to these laws, it makes it almost impossible to achieve success in these recovery areas. Legal blockage makes it difficult for the public to invest in it. They become suspicious and cynical about the whole thing. It poisons the well when courts intervene in these things."
***
The legal work is taking place while both wolves and grizzlies are getting tabloid-style scrutiny. After a grizzly killed a camper near Yellowstone Park this summer, an Associated Press story reminded readers that grizzlies "have been known to peel off a man's face with a single swipe of their massive, clawed paws."
A widely distributed essay by a former Fish and Wildlife Service biologist warned of "increasingly stressful rural life where wolf attacks and sightings have placed parents and grandparents in fear when kids ask to go fishing or to go to or come from rural school bus stops or to take out garbage."
"Those stories kill bears," Servheen said of the AP article. "They're the National Inquirer-type crap that poisons people's minds. We could have all the cooperative efforts, 30 years in the Yellowstone, dissolve and disappear because people think it's futile."
There are other ways out of the courtroom, at least for wolves. And one leads through Congress.
Sen. Max Baucus pledged shortly after Molloy's wolf ruling he would "introduce legislation that puts wolves under Montana's management." Rep. Denny Rehberg said he would co-sponsor Texas Rep. Chet Edwards' H.R. 6028, which would amend the Endangered Species Act and remove wolves from its jurisdiction.
Another goes back into the rulebook. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks wolf program coordinator Carolyn Sime said the state is considering a 10-J exemption, which would give Montanans increased federal leeway to manage wolves.
Lots of unknowns dot that path. The 10-J rule probably wouldn't affect Montana's northern threatened population, but it might let ranchers protect livestock in southern counties. How that might affect some packs that appear to roam across the line is uncertain.
It's also unknown if the rule can be stretched to include population control - not just immediate threats. Hunter groups throughout the state want wolf numbers reduced.
"To change the rules for delisting based upon a vision of more wolves on the landscape ignores the evidence that wolves are recovered, and ready to be delisted and managed permanently in Montana and Idaho," Montana Wildlife Federation director Craig Sharpe wrote in a letter backing the FWP legal challenge. He was joined by the Montana Bowhunters Association and nine rod and gun clubs in the state.
Sharpe said the 1994 federal wolf reintroduction plans anticipated wolves could hurt big-game populations and could be controlled if elk and deer were suffering.
But Sime pointed out another potential snag. Even if Montana gets permission for greater local control, that could wind up in court too.
"We have to ask if pursuit (of a 10-J exemption) is a wise use of agency resources," Sime said. "Will it get litigated?"
The Blackfoot Challenge linked together ranchers like Rowland, state managers like Sime and federal biologists like Servheen to help humans and wildlife coexist. Its own wildlife manager, Seth Wilson, said the challenge now is to keep that linkage alive while the courts grind on.
"The networks and the trust we've worked very hard to build will survive this," Wilson said. "And whether they're listed or not listed, it doesn't really matter to a bear or wolf. They're going to continue to do what they do."
Reporter Rob Chaney can be reached at 523-5382 or at rchaney@missoulian.com.
Joe Miller wants Alaska to control and develop federal lands
Tea Party-backed Joe Miller, who is threatening to unseat incumbent Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, has a bold vision for Alaska, one that would entail the state taking over federal lands, including Denali National Park and Preserve.
In an interview with Alaska Dispatch, Miller said if elected to the Senate, he will fight for state control of vast swaths of Alaska currently under federal ownership. Promoting resource development on those lands would help Alaska pay its own way and break its dependence on federal money, he said.
On Miller's list of federal lands that the state should control is Denali National Park -- Alaska's equivalent of Yellowstone National Park. Denali, a pristine park with only one road, is home to Mount McKinley -- the nation's tallest peak -- as well as grizzly bears, wolves, Dall sheep and other animals.
"If there's a significant resource in that park that we could get at in a responsible way -- and the state decides it's appropriate to extract it -- let's create jobs from it," said Miller, adding that he moved to Alaska because he loves hunting and fishing and doesn't favor anything that despoils the wilderness.
Miller -- a Gulf War veteran and Yale Law School graduate backed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- has fought his way to a 1,668-vote lead over Murkowski in the GOP Alaska primary, with some 20,000 absentee and questioned ballots to be counted starting Tuesday. Lawyers are now involved, the campaigns are slinging mud at each other, and Alaskans are wondering what a post-Murkowski world might look like.
Before the primary, few political insiders and journalists expected Miller would beat Murkowski, leaving many Alaskans unfamiliar about some of his positions. Like other Tea Party candidates, Miller believes government spending is out of control. Even Alaska -- a state that's depended on the federal government for decades -- must find other ways to support itself, he said.
Take back the land
Oil taxes, fees and royalties fund more than 85 percent of state government. Alaska has no state personal income or sales taxes. Petroleum, fisheries, tourism and the federal government are the big economic engines.
Miller's idea that the state should own most of the land -- not the federal government -- is far from new in Alaska. Business leaders and Republicans have long complained the feds have "locked up" Alaska, including places like the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and parts of the Tongass National Forest. (They don't often cite Denali National Park, though.) But Alaska's congressional delegation has been more successful at tapping federal programs and appropriations to pay for infrastructure, services and projects, often to the criticism of government watchdogs.
Miller adheres to the philosophy that the federal government should oversee national defense and border control, and very little else. Miller, who also holds a master's in economics from the University of Alaska, believes Alaska must end federal paternalism and move toward state control of all lands and encourage aggressive resource development. It's the only option, he said in an interview over the weekend, because the billions of dollars the federal government pours into Alaska won't last forever.
"The ultimate goal has to be state control over the (resource) base," Miller said.
The 'constitutional model'
So how would Miller begin transferring federal lands to the state of Alaska?
One way would be to build a strong coalition at the congressional level that could move the country toward a "constitutional model," as Miller puts it, in which the power of the state overrides the power of the federal government in almost all situations.
But this may happen on its own, too, Miller said.
He believes the federal government is headed toward bankruptcy if spending isn't brought under control. If the federal government runs out of money to maintain lands, it would have no choice but to relinquish control and ownership to the states, Miller said.
"If you look at, for example, Greece, where you had people killed on the streets and riots throughout -- if you don't think that's going to be the same sort of thing that happens in this country, think again," Miller said.
"My hope is it's a pragmatic change that occurs through leadership. But again, we must be prepared as leaders to confront what happens when this nation fiscally goes bankrupt."
Contact Joshua Saul at jsaul(at)alaskadispatch.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
In an interview with Alaska Dispatch, Miller said if elected to the Senate, he will fight for state control of vast swaths of Alaska currently under federal ownership. Promoting resource development on those lands would help Alaska pay its own way and break its dependence on federal money, he said.
On Miller's list of federal lands that the state should control is Denali National Park -- Alaska's equivalent of Yellowstone National Park. Denali, a pristine park with only one road, is home to Mount McKinley -- the nation's tallest peak -- as well as grizzly bears, wolves, Dall sheep and other animals.
"If there's a significant resource in that park that we could get at in a responsible way -- and the state decides it's appropriate to extract it -- let's create jobs from it," said Miller, adding that he moved to Alaska because he loves hunting and fishing and doesn't favor anything that despoils the wilderness.
Miller -- a Gulf War veteran and Yale Law School graduate backed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- has fought his way to a 1,668-vote lead over Murkowski in the GOP Alaska primary, with some 20,000 absentee and questioned ballots to be counted starting Tuesday. Lawyers are now involved, the campaigns are slinging mud at each other, and Alaskans are wondering what a post-Murkowski world might look like.
Before the primary, few political insiders and journalists expected Miller would beat Murkowski, leaving many Alaskans unfamiliar about some of his positions. Like other Tea Party candidates, Miller believes government spending is out of control. Even Alaska -- a state that's depended on the federal government for decades -- must find other ways to support itself, he said.
Take back the land
Oil taxes, fees and royalties fund more than 85 percent of state government. Alaska has no state personal income or sales taxes. Petroleum, fisheries, tourism and the federal government are the big economic engines.
Miller's idea that the state should own most of the land -- not the federal government -- is far from new in Alaska. Business leaders and Republicans have long complained the feds have "locked up" Alaska, including places like the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and parts of the Tongass National Forest. (They don't often cite Denali National Park, though.) But Alaska's congressional delegation has been more successful at tapping federal programs and appropriations to pay for infrastructure, services and projects, often to the criticism of government watchdogs.
Miller adheres to the philosophy that the federal government should oversee national defense and border control, and very little else. Miller, who also holds a master's in economics from the University of Alaska, believes Alaska must end federal paternalism and move toward state control of all lands and encourage aggressive resource development. It's the only option, he said in an interview over the weekend, because the billions of dollars the federal government pours into Alaska won't last forever.
"The ultimate goal has to be state control over the (resource) base," Miller said.
The 'constitutional model'
So how would Miller begin transferring federal lands to the state of Alaska?
One way would be to build a strong coalition at the congressional level that could move the country toward a "constitutional model," as Miller puts it, in which the power of the state overrides the power of the federal government in almost all situations.
But this may happen on its own, too, Miller said.
He believes the federal government is headed toward bankruptcy if spending isn't brought under control. If the federal government runs out of money to maintain lands, it would have no choice but to relinquish control and ownership to the states, Miller said.
"If you look at, for example, Greece, where you had people killed on the streets and riots throughout -- if you don't think that's going to be the same sort of thing that happens in this country, think again," Miller said.
"My hope is it's a pragmatic change that occurs through leadership. But again, we must be prepared as leaders to confront what happens when this nation fiscally goes bankrupt."
Contact Joshua Saul at jsaul(at)alaskadispatch.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Monday, August 23, 2010
'Problem Wolves' Spur Suit
Ranchers and two southern New Mexico counties sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in federal court Friday for changing a policy about capturing cow-killing Mexican wolves without first conducting a study on the change's impact on humans.
The lawsuit says that rules governing the federally-managed wolf reintroduction effort, launched in 1998, provided for the removal of wolves that prey on livestock in the recovery area of southeast Arizona and southwest New Mexico.
But since last year, Fish and Wildlife, in an effort to bolster the population of wild wolves, has stopped adhering to a 2005 standard operating procedure, known as SOP 13, that called for the removal or killing of wolves that preyed on three or more cattle in a one-year period.
The lawsuit says that the rule about removing "problem wolves" is being ignored, and that a change in the policy requires an environmental study on the impact of the change under the National Environmental Policy Act.
