One of Colorado’s least-visited canyonlands could become a national monument — but would that lead to overcrowding?

 

Those who love the Dolores River canyonlands agree — the swath of rugged land along Colorado’s western border is one of the state’s last, best wild places.

The tract encompasses staggering red rock cliffs, broad valleys and rolling hills that burst into green in the spring. Cutting through it all is the beloved river, which sometimes dwindles to a trickle.

Nobody wants to see it overrun with tourists and trash, like so many of the West’s wild places.

But disagreements about whether to designate some of the river and its canyonlands as a national monument have driven a caustic rift between the people who love the area. What those protections look like, and who gets to shape them, are at the center of a fiery debate that, in some instances, has sunk to name-calling and declarations of evildoing.

Recreation and conservation organizations want to designate nearly 400,000 acres, or 625 square miles, of the federal lands along the river as a national monument...more

There is also legislation on this issue:

Colorado’s two U.S. senators last year introduced legislation nearly two decades in the making. It would designate a smaller swath of 68,000 acres along the southern Dolores River as a national conservation area and special management area. The area includes the river and its surrounding lands in Montezuma, San Miguel and Dolores counties.

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in December approved the widely supported bill and recommended the full Senate pass it.

Let's look at the setup here.

On the one hand you have legislation where everyone can see the text. Hearings have been held, debate has occurred and a Senate committee has voted in an open and democratic process.

On the other, the enviros did not get what they wanted, so they have turned to the autocratic process. Public hearings are held, but what are they commenting on? What does the grazing language say? We don't know. What about the language on roads, right-of-ways, or hunting? We don't know, and won't know until the president has issued his proclamation.

29 law professors weigh in on Utah's lawsuit to shrink 2 national monuments

 Twenty-nine law professors from around the country have submitted a brief to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, contributing arguments against the state of Utah's lawsuit challenging President Joe Biden's expansion of two national monuments in 2021.

The professors submitted their amicus curiae brief Jan. 16, a legal document offering relevant information or arguments to the court by parties not involved in the litigation. Their briefing says the Antiquities Act of 1906, also known as the National Monument Act, authorizing the president to create national monuments, has proven to be "one of the most important and enduring pieces of public land legislation in U.S. history."

The brief, submitted by Chris Winter from the University of Colorado Law School in Boulder, argues that "the case presents fundamental questions about the administration of the Antiquities Act," and it is out of the scope of the courts to address the arguments presented by the plaintiffs, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, Garfield County and Kane County.

The law professors recommend that the appeals court dismiss the state's lawsuit, arguing it is outside the scope of the courts in this case to conduct an in-depth factual review of the president's actions. It instead must be handled by Congress, they argue...more

This should be of interest to all 

A supreme court decision on this will determine how millions of acres of federal land will be managed. As it now stands, the President may set aside however many acres he wants protected, and he or she is not required to hold a public hearing, consult with local etities or do NEPA-type analysis. Those all come after the desigation, i.e., after the President has determined the size of the monument and what types of management shall be applied. Shou[d livestock grazing occurr? Hunting? Bicyling? All that will be in the proclamation signed by the President. The public will be commenting on how to implement the Presidents plan, not what is in it.

Below are some other articles on this issue, plus links to the Utah suit and the brief from the law professors.

Utah ranchers concerned about BLM plan to manage Grand Staircase monument

It was another day of working cattle at the Sweetwater Ranch in Garfield County, much like the thousands of days before. But lately, things just feel different.

It's enough to worry even a rugged cowboy like Derrel Spencer.

"I am scared. I don't know. We could lose everything. We stand right now to lose up to 4000 AUMs — you're talking $1.2 million for what we would lose," Spencer said.