"The defendants' efforts to leave problem wolves in both the primary and secondary recovery areas" of Arizona and New Mexico, respectively, "was never part of the original proposed action and was not a practice contemplated or condoned in the ... final rule," the lawsuit says. "It is a 'substantial change' justifying the need to prepare an entirely new (environmental impact statement)."
Officials of the Fish and Wildlife Service could not be reached for comment late Friday.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court by Otero and Catron county commissioners; the Catron County-based group Americans for the Preservation of the Western Environment; the Adobe Ranch and the Beaverhead Ranch, both in the Gila National Forest; the Gila National Forest Livestock Permittees' Association; and Glenwood area rancher Alan Tackman. The plaintiffs are represented by Ruidoso attorney Daniel Bryant.
Bryant and Tackman could not be reached for comment late Friday. Neither could representatives of Catron County or the Gila National Livestock Permittees' Association.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has long been criticized by conservationists for deferring too much to the cattle industry and for not doing enough to grow the population of Mexican wolves in the wild. Ranching groups, particularly in Catron County, have been hostile to the program because wolves have killed cattle, horses and other livestock and frightened some rural residents.
The recovery project has foundered in recent years. Federal officials expected that by the end of 2006, more than 100 wolves would be in the wild, but the count at the end of 2009 was 42, down from 52 the previous year.
The illegal shooting of endangered wolves, a practice that has claimed more than 30 lobos since 1998, has been the "single greatest source of wolf mortality" in the wild population, according to federal officials.
In response to the faltering wild wolf numbers and litigation by conservationists, in May 2009 a multi-agency committee, including members of Fish and Wildlife and the Arizona and New Mexico game and fish departments, approved a "clarification memo" stating they were "authorized and expected" to be flexible in removing cattle-killing wolves.
After that, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Southwest regional director, Benjamin Tuggle, decided several times to leave a wolf in the wild even though it had killed more than three cattle in a year.
Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity said he believes the lawsuit will fail.
"There's nothing in (the recovery project rule) that requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove any particular wolf," Robinson said. "It gives them the authority to do that, as long as it doesn't get in the way of conservation."
The lawsuit says that rules governing the federally-managed wolf reintroduction effort, launched in 1998, provided for the removal of wolves that prey on livestock in the recovery area of southeast Arizona and southwest New Mexico.
But since last year, Fish and Wildlife, in an effort to bolster the population of wild wolves, has stopped adhering to a 2005 standard operating procedure, known as SOP 13, that called for the removal or killing of wolves that preyed on three or more cattle in a one-year period.
The lawsuit says that the rule about removing "problem wolves" is being ignored, and that a change in the policy requires an environmental study on the impact of the change under the National Environmental Policy Act.
"The defendants' efforts to leave problem wolves in both the primary and secondary recovery areas" of Arizona and New Mexico, respectively, "was never part of the original proposed action and was not a practice contemplated or condoned in the ... final rule," the lawsuit says. "It is a 'substantial change' justifying the need to prepare an entirely new (environmental impact statement)."
Officials of the Fish and Wildlife Service could not be reached for comment late Friday.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court by Otero and Catron county commissioners; the Catron County-based group Americans for the Preservation of the Western Environment; the Adobe Ranch and the Beaverhead Ranch, both in the Gila National Forest; the Gila National Forest Livestock Permittees' Association; and Glenwood area rancher Alan Tackman. The plaintiffs are represented by Ruidoso attorney Daniel Bryant.
Bryant and Tackman could not be reached for comment late Friday. Neither could representatives of Catron County or the Gila National Livestock Permittees' Association.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has long been criticized by conservationists for deferring too much to the cattle industry and for not doing enough to grow the population of Mexican wolves in the wild. Ranching groups, particularly in Catron County, have been hostile to the program because wolves have killed cattle, horses and other livestock and frightened some rural residents.
The recovery project has foundered in recent years. Federal officials expected that by the end of 2006, more than 100 wolves would be in the wild, but the count at the end of 2009 was 42, down from 52 the previous year.
The illegal shooting of endangered wolves, a practice that has claimed more than 30 lobos since 1998, has been the "single greatest source of wolf mortality" in the wild population, according to federal officials.
In response to the faltering wild wolf numbers and litigation by conservationists, in May 2009 a multi-agency committee, including members of Fish and Wildlife and the Arizona and New Mexico game and fish departments, approved a "clarification memo" stating they were "authorized and expected" to be flexible in removing cattle-killing wolves.
After that, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Southwest regional director, Benjamin Tuggle, decided several times to leave a wolf in the wild even though it had killed more than three cattle in a year.
Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity said he believes the lawsuit will fail.
"There's nothing in (the recovery project rule) that requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove any particular wolf," Robinson said. "It gives them the authority to do that, as long as it doesn't get in the way of conservation."
Lewistown meeting shows monument opposition mounting
Mistrust of the purported plans by the Interior Department to create a grasslands national monument — possibly with bison — on Montana's open plains was expressed by speaker after speaker at a meeting here Friday.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me," Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg, a Republican, said. "I don't trust 'em."
Interior Department and Bureau of Land Management officials insist that no concrete plans are in place to create new national monuments in the West.
Yeah, right — that was the message Montanans sent at the two-hour panel discussion, which Rehberg convened at the Lewistown Civic Center.
Rehberg said he wants public input on possible plans by the government to preserve lands across the West by creating national monuments, including a 2.5-million-acre grasslands refuge in northeastern Montana. The possibility was discussed in an internal Bureau of Land Management planning paper that has since been made public.
The meeting drew just more than 200 people, who filled the bleachers in the gymnasium. They heard speeches from a panel of county commissioners and people with ranching interests, who said they oppose a monument designation and urged the crowd to get informed — and ready for battle.
"I just hope you stay with us because it's going to be a fight that's worth fighting for," said Mike Ereaux, a rancher and the president of Phillips County Stockgrowers.
Residents, he added, had the right to say no to a monument.
"Not just no, but hell no," he said.
A 21-page "treasured landscape" memorandum drafted by top BLM officials that has turned up in the hands of the Congressional Western Caucus has residents worried about having a monument that they don't want be approved by presidential proclamation without local input.
It's happened before, they said.
President Bill Clinton used the federal Antiquities Act at the 11th hour of his administration to create the Missouri River Breaks National Monument in 2001 by presidential proclamation, a fact that was referred to several times Friday. That monument designation had its supporters, but none were speaking up Friday if they were present.
Use of the Antiquities Act, which allows the president to declare a monument without congressional input, was roundly criticized Friday by residents such as Big Sandy rancher Dana Darlington, who said it needs to be reformed so presidents can't act unilaterally.
Darlington, calling the initiative a "treasured land grab," urged residents to get involved to curb the "sweeping" plan.
"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty," said Darlington, quoting Thomas Jefferson.
An area stretching form the Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area to the Canadian border is mentioned as a possible national monument in the planning document, which states that the northern Montana prairie contains some of the largest unplowed areas of grasslands in the world, as well as some of the best wildlife habitats on the Great Plains. The cross-boundary conservation unit would provide an opportunity to restore prairie wildlife and to establish a new bison range, the document states.
Seven of the eight people on Rehberg's panel spoke against the idea, but Sean Gerrity, president of the American Prairie Foundation, withheld judgment. APF runs a growing private grassland preserve in northeastern Montana, where genetically pure bison roam.
Gerrity said an actual proposal to designate the area as a monument has not been made public, which makes it too soon to form an opinion.
"It seems to me we owe them a fair hearing once a proposal shows up," said Gerrity, noting APF is grateful for the subsidies it receives from the federal government in the form of inexpensive fees to use public land for grazing.
Gerrity said he first heard about the "treasured landscapes" last spring and spent time in Washington, D.C., with other landowners at a meeting in which BLM Director Bob Abbey and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar discussed the idea.
He was peppered with questions by residents about the prairie reserve, including its ties with the World Wildlife Fund, a conservation organization that supports the Montana reserve. WWF has been criticized for its alleged conversations with Interior Department officials about the proposed monuments.
Martha Kauffman, Bozeman-based managing director of the Northern Great Plains Program for WWF, said the group isn't in collusion with government land managers, as some people have suggested.
When the organization heard about the treasured landscape proposal in the spring, it inquired about what it was, then offered suggestions on land in Montana it considers really important, she said.
"I think it's good for people to say what they're concerned about," she said following the meeting. "I would like to encourage people to talk with me and others rather than surmise."
Kauffman told the crowd that Western Montana has received most of the conservation focus in Montana, while the eastern part of the state is overlooked.
"We like it that way," somebody in the crowd shouted.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar downplayed the internal memo when he appeared before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee earlier this year.
"There are no plans that we have to move forward," Salazar said, describing the memo as the result of an informal dialogue among agency employees.
But members of the panel said the details outlined in the document demonstrate that far more than just brainstorming is under way.
Phillips County Commissioner Lesley Robinson said she is worried about the loss of ranching families from the area should the government begin to purchase private land interspersed with BLM land for a monument. The county also depends heavily on natural gas development, which a monument could curtail, she said.
"The impact to Phillips County would be very large," she said.
The county invited BLM Director Abbey to Montana, and Abbey accepted. He is scheduled to speak Sept. 16 at Malta High School, Robinson said.
Robinson, expressing concern that environmental groups had a hand in the planning of the treasured landscapes, said any proposal should be locally generated.
Blaine County Commissioner Art Kleinjan said a monument might be a good idea to protect an object such as Pompey's Pillar — the famous sandstone butte signed by explorer William Clark. However, a monument designation is a farce for the vast rolling hills and rivers of northeastern Montana, which ranchers and farmers have preserved for generations, Kleinjan said.
"We kept this country the way it is, and there's no reason you need a monument to keep it beautiful," he said.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me," Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg, a Republican, said. "I don't trust 'em."
Interior Department and Bureau of Land Management officials insist that no concrete plans are in place to create new national monuments in the West.
Yeah, right — that was the message Montanans sent at the two-hour panel discussion, which Rehberg convened at the Lewistown Civic Center.
Rehberg said he wants public input on possible plans by the government to preserve lands across the West by creating national monuments, including a 2.5-million-acre grasslands refuge in northeastern Montana. The possibility was discussed in an internal Bureau of Land Management planning paper that has since been made public.
The meeting drew just more than 200 people, who filled the bleachers in the gymnasium. They heard speeches from a panel of county commissioners and people with ranching interests, who said they oppose a monument designation and urged the crowd to get informed — and ready for battle.
"I just hope you stay with us because it's going to be a fight that's worth fighting for," said Mike Ereaux, a rancher and the president of Phillips County Stockgrowers.
Residents, he added, had the right to say no to a monument.
"Not just no, but hell no," he said.
A 21-page "treasured landscape" memorandum drafted by top BLM officials that has turned up in the hands of the Congressional Western Caucus has residents worried about having a monument that they don't want be approved by presidential proclamation without local input.
It's happened before, they said.
President Bill Clinton used the federal Antiquities Act at the 11th hour of his administration to create the Missouri River Breaks National Monument in 2001 by presidential proclamation, a fact that was referred to several times Friday. That monument designation had its supporters, but none were speaking up Friday if they were present.
Use of the Antiquities Act, which allows the president to declare a monument without congressional input, was roundly criticized Friday by residents such as Big Sandy rancher Dana Darlington, who said it needs to be reformed so presidents can't act unilaterally.
Darlington, calling the initiative a "treasured land grab," urged residents to get involved to curb the "sweeping" plan.
"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty," said Darlington, quoting Thomas Jefferson.
An area stretching form the Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area to the Canadian border is mentioned as a possible national monument in the planning document, which states that the northern Montana prairie contains some of the largest unplowed areas of grasslands in the world, as well as some of the best wildlife habitats on the Great Plains. The cross-boundary conservation unit would provide an opportunity to restore prairie wildlife and to establish a new bison range, the document states.
Seven of the eight people on Rehberg's panel spoke against the idea, but Sean Gerrity, president of the American Prairie Foundation, withheld judgment. APF runs a growing private grassland preserve in northeastern Montana, where genetically pure bison roam.
Gerrity said an actual proposal to designate the area as a monument has not been made public, which makes it too soon to form an opinion.
"It seems to me we owe them a fair hearing once a proposal shows up," said Gerrity, noting APF is grateful for the subsidies it receives from the federal government in the form of inexpensive fees to use public land for grazing.
Gerrity said he first heard about the "treasured landscapes" last spring and spent time in Washington, D.C., with other landowners at a meeting in which BLM Director Bob Abbey and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar discussed the idea.
He was peppered with questions by residents about the prairie reserve, including its ties with the World Wildlife Fund, a conservation organization that supports the Montana reserve. WWF has been criticized for its alleged conversations with Interior Department officials about the proposed monuments.
Martha Kauffman, Bozeman-based managing director of the Northern Great Plains Program for WWF, said the group isn't in collusion with government land managers, as some people have suggested.
When the organization heard about the treasured landscape proposal in the spring, it inquired about what it was, then offered suggestions on land in Montana it considers really important, she said.
"I think it's good for people to say what they're concerned about," she said following the meeting. "I would like to encourage people to talk with me and others rather than surmise."
Kauffman told the crowd that Western Montana has received most of the conservation focus in Montana, while the eastern part of the state is overlooked.
"We like it that way," somebody in the crowd shouted.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar downplayed the internal memo when he appeared before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee earlier this year.
"There are no plans that we have to move forward," Salazar said, describing the memo as the result of an informal dialogue among agency employees.
But members of the panel said the details outlined in the document demonstrate that far more than just brainstorming is under way.
Phillips County Commissioner Lesley Robinson said she is worried about the loss of ranching families from the area should the government begin to purchase private land interspersed with BLM land for a monument. The county also depends heavily on natural gas development, which a monument could curtail, she said.
"The impact to Phillips County would be very large," she said.
The county invited BLM Director Abbey to Montana, and Abbey accepted. He is scheduled to speak Sept. 16 at Malta High School, Robinson said.
Robinson, expressing concern that environmental groups had a hand in the planning of the treasured landscapes, said any proposal should be locally generated.
Blaine County Commissioner Art Kleinjan said a monument might be a good idea to protect an object such as Pompey's Pillar — the famous sandstone butte signed by explorer William Clark. However, a monument designation is a farce for the vast rolling hills and rivers of northeastern Montana, which ranchers and farmers have preserved for generations, Kleinjan said.
"We kept this country the way it is, and there's no reason you need a monument to keep it beautiful," he said.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Group sues over lynx protection in NM
The lynx fall under the Endangered Species Act
Environmentalists are suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the Canadian lynx.
The agency issued a finding in December that the lynx in New Mexico warrants federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, but the agency didn't act immediately because it must finish work on other higher-priority listings.
The environmental group WildEarth Guardians filed a lawsuit this week, saying the animal will likely not receive protection for a decade or more because it has been put at the end of a line of 245 species awaiting listing.
Lynx have been reintroduced in southern Colorado over the past 10 years, and some have wandered into New Mexico.
Although the federal government lists the elusive animals as threatened in Colorado and 13 other states, they have no federal protection in New Mexico.
Environmentalists are suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the Canadian lynx.
The agency issued a finding in December that the lynx in New Mexico warrants federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, but the agency didn't act immediately because it must finish work on other higher-priority listings.
The environmental group WildEarth Guardians filed a lawsuit this week, saying the animal will likely not receive protection for a decade or more because it has been put at the end of a line of 245 species awaiting listing.
Lynx have been reintroduced in southern Colorado over the past 10 years, and some have wandered into New Mexico.
Although the federal government lists the elusive animals as threatened in Colorado and 13 other states, they have no federal protection in New Mexico.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
New Mexico ranchers' use of technology to track wolves debated
Should ranchers have access to the technology that allows humans to track endangered Mexican gray wolves?
One advocacy group says no, given that the number of Mexican wolves living in the wild in the Southwest has dropped from 42 to 39 in recent weeks.
Radio-telemetry receivers used by ranchers to track Mexican wolves in New Mexico and Arizona should be returned to federal wildlife authorities, according to the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, which is worried about illegal killings of the vanishing predator.
"In addition, the government should assume the wolves' radio-collar frequencies have been compromised and should change the frequencies to prevent any tracking of the wolves via privately owned telemetry receivers," wrote Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. Robinson's letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was the center's second effort in a little more than two years to have the equipment returned.
Ranchers, though, say they use the equipment to locate dead cattle, not to hunt wolves.
Finding the location of a collared wolf with the receiver is not an exact science, said Laura Schneberger, who has a ranch on the north edge of New Mexico's Gila National Forest, where Mexican wolves are trying to establish packs. Schneberger, president of the Gila Livestock Growers, said the receivers have been used on her ranch.
"If you are on a ranch with 42 square miles, you're going to need that monitor," Schneberger said. "It will get you in that general area, then you look for buzzards. You use it to make sure the wolves are out of the cows. They (wolves) know you're coming way before you get there and find what they've been eating."
Robinson, who works out of the center's Silver City office, said the receivers can be used to pinpoint the wolves.
"As you get closer the telemetry signals get stronger," he said. "The population is getting gunned down one by one, for the most part."
Reintroduction advocates say the dwindling population means each lost wolf shrinks the gene pool. About 300 Mexican wolves are in captivity, in addition to the 39 in the wild.
Research indicates inbreeding is causing smaller litters and lower survival rates for pups, Robinson said. That could signal the end for a creature that once roamed large areas of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Mexico.
The most pointed argument for retrieving the receivers, advocates say, is the fact that illegal shooting has been the main cause of death for the Mexican gray wolf since its reintroduction in 1998.
A total of 75 wolves have been released, according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife data. Some of those wolves had pups that reached maturity. Thirty-five were shot illegally. Three have been killed since the beginning of June, said Tom Buckley, a Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman. Vehicles hitting wolves accounted for 12 deaths, which was the second-largest category.
Robinson said another 46 wolves, all but three with radio collars, have disappeared. Sometimes batteries die, but in 2009, two animals with collars dropped off the radar between weekly surveys, which suggests they were illegally killed, Robinson said.
Since 1998, only two people have been convicted of illegally shooting a Mexican wolf, Robinson said. Another who admitted to killing a Mexican wolf was not prosecuted.
"Given the high rate of illegal shooting of Mexican wolves, as well as the large number of wolves disappearing under suspicious circumstances, wolf-frequency-programmed receivers should only be in the hands of government employees responsible for protecting and recovering the wolves, and in the hands of scientists studying them," Robinson wrote.
Removing the receivers would take away a tool used by small family ranches that account for 95 percent of the grazing activity in the Gila, Schneberger said. "We've had people go out of business," she said. "Most of them have a very limited number of cattle."
A rancher can legally kill a wolf caught attacking livestock on private property, Buckley said. On public land, which includes the Gila National Forest grazing allotments, they must have a permit. It is not legal to shoot a wolf walking through or near cattle, he said.
Schneberger said no permits have been issued in Arizona or New Mexico, even in cases where ranchers had confirmed wolf kills.
To get a "shoot-on-sight" permit, there must be at least six breeding pairs in the area, Robinson said. That is a rarity, he said, which is why no permits have been issued.
The Fish and Wildlife Service provided the receivers at the beginning of the program "to elicit support" and give ranchers a method of depredation control, Buckley said.
About 11 receivers are in the hands of New Mexico ranchers and three are in Arizona, Buckley said. But the service cannot account for about four receivers loaned out early on, he said.
It may be one person who is misusing the equipment, Buckley said, "although I would acknowledge that even one loss (to poaching) is significant in this small population of wolves."
To get a receiver, ranchers now must fill out a "statement of use and receipt," which warns that dens and rendezvous sites, where wolves create a home base after pups outgrow the den, "are sensitive areas and caution should be used so the animals are not disrupted when it is not necessary to do so."
Buckley said the service is evaluating the policy of lending receivers as it works to revise the original recovery plan, which was written in 1982. A 2001 assessment prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies stated that the revision was "long overdue." Robinson believes the service is wasting time instead of doing what is required by the Endangered Species Act to save the Mexican wolf.
"Even without conclusive, legally actionable evidence that telemetry receivers are being used for illicit ends, we urge you to adopt a wolf-protective stance," Robinson wrote. "This unique subspecies is in significant danger of extinction."
Chris Roberts may be reached at chrisr@elpasotimes.com; 546-6136.
One advocacy group says no, given that the number of Mexican wolves living in the wild in the Southwest has dropped from 42 to 39 in recent weeks.
Radio-telemetry receivers used by ranchers to track Mexican wolves in New Mexico and Arizona should be returned to federal wildlife authorities, according to the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, which is worried about illegal killings of the vanishing predator.
"In addition, the government should assume the wolves' radio-collar frequencies have been compromised and should change the frequencies to prevent any tracking of the wolves via privately owned telemetry receivers," wrote Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. Robinson's letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was the center's second effort in a little more than two years to have the equipment returned.
Ranchers, though, say they use the equipment to locate dead cattle, not to hunt wolves.
Finding the location of a collared wolf with the receiver is not an exact science, said Laura Schneberger, who has a ranch on the north edge of New Mexico's Gila National Forest, where Mexican wolves are trying to establish packs. Schneberger, president of the Gila Livestock Growers, said the receivers have been used on her ranch.
"If you are on a ranch with 42 square miles, you're going to need that monitor," Schneberger said. "It will get you in that general area, then you look for buzzards. You use it to make sure the wolves are out of the cows. They (wolves) know you're coming way before you get there and find what they've been eating."
Robinson, who works out of the center's Silver City office, said the receivers can be used to pinpoint the wolves.
"As you get closer the telemetry signals get stronger," he said. "The population is getting gunned down one by one, for the most part."
Reintroduction advocates say the dwindling population means each lost wolf shrinks the gene pool. About 300 Mexican wolves are in captivity, in addition to the 39 in the wild.
Research indicates inbreeding is causing smaller litters and lower survival rates for pups, Robinson said. That could signal the end for a creature that once roamed large areas of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Mexico.
The most pointed argument for retrieving the receivers, advocates say, is the fact that illegal shooting has been the main cause of death for the Mexican gray wolf since its reintroduction in 1998.
A total of 75 wolves have been released, according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife data. Some of those wolves had pups that reached maturity. Thirty-five were shot illegally. Three have been killed since the beginning of June, said Tom Buckley, a Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman. Vehicles hitting wolves accounted for 12 deaths, which was the second-largest category.
Robinson said another 46 wolves, all but three with radio collars, have disappeared. Sometimes batteries die, but in 2009, two animals with collars dropped off the radar between weekly surveys, which suggests they were illegally killed, Robinson said.
Since 1998, only two people have been convicted of illegally shooting a Mexican wolf, Robinson said. Another who admitted to killing a Mexican wolf was not prosecuted.
"Given the high rate of illegal shooting of Mexican wolves, as well as the large number of wolves disappearing under suspicious circumstances, wolf-frequency-programmed receivers should only be in the hands of government employees responsible for protecting and recovering the wolves, and in the hands of scientists studying them," Robinson wrote.
Removing the receivers would take away a tool used by small family ranches that account for 95 percent of the grazing activity in the Gila, Schneberger said. "We've had people go out of business," she said. "Most of them have a very limited number of cattle."
A rancher can legally kill a wolf caught attacking livestock on private property, Buckley said. On public land, which includes the Gila National Forest grazing allotments, they must have a permit. It is not legal to shoot a wolf walking through or near cattle, he said.
Schneberger said no permits have been issued in Arizona or New Mexico, even in cases where ranchers had confirmed wolf kills.
To get a "shoot-on-sight" permit, there must be at least six breeding pairs in the area, Robinson said. That is a rarity, he said, which is why no permits have been issued.
The Fish and Wildlife Service provided the receivers at the beginning of the program "to elicit support" and give ranchers a method of depredation control, Buckley said.
About 11 receivers are in the hands of New Mexico ranchers and three are in Arizona, Buckley said. But the service cannot account for about four receivers loaned out early on, he said.
It may be one person who is misusing the equipment, Buckley said, "although I would acknowledge that even one loss (to poaching) is significant in this small population of wolves."
To get a receiver, ranchers now must fill out a "statement of use and receipt," which warns that dens and rendezvous sites, where wolves create a home base after pups outgrow the den, "are sensitive areas and caution should be used so the animals are not disrupted when it is not necessary to do so."
Buckley said the service is evaluating the policy of lending receivers as it works to revise the original recovery plan, which was written in 1982. A 2001 assessment prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies stated that the revision was "long overdue." Robinson believes the service is wasting time instead of doing what is required by the Endangered Species Act to save the Mexican wolf.
"Even without conclusive, legally actionable evidence that telemetry receivers are being used for illicit ends, we urge you to adopt a wolf-protective stance," Robinson wrote. "This unique subspecies is in significant danger of extinction."
Chris Roberts may be reached at chrisr@elpasotimes.com; 546-6136.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Cibola National Forest Releases Long-Awaited Mount Taylor Travel Management Environmental Assessment
The Cibola National Forest has released the Draft Environmental Assessment for Travel Management for the Mount Taylor Ranger District. This release starts the official 30 day comment period for the Environmental Assessment (EA) document.
The draft EA proposes some really BIG changes from the current situation. In addition to the elimination of cross country travel, the Proposed Action (Alternative B) would close nearly 350 miles of currently existing road (although some of the closed road would be designated for motorized trail use). Of perhaps even greater impact, Alternative B would also eliminate dispersed camping on all but a 200 foot corridor along a mere 80 miles of roads. By its own admission, this would result in an 85% reduction in the available camping sites that are currently being used by the public. Three of the four alternatives being considered would also completely ban motorized big game retrieval.
The public has 30 days to comment on these issues by submitting letters or emails. The 30 day comment period will end on September 14, 2010. Only those who provide comments during this comment period will be eligible to appeal the final decision.
The purpose of the Travel Management EA is to designate a motorized road and trail system on the Mount Taylor District. Designation will include class of vehicle and time of year for motor vehicle use. The decision will result in the publication of a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). After the MVUM has been released, ALL other motorized travel off the designated system will be prohibited. The full text of the document is on the Mount Taylor Ranger District Travel Management website.
Two Open House public meetings will be held on August 25th and August 26th in Gallup and Grants. This will be an opportunity to meet with the Forest Service and ask questions about the project and the proposed closures. The meeting will begin with a short presentation on the alternatives at 5:00pm, followed by the open house.
Wednesday, Aug. 25th, 5:00pm - 7:00pm Gallup Community Center 410 Bataan Veterans St. Gallup, New Mexico
Thursday, Aug. 26th, 5 :00pm - 7:00pm National Guard Amory 2001 East Santa Fe Ave. Grants, NM
Comments can be submitted by postal mail, email, and fax. Specific instructions and contact information are available here.
For further information, please contact the Travel Management Team Leader for the Mt. Taylor Ranger District, Arnold Wilson at (505) 287-8833 or mt_taylor_travel@fs.fed.us.
The draft EA proposes some really BIG changes from the current situation. In addition to the elimination of cross country travel, the Proposed Action (Alternative B) would close nearly 350 miles of currently existing road (although some of the closed road would be designated for motorized trail use). Of perhaps even greater impact, Alternative B would also eliminate dispersed camping on all but a 200 foot corridor along a mere 80 miles of roads. By its own admission, this would result in an 85% reduction in the available camping sites that are currently being used by the public. Three of the four alternatives being considered would also completely ban motorized big game retrieval.
The public has 30 days to comment on these issues by submitting letters or emails. The 30 day comment period will end on September 14, 2010. Only those who provide comments during this comment period will be eligible to appeal the final decision.
The purpose of the Travel Management EA is to designate a motorized road and trail system on the Mount Taylor District. Designation will include class of vehicle and time of year for motor vehicle use. The decision will result in the publication of a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). After the MVUM has been released, ALL other motorized travel off the designated system will be prohibited. The full text of the document is on the Mount Taylor Ranger District Travel Management website.
Two Open House public meetings will be held on August 25th and August 26th in Gallup and Grants. This will be an opportunity to meet with the Forest Service and ask questions about the project and the proposed closures. The meeting will begin with a short presentation on the alternatives at 5:00pm, followed by the open house.
Wednesday, Aug. 25th, 5:00pm - 7:00pm Gallup Community Center 410 Bataan Veterans St. Gallup, New Mexico
Thursday, Aug. 26th, 5 :00pm - 7:00pm National Guard Amory 2001 East Santa Fe Ave. Grants, NM
Comments can be submitted by postal mail, email, and fax. Specific instructions and contact information are available here.
For further information, please contact the Travel Management Team Leader for the Mt. Taylor Ranger District, Arnold Wilson at (505) 287-8833 or mt_taylor_travel@fs.fed.us.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Activist ‘Green’ Lawyers Billing U.S. Millions in Fraudulent Attorney Fees
by Richard Pollock
Without any oversight, accounting, or transparency, environmental activist groups have surreptitiously received at least $37 million from the federal government for questionable “attorney fees.” The lawsuits they received compensation for had nothing to do with environmental protection or improvement.
The activist groups have generated huge revenue streams via the obscure Equal Access to Justice Act. Congressional sources claim the groups are billing for “cookie cutter” lawsuits — they file the same petitions to multiple agencies on procedural grounds, and under the Act, they file for attorney fees even if they do not win the case. Since 1995, the federal government has neither tracked nor accounted for any of these attorney fee payments.
Nine national environmental activist groups alone have filed more than 3,300 suits, every single one seeking attorney fees. The groups have also charged as much as $650 per hour (a federal statutory cap usually limits attorney fees to $125 per hour).
In well over half of the cases, there was no court judgment in the environmental groups’ favor. In all cases, whether there was any possible environmental benefit from the litigation is highly questionable. Most cases were simply based upon an alleged failure to comply with a deadline or to follow a procedure.
A whistleblower who was employed for 30 years by the U.S. Forest Service told Pajamas Media:
Some organizations have built a business doing this and attacking the agencies on process, and then getting “reimbursed.”
This week a bipartisan group of congressional members introduced legislation to end the secrecy of the payments and force the government to open up the records to show exactly how much has been paid to the groups and the questionable attorney fees. The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah).
Congressional sources have said the disclosure was necessary to determine the extent of fraud and abuse. The $37 million is considered only a fraction of what has been paid out to the activist groups.
“For too long, taxpayers have unwittingly served as the financiers of the environmental litigation industry,” Rep. Bishop, who also is the chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, said.
Rep. Herseth Sandlin remarked: “Simply put, this legislation is about ensuring good and open government.”
“It’s time to shine some light [on the program],” explained Rep. Lummis, who said the groups have created an industry that “supports their ‘stop everything’ agenda.”
The $37 million figure is considered low. It includes less than a dozen groups and only accounts for cases in 19 states and the District of Columbia. There are hundreds of eco-activist groups in the United States.
According to the whistleblower who served in the U.S. Forest Service, environmental activist groups typically file identical lawsuits to multiple agencies on procedural grounds, such as a missed deadline.
The identity of the huge revenue stream was established by the Western Legacy Alliance (“WLA”), along with Wyoming-based attorney Karen Budd-Falen. Western Legacy Alliance was founded in 2008 by ranchers and resource providers who raise beef and lamb on public lands of the West. What they found was astounding.
Examining court records in 19 states and in the District of Columbia, the total amount paid to less than a dozen environmental groups exceeded $37 million. “This is just the tip of the iceberg,” says Budd-Falen. “We believe when the curtain is raised we’ll be talking about radical environmental groups bilking the taxpayer for hundreds of millions of dollars, all allegedly for ‘reimbursement for attorney fees.’ And what is even more maddening is that these groups are claiming that they are protecting the environment with all this litigation when not one dime of this money goes to projects that impact anything on-the-ground related to the environment. It just goes to more litigation to get more attorney fees to file more litigation.”
The whistleblower, speaking anonymously, told Pajamas Media the payments to the activists groups were “quite astronomical.” The former government agent was a line officer in a high-ranking position. That whistleblower added that the filings by the radical groups often were “canned” petitions that contained little research. In this way, environmental groups could pepper government agencies with a flood of lawsuits without much work.
“They will send a myriad of lawsuits across the bow to try to stop a number of projects or programs and then they hopefully will score with one or two,” he said. He saw a lot of the activist lawsuit filings because he had been attached both to the Forest Service’s Washington headquarters and to its field offices. “Then they will send in bills that are quite frankly, quite astronomical compared to the actual work they had to do to file an actual lawsuit. Many of the lawsuits are filed under a lot of canned material, yet the hours and rates that they charge were quite high.”
Here is a sampling of the number of assembly line “lawsuits” filed between 2000 and 2009 that have been painstakingly identified by the Western Legacy Alliance and Budd-Falen. Activist group Western Watersheds Project filed 91 lawsuits in the federal district courts; Forest Guardians (now known as WildEarth Guardians) filed 180 lawsuits; the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed at 409 suits; the Wilderness Society filed 149 lawsuits; the National Wildlife Federation filed 427 lawsuits; and the Sierra Club filed 983 lawsuits. These numbers do not include administrative appeals or notices of intent to sue.
Even local or regional environmental groups have figured out ways to turn on the taxpayer spigot. WLA found the Idaho Conservation League filed 72 lawsuits and the Oregon Natural Desert Association filed 50. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed 88 lawsuits. At last count, just eight local groups in nine Western states have filed nearly 1,600 lawsuits against the federal government.
On the national level, over the last decade nine national environmental groups have filed 3,300 cases against the federal government. As is usual, the vast majority of the cases deal with the alleged procedural failings of federal agencies, not with substance or science.
Said the Forest Service officer: “A lot of times they will sue on process, and not on substance. And substance means what difference does it mean for the resource, or what’s going in on the ground? A lot of times, it will be a process lawsuit and a lot of times the agency either missed something. … The bottom line is many, many times, when you look at the results on the ground, it [the environmental group winning the litigation] would have made very little difference.”
Karen Budd-Falen said that the cases amounted to a ripoff of taxpayers and rewarded radical groups with millions of dollars. “Although those of us involved in protecting property rights and land use in the West were aware that radical groups were getting exorbitant fees simply be filing litigation against the government, we had no idea of the magnitude of the problem.”
Budd-Falen highlighted one case that typifies the gravy train that has flowed to environmental groups. In 2009, the Earthjustice Legal Foundation represented the Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the Vermont Natural Resources Council in a case dealing with the process used by the Forest Service to adopt some regulations. The Earthjustice Legal Foundation filed for attorney fees for that single case that took only one year and three months to complete.
The same suit was filed by the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of other environmental groups. The seven total attorneys who worked on the case billed the federal government $479,242. They charged between $300 to $650 per hour, far above the statuary federal cap of $125. The case was resolved at the district court level and the federal government did not appeal.
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) also files a significant amount of litigation and receives lucrative attorney fees. In Washington State Federal District Court alone, CBD received attorney fees totaling $941,000 for only six cases. In the District of Columbia, it received more than $1 million in fees.
Fourteen groups identified as recipients of the Act’s funding are: the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Forest Guardians, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Western Watersheds Project, Defenders of Wildlife, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, WildEarth, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Oregon Wild, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and Wyoming Outdoor Council.
One of the fourteen groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, called the two Republicans and one Democrat “rabid right-wingers” and said that the charges of abuse was “patently false and patently ridiculous,” according to Bill Snape, senior council for CBD.
Another study from Virginia Tech University discovered similar findings as a result of a comprehensive Freedom of Information Act request to five federal agencies. The Virginia Tech study also revealed that two of the agencies could provide absolutely no data on the Act’s payments.
Environmental organizations are among the most financially prosperous non-profits in the country. The Sierra Club alone in 2007 reported its total worth as $56.6 million. According to 2007 Internal Revenue Service records, the top ten environmental presidents receive as much as a half million dollars a year in annual compensation. Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc reported $492,000 in executive compensation in 2007. The top ten highest grossing environmental executives all received at least $308,000 in compensation.
Environmental activist groups also have been among the most influential in throwing around political money. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, between 2000 and this year activist environmental political action committees have given $3.4 million in campaign contributions to candidates for federal office. About 87% of the money went to Democrats.
Richard Pollock is the Washington, D.C., editor for Pajamas Media and the Washington bureau chief of PJTV.
Without any oversight, accounting, or transparency, environmental activist groups have surreptitiously received at least $37 million from the federal government for questionable “attorney fees.” The lawsuits they received compensation for had nothing to do with environmental protection or improvement.
The activist groups have generated huge revenue streams via the obscure Equal Access to Justice Act. Congressional sources claim the groups are billing for “cookie cutter” lawsuits — they file the same petitions to multiple agencies on procedural grounds, and under the Act, they file for attorney fees even if they do not win the case. Since 1995, the federal government has neither tracked nor accounted for any of these attorney fee payments.
Nine national environmental activist groups alone have filed more than 3,300 suits, every single one seeking attorney fees. The groups have also charged as much as $650 per hour (a federal statutory cap usually limits attorney fees to $125 per hour).
In well over half of the cases, there was no court judgment in the environmental groups’ favor. In all cases, whether there was any possible environmental benefit from the litigation is highly questionable. Most cases were simply based upon an alleged failure to comply with a deadline or to follow a procedure.
A whistleblower who was employed for 30 years by the U.S. Forest Service told Pajamas Media:
Some organizations have built a business doing this and attacking the agencies on process, and then getting “reimbursed.”
This week a bipartisan group of congressional members introduced legislation to end the secrecy of the payments and force the government to open up the records to show exactly how much has been paid to the groups and the questionable attorney fees. The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah).
Congressional sources have said the disclosure was necessary to determine the extent of fraud and abuse. The $37 million is considered only a fraction of what has been paid out to the activist groups.
“For too long, taxpayers have unwittingly served as the financiers of the environmental litigation industry,” Rep. Bishop, who also is the chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, said.
Rep. Herseth Sandlin remarked: “Simply put, this legislation is about ensuring good and open government.”
“It’s time to shine some light [on the program],” explained Rep. Lummis, who said the groups have created an industry that “supports their ‘stop everything’ agenda.”
The $37 million figure is considered low. It includes less than a dozen groups and only accounts for cases in 19 states and the District of Columbia. There are hundreds of eco-activist groups in the United States.
According to the whistleblower who served in the U.S. Forest Service, environmental activist groups typically file identical lawsuits to multiple agencies on procedural grounds, such as a missed deadline.
The identity of the huge revenue stream was established by the Western Legacy Alliance (“WLA”), along with Wyoming-based attorney Karen Budd-Falen. Western Legacy Alliance was founded in 2008 by ranchers and resource providers who raise beef and lamb on public lands of the West. What they found was astounding.
Examining court records in 19 states and in the District of Columbia, the total amount paid to less than a dozen environmental groups exceeded $37 million. “This is just the tip of the iceberg,” says Budd-Falen. “We believe when the curtain is raised we’ll be talking about radical environmental groups bilking the taxpayer for hundreds of millions of dollars, all allegedly for ‘reimbursement for attorney fees.’ And what is even more maddening is that these groups are claiming that they are protecting the environment with all this litigation when not one dime of this money goes to projects that impact anything on-the-ground related to the environment. It just goes to more litigation to get more attorney fees to file more litigation.”
The whistleblower, speaking anonymously, told Pajamas Media the payments to the activists groups were “quite astronomical.” The former government agent was a line officer in a high-ranking position. That whistleblower added that the filings by the radical groups often were “canned” petitions that contained little research. In this way, environmental groups could pepper government agencies with a flood of lawsuits without much work.
“They will send a myriad of lawsuits across the bow to try to stop a number of projects or programs and then they hopefully will score with one or two,” he said. He saw a lot of the activist lawsuit filings because he had been attached both to the Forest Service’s Washington headquarters and to its field offices. “Then they will send in bills that are quite frankly, quite astronomical compared to the actual work they had to do to file an actual lawsuit. Many of the lawsuits are filed under a lot of canned material, yet the hours and rates that they charge were quite high.”
Here is a sampling of the number of assembly line “lawsuits” filed between 2000 and 2009 that have been painstakingly identified by the Western Legacy Alliance and Budd-Falen. Activist group Western Watersheds Project filed 91 lawsuits in the federal district courts; Forest Guardians (now known as WildEarth Guardians) filed 180 lawsuits; the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed at 409 suits; the Wilderness Society filed 149 lawsuits; the National Wildlife Federation filed 427 lawsuits; and the Sierra Club filed 983 lawsuits. These numbers do not include administrative appeals or notices of intent to sue.
Even local or regional environmental groups have figured out ways to turn on the taxpayer spigot. WLA found the Idaho Conservation League filed 72 lawsuits and the Oregon Natural Desert Association filed 50. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed 88 lawsuits. At last count, just eight local groups in nine Western states have filed nearly 1,600 lawsuits against the federal government.
On the national level, over the last decade nine national environmental groups have filed 3,300 cases against the federal government. As is usual, the vast majority of the cases deal with the alleged procedural failings of federal agencies, not with substance or science.
Said the Forest Service officer: “A lot of times they will sue on process, and not on substance. And substance means what difference does it mean for the resource, or what’s going in on the ground? A lot of times, it will be a process lawsuit and a lot of times the agency either missed something. … The bottom line is many, many times, when you look at the results on the ground, it [the environmental group winning the litigation] would have made very little difference.”
Karen Budd-Falen said that the cases amounted to a ripoff of taxpayers and rewarded radical groups with millions of dollars. “Although those of us involved in protecting property rights and land use in the West were aware that radical groups were getting exorbitant fees simply be filing litigation against the government, we had no idea of the magnitude of the problem.”
Budd-Falen highlighted one case that typifies the gravy train that has flowed to environmental groups. In 2009, the Earthjustice Legal Foundation represented the Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the Vermont Natural Resources Council in a case dealing with the process used by the Forest Service to adopt some regulations. The Earthjustice Legal Foundation filed for attorney fees for that single case that took only one year and three months to complete.
The same suit was filed by the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of other environmental groups. The seven total attorneys who worked on the case billed the federal government $479,242. They charged between $300 to $650 per hour, far above the statuary federal cap of $125. The case was resolved at the district court level and the federal government did not appeal.
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) also files a significant amount of litigation and receives lucrative attorney fees. In Washington State Federal District Court alone, CBD received attorney fees totaling $941,000 for only six cases. In the District of Columbia, it received more than $1 million in fees.
Fourteen groups identified as recipients of the Act’s funding are: the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Forest Guardians, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Western Watersheds Project, Defenders of Wildlife, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, WildEarth, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Oregon Wild, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and Wyoming Outdoor Council.
One of the fourteen groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, called the two Republicans and one Democrat “rabid right-wingers” and said that the charges of abuse was “patently false and patently ridiculous,” according to Bill Snape, senior council for CBD.
Another study from Virginia Tech University discovered similar findings as a result of a comprehensive Freedom of Information Act request to five federal agencies. The Virginia Tech study also revealed that two of the agencies could provide absolutely no data on the Act’s payments.
Environmental organizations are among the most financially prosperous non-profits in the country. The Sierra Club alone in 2007 reported its total worth as $56.6 million. According to 2007 Internal Revenue Service records, the top ten environmental presidents receive as much as a half million dollars a year in annual compensation. Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc reported $492,000 in executive compensation in 2007. The top ten highest grossing environmental executives all received at least $308,000 in compensation.
Environmental activist groups also have been among the most influential in throwing around political money. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, between 2000 and this year activist environmental political action committees have given $3.4 million in campaign contributions to candidates for federal office. About 87% of the money went to Democrats.
Richard Pollock is the Washington, D.C., editor for Pajamas Media and the Washington bureau chief of PJTV.
Ranchers, Feds Debate Proposal
A turf battle is brewing between Rio Arriba County and the federal Forest Service over a proposal that could change the rules governing travel in the Santa Fe National Forest.
County officials and residents squared off against Forest Service representatives at an Aug. 5 meeting in Abiquiú over a Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement that contains five options for the future management of travel in the Forest, several of which could limit access to Forest roads and land.
The Forest covers 1.6 million acres in Rio Arriba, Taos, Santa Fe and Sandoval Counties. Under current management, 443,848 acres are open to cross-country off-road travel. There are 5,119 miles of roads currently in use.
County Commissioner Felipe Martinez questioned Forest Service officials over the plans’ potential for eliminating what the County considers protected roads.
*
“Does any of your alternatives consider closing traditional right-of-ways and historical trails?” Martinez said. “Do you propose to obliterate any that may fall under (Revised Statute) 2477?”
That 1866 federal statute states ”the right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public purposes, is hereby granted.”
The County Commission adopted a resolution in 2002 which opposed the “closure of roads under County jurisdiction or any other right-of-ways in Rio Arriba by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management until all (Revised Statute) 2477 right-of-ways be verified and documented.”
The resolution also states “no federal agency has the authority to close a (Revised Statute) 2477 road for any reason.”
“It doesn’t obliterate any roads,” Forest Service spokeswoman Cindy Chonacky said. “We need you to identify any and all roads that may fall under that (statute).”
The County has not yet identified all of these roads, but is in the process of doing so, according to County Commission Chairman Alfredo Montoya.
The County has the right to keep open any right-of-way, according to County Assistant Planner Alberto Baros, of Española.
“That’s the mistake these guys are making,” Baros said. “When it concerns the County, we can keep the roads open.”
Northern New Mexico Cattlemen’s Association President Carlos Salazar, of Medanales, grazes cattle in the Forest near Cañones.
“My issue with this land management is you’re going to limit access that we’ve had for centuries,” he said.
Salazar and Martinez argued that traditional uses like cattle grazing and the gathering of firewood may be limited by the alternatives offered in the statement.
Coyote Forest District ranger Francisco Sanchez addressed the concern of those that held grazing permits.
“Permittees will be able to fix fences, round up cattle and use (all-terrain vehicles) to do so,” he said.
Travel Management Interdisciplinary Team Leader Julie Bain confirmed that permittees will be able to care for their cattle under all of the alternatives.
“People who hold permits will still have access,” she said. “It will be written into their permit.”
The meeting attracted 13 people to the Rural Events Center in Abiquiú. Salazar complained the meeting was not well-publicized.
“When I pulled into the lot I saw nothing but government plates, and that means the word didn’t get out,” he said.
Chavez said the meeting schedule had been published in several newspapers, including the SUN.
“Why isn’t the County Commission involved?” Salazar said.
Chavez said he had met with the Commission previously when Lorenzo Valdez was County manager. Valdez left the post in March.
“We have talked to the County,” Sanchez said.
Martinez said he felt it was up to the County Commission to stand up for County residents whose access to traditional uses may be limited by the new plan.
“They look to us for intervention and advocacy so we can be their voice,” he said.
Others at the meeting raised concerns over the use of off-road vehicles.
Veronica Egan, of Mancos, Colo., was representing Great Old Broads for Wilderness, a nonprofit organization.
“Off-road vehicle use has grown so rapidly it’s pushing the boundaries of wilderness,” she said. “There’s a time and a place for everything and (off-roaders) need to mature, get over their extreme gnarliness and learn to play by the rules.”
Bruce Ferguson, of Taos, argued for off-road recreation.
“You have 40 million people retiring soon who are no longer able to hike but still want to use areas they’re familiar with,” he said. “You are closing more and more areas to the only means they have left to see them.”
The meeting was supposed to end with a period of public comment, but most of the attendees had commented earlier, during the period that was supposed to be limited only to questions. A number of attendees sat quietly throughout the meeting and then left.
“I don’t trust these guys,” Salazar said, referring to the Forest Service. “They’re married to environmental groups.”
The meeting was the first of eight open house meetings scheduled during a 45-day period that ends Sept. 30 during which public comment on the draft plan is encouraged.
“We want to hear what people are thinking,” Española District ranger Sandy Hurlocker said. “We don’t have a preferred alternative. Tell us what you think and why you think it.”
The Forest Service plans to make a decision on the plan by the end of the calendar year, followed by the publication of a map showing what roads, trails and areas are legal to drive on, Hurlocker said.
The options currently under consideration were created to address concerns over the effects of unmanaged off-highway vehicles. Some of the detrimental effects of that method of travel are degradation of water quality through erosion and soil compaction, the fragmentation of wildlife habitat, damage to cultural resource sites, spreading of nonnative invasive plants, and compromising the character of wilderness.
The plan will provide a system of roads, trails and areas on National Forest lands specifically designated for motorized use.
County officials and residents squared off against Forest Service representatives at an Aug. 5 meeting in Abiquiú over a Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement that contains five options for the future management of travel in the Forest, several of which could limit access to Forest roads and land.
The Forest covers 1.6 million acres in Rio Arriba, Taos, Santa Fe and Sandoval Counties. Under current management, 443,848 acres are open to cross-country off-road travel. There are 5,119 miles of roads currently in use.
County Commissioner Felipe Martinez questioned Forest Service officials over the plans’ potential for eliminating what the County considers protected roads.
*
“Does any of your alternatives consider closing traditional right-of-ways and historical trails?” Martinez said. “Do you propose to obliterate any that may fall under (Revised Statute) 2477?”
That 1866 federal statute states ”the right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public purposes, is hereby granted.”
The County Commission adopted a resolution in 2002 which opposed the “closure of roads under County jurisdiction or any other right-of-ways in Rio Arriba by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management until all (Revised Statute) 2477 right-of-ways be verified and documented.”
The resolution also states “no federal agency has the authority to close a (Revised Statute) 2477 road for any reason.”
“It doesn’t obliterate any roads,” Forest Service spokeswoman Cindy Chonacky said. “We need you to identify any and all roads that may fall under that (statute).”
The County has not yet identified all of these roads, but is in the process of doing so, according to County Commission Chairman Alfredo Montoya.
The County has the right to keep open any right-of-way, according to County Assistant Planner Alberto Baros, of Española.
“That’s the mistake these guys are making,” Baros said. “When it concerns the County, we can keep the roads open.”
Northern New Mexico Cattlemen’s Association President Carlos Salazar, of Medanales, grazes cattle in the Forest near Cañones.
“My issue with this land management is you’re going to limit access that we’ve had for centuries,” he said.
Salazar and Martinez argued that traditional uses like cattle grazing and the gathering of firewood may be limited by the alternatives offered in the statement.
Coyote Forest District ranger Francisco Sanchez addressed the concern of those that held grazing permits.
“Permittees will be able to fix fences, round up cattle and use (all-terrain vehicles) to do so,” he said.
Travel Management Interdisciplinary Team Leader Julie Bain confirmed that permittees will be able to care for their cattle under all of the alternatives.
“People who hold permits will still have access,” she said. “It will be written into their permit.”
The meeting attracted 13 people to the Rural Events Center in Abiquiú. Salazar complained the meeting was not well-publicized.
“When I pulled into the lot I saw nothing but government plates, and that means the word didn’t get out,” he said.
Chavez said the meeting schedule had been published in several newspapers, including the SUN.
“Why isn’t the County Commission involved?” Salazar said.
Chavez said he had met with the Commission previously when Lorenzo Valdez was County manager. Valdez left the post in March.
“We have talked to the County,” Sanchez said.
Martinez said he felt it was up to the County Commission to stand up for County residents whose access to traditional uses may be limited by the new plan.
“They look to us for intervention and advocacy so we can be their voice,” he said.
Others at the meeting raised concerns over the use of off-road vehicles.
Veronica Egan, of Mancos, Colo., was representing Great Old Broads for Wilderness, a nonprofit organization.
“Off-road vehicle use has grown so rapidly it’s pushing the boundaries of wilderness,” she said. “There’s a time and a place for everything and (off-roaders) need to mature, get over their extreme gnarliness and learn to play by the rules.”
Bruce Ferguson, of Taos, argued for off-road recreation.
“You have 40 million people retiring soon who are no longer able to hike but still want to use areas they’re familiar with,” he said. “You are closing more and more areas to the only means they have left to see them.”
The meeting was supposed to end with a period of public comment, but most of the attendees had commented earlier, during the period that was supposed to be limited only to questions. A number of attendees sat quietly throughout the meeting and then left.
“I don’t trust these guys,” Salazar said, referring to the Forest Service. “They’re married to environmental groups.”
The meeting was the first of eight open house meetings scheduled during a 45-day period that ends Sept. 30 during which public comment on the draft plan is encouraged.
“We want to hear what people are thinking,” Española District ranger Sandy Hurlocker said. “We don’t have a preferred alternative. Tell us what you think and why you think it.”
The Forest Service plans to make a decision on the plan by the end of the calendar year, followed by the publication of a map showing what roads, trails and areas are legal to drive on, Hurlocker said.
The options currently under consideration were created to address concerns over the effects of unmanaged off-highway vehicles. Some of the detrimental effects of that method of travel are degradation of water quality through erosion and soil compaction, the fragmentation of wildlife habitat, damage to cultural resource sites, spreading of nonnative invasive plants, and compromising the character of wilderness.
The plan will provide a system of roads, trails and areas on National Forest lands specifically designated for motorized use.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Wilderness ad campaign stirs lively debate
An advertising campaign by one group supporting the creation of federal wilderness in Do-a Ana County proved to be the elephant in the room Tuesday, at a meeting of the Advertising Federation of Las Cruces.
The campaign and differing stances in the wilderness debate have created a wedge of sorts between two major business groups locally: the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce and the Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces.
Leaders from both groups, as well as other supporters and opponents of the wilderness bill, were present at the monthly Advertising Federation meeting.
Their assignment?
To talk about the advertising and publicity strategies each has used so far to get its message to the public.
It was about 45 minutes into the session before the Hispano Chamber's campaign, which includes an ongoing TV commercial on Comcast Cable, gained the spotlight.
Meeting organizers played the commercial, which urges support for Senate Bill 1689, saying it will conserve the outdoors for future generations. Afterward, wilderness bill critics from the Greater Las Cruces Chamber and People for Preserving Our Western Heritage, a ranchers group opposed to creating wilderness, pressed Hispano Chamber representatives to reveal the source of funding behind the campaign.
The Hispano Chamber declined to answer.
The group is a private nonprofit that's not required to disclose the source of its contributors.
Panelist Nathan Small, wilderness bill advocate and local representative with the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, noted that the opponents and supporters of the wilderness legislation are comprised of a patchwork of groups. By straying into a discussion about who's spending how much on which campaign, "we get off track," he said.
The Hispano Chamber in July said it applied for a grant to fund the campaign.
John Mu-oz, a leader in the Hispano Chamber and local director for Sitel, on Tuesday pointed out that his group has supported the creation of wilderness ever since an initial proposal was put forward by U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., five years ago. Wilderness, he said, promotes quality of life.
"It would be an economic benefit if we kept those lands protected," he said.
But John Hummer, a Greater Las Cruces Chamber representative, said the presence of wilderness is not on the "top 10" list companies look at when deciding to relocate to an area.
The legislation, Senate Bill 1689, would create 241,400 acres of wilderness - considered the highest level of protection in the federal system - and 99,150 acres of national conservation area, which has more flexible land-use rules, in Do-a Ana County.
Officials with the Greater Las Cruces Chamber said they don't have a budget to publicize their stance on wilderness and have relied on interviews with the media and letters to the editor to carry their message.
Jerry Schickedanz, chairman of People for Preserving Our Western Heritage, said his own group has relied on a website and YouTube videos, as well as an email list.
Diana M. Alba can be reached at (575) 541-5443
The campaign and differing stances in the wilderness debate have created a wedge of sorts between two major business groups locally: the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce and the Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces.
Leaders from both groups, as well as other supporters and opponents of the wilderness bill, were present at the monthly Advertising Federation meeting.
Their assignment?
To talk about the advertising and publicity strategies each has used so far to get its message to the public.
It was about 45 minutes into the session before the Hispano Chamber's campaign, which includes an ongoing TV commercial on Comcast Cable, gained the spotlight.
Meeting organizers played the commercial, which urges support for Senate Bill 1689, saying it will conserve the outdoors for future generations. Afterward, wilderness bill critics from the Greater Las Cruces Chamber and People for Preserving Our Western Heritage, a ranchers group opposed to creating wilderness, pressed Hispano Chamber representatives to reveal the source of funding behind the campaign.
The Hispano Chamber declined to answer.
The group is a private nonprofit that's not required to disclose the source of its contributors.
Panelist Nathan Small, wilderness bill advocate and local representative with the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, noted that the opponents and supporters of the wilderness legislation are comprised of a patchwork of groups. By straying into a discussion about who's spending how much on which campaign, "we get off track," he said.
The Hispano Chamber in July said it applied for a grant to fund the campaign.
John Mu-oz, a leader in the Hispano Chamber and local director for Sitel, on Tuesday pointed out that his group has supported the creation of wilderness ever since an initial proposal was put forward by U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., five years ago. Wilderness, he said, promotes quality of life.
"It would be an economic benefit if we kept those lands protected," he said.
But John Hummer, a Greater Las Cruces Chamber representative, said the presence of wilderness is not on the "top 10" list companies look at when deciding to relocate to an area.
The legislation, Senate Bill 1689, would create 241,400 acres of wilderness - considered the highest level of protection in the federal system - and 99,150 acres of national conservation area, which has more flexible land-use rules, in Do-a Ana County.
Officials with the Greater Las Cruces Chamber said they don't have a budget to publicize their stance on wilderness and have relied on interviews with the media and letters to the editor to carry their message.
Jerry Schickedanz, chairman of People for Preserving Our Western Heritage, said his own group has relied on a website and YouTube videos, as well as an email list.
Diana M. Alba can be reached at (575) 541-5443
Interior Releases More of Leaked List of Potential National Monuments
The Interior Department has released the rest of a partially leaked document listing potential sites for new national monuments, but the move did nothing to quell Republican accusations that the Obama administration is plotting to lock up public lands.
House Republicans in February received a leaked copy of pages 15 through 21 of a document that details 14 Western sites potentially eligible for national monuments designation under the Antiquities Act of 1906, a law that allows the president to create new monuments without congressional approval.
The Republicans have been demanding the rest of the document since, which included pushing a "disclosure resolution" through the House Natural Resources Committee in the spring. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) today announced Interior had handed over the first 14 pages of the document to his office in late July.
The newly released pages of the document detail the Bureau of Land Management's goals for expanding its National Landscape Conservation System. The agency considers up to 140 million acres of land -- more than half of the 264 million acres it manages -- as "treasured lands," the document says.
The document calls on the administration to first support legislative efforts for new conservation designations and turn to executive action "should the legislative process not prove fruitful."
"However, the BLM recognizes that public support and acceptance of preservation status is best achieved when the public has an opportunity to participate in a land-use planning or legislative process," the document says.
Such assurances did little to satisfy Bishop, who said the new details support his charges that the Obama administration is planning to block energy development across millions of acres of Western lands.
"Thousands of Westerners whose livelihoods depend upon access to our public lands stand to be affected by these decisions, and yet this document blatantly goes out of its way to exclude their input or participation," Bishop said. "If there was any question about whether or not this administration has declared a war on the West, these new documents are evidence enough."
But Interior officials say the document reflects an initial brainstorming session about which areas may merit more serious consideration.
"Secretary Salazar believes it is important that the Department of the Interior serve as wise steward of the places that matter most to Americans," said department spokeswoman Jordan Montoya. "For that reason, he has asked [Interior's] bureaus to think about what areas might be worth considering for further review for possible special management or congressional designation."
House Republicans in February received a leaked copy of pages 15 through 21 of a document that details 14 Western sites potentially eligible for national monuments designation under the Antiquities Act of 1906, a law that allows the president to create new monuments without congressional approval.
The Republicans have been demanding the rest of the document since, which included pushing a "disclosure resolution" through the House Natural Resources Committee in the spring. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) today announced Interior had handed over the first 14 pages of the document to his office in late July.
The newly released pages of the document detail the Bureau of Land Management's goals for expanding its National Landscape Conservation System. The agency considers up to 140 million acres of land -- more than half of the 264 million acres it manages -- as "treasured lands," the document says.
The document calls on the administration to first support legislative efforts for new conservation designations and turn to executive action "should the legislative process not prove fruitful."
"However, the BLM recognizes that public support and acceptance of preservation status is best achieved when the public has an opportunity to participate in a land-use planning or legislative process," the document says.
Such assurances did little to satisfy Bishop, who said the new details support his charges that the Obama administration is planning to block energy development across millions of acres of Western lands.
"Thousands of Westerners whose livelihoods depend upon access to our public lands stand to be affected by these decisions, and yet this document blatantly goes out of its way to exclude their input or participation," Bishop said. "If there was any question about whether or not this administration has declared a war on the West, these new documents are evidence enough."
But Interior officials say the document reflects an initial brainstorming session about which areas may merit more serious consideration.
"Secretary Salazar believes it is important that the Department of the Interior serve as wise steward of the places that matter most to Americans," said department spokeswoman Jordan Montoya. "For that reason, he has asked [Interior's] bureaus to think about what areas might be worth considering for further review for possible special management or congressional designation."
Monday, August 9, 2010
Pro-ranching group to get $15 million
El Paso Corp. and the Public Lands Council worked out a $15 million deal over the Ruby Pipeline, Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, said Friday, but the arrangement is raising questions.
“It’s just a tentative agreement that will be decided at the Public Lands Council annual membership meeting in September in Pendleton, Ore.,” said the senator, who is Nevada’s voting delegate to the council.
Rhoads said the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is a party to the pact, which calls for El Paso to provide the $15 million over 10 years, with half of the money going into an interest-bearing fund to be used for rangeland improvements, office expenses and research.
He said the pending agreement prohibits use of the fund for litigation, however, there is an alternative. Interest money could be used to pay dues from livestock permittees belonging to the Public Lands Council to free up other money to establish a separate fund for litigation.
“The organization collects about $250,000 a year in dues,” Rhoads said.
The other half of the $15 million may stay with El Paso and be “dibbled out over the years,” he said.
El Paso spokesman Richard Wheatley said via e-mail Friday he didn’t have any comment on the reported agreement.
Ellison talks to governor
Elko County Commissioner John Ellison said after a meeting with Gov. Jim Gibbons Friday the governor planned to talk with El Paso.
“The devil is in the details,” Ellison said, explaining his concern is that the agreement should give ranchers enough latitude to use the $15 million to offset problems Western Watersheds would create.
“We’ll have knots and bumps along the way, but at the end of the day, we’ll get what we need,” he said. “There are nine counties who could be affected by this.”
Counties along the 680-mile Ruby Pipeline route from Wyoming to Oregon aren’t part of the agreement, and they may be looking at their own solutions at a meeting Aug. 12 in Salt Lake City that Elko County Commissioner Demar Dahl said is slated at the Utah State Capitol.
Dahl also said he believes the nine counties should be involved in whatever agreement is worked out between El Paso and the Public Lands Council.
“I think it’s important everybody is involved. The counties are in a strong position,” he said.
Assemblyman John Carpenter, R-Elko, also said the counties should be “main players in the agreement. It seems to me the counties really hold the cards.”
The ranchers are worried about litigation because El Paso earlier signed a $15 million conservation fund agreement with Western Watersheds Project and a $5 million fund with the Oregon Natural Desert Association in exchange for their agreement to drop opposition to the $3 billion pipeline that will extend from Wyoming to Oregon.
Western Watersheds and the Oregon organization stated one of their goals will be to buy grazing permits from willing sellers and retire them. Ranchers are concerned about the impact to their industry.
Rhoads said he still doesn’t feel El Paso has made the company’s position clear on buying grazing allotments and changing the Taylor Grazing Act.
The act doesn’t allow federal agencies to retire grazing permits.
Western Watersheds comments
Western Watersheds Project Executive Director Jon Marvel said Friday that “since the fund will only make purchases from willing sellers, no ranchers will be ‘driven out of business.’ Ranchers can choose to negotiate with the fund, and the fund has already been contacted by at least one interested Nevada rancher.”
Marvel made the statement to Dee Holzel of the Winnemucca-based Silver Pinyon Journal.
“The settlement between WWP and Ruby Pipeline LLC is an innovative and unprecedented cooperative effort to mitigate for negative impacts on sagebrush landscapes caused by a major industrial installation, the Ruby Pipeline,” Marvel said.
He also said cited examples where grazing permits have been retired without a change to the Taylor Grazing Act, including Great Basin National Park near Baker in Nevada; Kanab County, Utah; Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks; and the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in Oregon.
“All of these buyouts of federal grazing permits were from willing sellers and were paid for with privately raised funds like the Sagebrush Habitation Conservation Fund,” Marvel said, referring to the new fund El Paso created for Western Watersheds.
Dahl said Western Watersheds has never had a problem with filing lawsuits, so he wants to see that there is money on the other side to defend against them.
Carpenter agreed.
“It seems to me the counties need funds with no strings attached to fight Western Watersheds,” he said.
Rhoads said the details about the Public Lands Council deal with El Paso were disclosed in a phone conference early Friday involving roughly 40 people, and “there was a lot of criticism and some praise. The leadership thought they got all they could get.”
U.S. Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., hopes ranchers, Elko County officials and El Paso “can come to a satisfactory agreement that will place the ranchers on equal footing,” spokesman Stewart Bybee said Friday. “He is deeply concerned with the prospects of funds provided to Western Watersheds being used to remove Nevada ranchers off of their allotments.”
Western Legacy Alliance
The Western Legacy Alliance wasn’t part of the agreement with the Public Lands Council but met with El Paso representatives earlier Thursday in Salt Lake city, and the alliance has its own solution to offer, according to Jeff Faulkner of Gooding, Idaho, executive director for the alliance.
“We had what we thought was a viable option for users and the counties, as well. We will try to get to the county commissioners meeting and explain to the counties what our plan is. I think they will like it,” Faulkner said.
He said he was surprised when he learned the Public Lands Council and El Paso had an agreement on the table.
Western Legacy Alliance member and TS Ranch manager Dan Gralian said Friday he doesn’t believe the alliance should “condone the fact that El Paso cut a deal with the devil behind our backs,” but he also doesn’t believe the ranchers and public lands users should “accept bribe money from El Paso.”
Gralian said his first reaction upon to the Public Lands Council agreement with El Paso is “shame and embarrassment. It puts us on the same level as WWP.”
Rhoads said the agreement is “almost like accepting dirty money,” but at least the Public Lands Council is doing something. He said the El Paso agreement with Western Watersheds opened the door to financial settlements over protests.
El Paso started work on the pipeline a week ago, after receiving Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval.
“It’s just a tentative agreement that will be decided at the Public Lands Council annual membership meeting in September in Pendleton, Ore.,” said the senator, who is Nevada’s voting delegate to the council.
Rhoads said the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is a party to the pact, which calls for El Paso to provide the $15 million over 10 years, with half of the money going into an interest-bearing fund to be used for rangeland improvements, office expenses and research.
He said the pending agreement prohibits use of the fund for litigation, however, there is an alternative. Interest money could be used to pay dues from livestock permittees belonging to the Public Lands Council to free up other money to establish a separate fund for litigation.
“The organization collects about $250,000 a year in dues,” Rhoads said.
The other half of the $15 million may stay with El Paso and be “dibbled out over the years,” he said.
El Paso spokesman Richard Wheatley said via e-mail Friday he didn’t have any comment on the reported agreement.
Ellison talks to governor
Elko County Commissioner John Ellison said after a meeting with Gov. Jim Gibbons Friday the governor planned to talk with El Paso.
“The devil is in the details,” Ellison said, explaining his concern is that the agreement should give ranchers enough latitude to use the $15 million to offset problems Western Watersheds would create.
“We’ll have knots and bumps along the way, but at the end of the day, we’ll get what we need,” he said. “There are nine counties who could be affected by this.”
Counties along the 680-mile Ruby Pipeline route from Wyoming to Oregon aren’t part of the agreement, and they may be looking at their own solutions at a meeting Aug. 12 in Salt Lake City that Elko County Commissioner Demar Dahl said is slated at the Utah State Capitol.
Dahl also said he believes the nine counties should be involved in whatever agreement is worked out between El Paso and the Public Lands Council.
“I think it’s important everybody is involved. The counties are in a strong position,” he said.
Assemblyman John Carpenter, R-Elko, also said the counties should be “main players in the agreement. It seems to me the counties really hold the cards.”
The ranchers are worried about litigation because El Paso earlier signed a $15 million conservation fund agreement with Western Watersheds Project and a $5 million fund with the Oregon Natural Desert Association in exchange for their agreement to drop opposition to the $3 billion pipeline that will extend from Wyoming to Oregon.
Western Watersheds and the Oregon organization stated one of their goals will be to buy grazing permits from willing sellers and retire them. Ranchers are concerned about the impact to their industry.
Rhoads said he still doesn’t feel El Paso has made the company’s position clear on buying grazing allotments and changing the Taylor Grazing Act.
The act doesn’t allow federal agencies to retire grazing permits.
Western Watersheds comments
Western Watersheds Project Executive Director Jon Marvel said Friday that “since the fund will only make purchases from willing sellers, no ranchers will be ‘driven out of business.’ Ranchers can choose to negotiate with the fund, and the fund has already been contacted by at least one interested Nevada rancher.”
Marvel made the statement to Dee Holzel of the Winnemucca-based Silver Pinyon Journal.
“The settlement between WWP and Ruby Pipeline LLC is an innovative and unprecedented cooperative effort to mitigate for negative impacts on sagebrush landscapes caused by a major industrial installation, the Ruby Pipeline,” Marvel said.
He also said cited examples where grazing permits have been retired without a change to the Taylor Grazing Act, including Great Basin National Park near Baker in Nevada; Kanab County, Utah; Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks; and the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in Oregon.
“All of these buyouts of federal grazing permits were from willing sellers and were paid for with privately raised funds like the Sagebrush Habitation Conservation Fund,” Marvel said, referring to the new fund El Paso created for Western Watersheds.
Dahl said Western Watersheds has never had a problem with filing lawsuits, so he wants to see that there is money on the other side to defend against them.
Carpenter agreed.
“It seems to me the counties need funds with no strings attached to fight Western Watersheds,” he said.
Rhoads said the details about the Public Lands Council deal with El Paso were disclosed in a phone conference early Friday involving roughly 40 people, and “there was a lot of criticism and some praise. The leadership thought they got all they could get.”
U.S. Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., hopes ranchers, Elko County officials and El Paso “can come to a satisfactory agreement that will place the ranchers on equal footing,” spokesman Stewart Bybee said Friday. “He is deeply concerned with the prospects of funds provided to Western Watersheds being used to remove Nevada ranchers off of their allotments.”
Western Legacy Alliance
The Western Legacy Alliance wasn’t part of the agreement with the Public Lands Council but met with El Paso representatives earlier Thursday in Salt Lake city, and the alliance has its own solution to offer, according to Jeff Faulkner of Gooding, Idaho, executive director for the alliance.
“We had what we thought was a viable option for users and the counties, as well. We will try to get to the county commissioners meeting and explain to the counties what our plan is. I think they will like it,” Faulkner said.
He said he was surprised when he learned the Public Lands Council and El Paso had an agreement on the table.
Western Legacy Alliance member and TS Ranch manager Dan Gralian said Friday he doesn’t believe the alliance should “condone the fact that El Paso cut a deal with the devil behind our backs,” but he also doesn’t believe the ranchers and public lands users should “accept bribe money from El Paso.”
Gralian said his first reaction upon to the Public Lands Council agreement with El Paso is “shame and embarrassment. It puts us on the same level as WWP.”
Rhoads said the agreement is “almost like accepting dirty money,” but at least the Public Lands Council is doing something. He said the El Paso agreement with Western Watersheds opened the door to financial settlements over protests.
El Paso started work on the pipeline a week ago, after receiving Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)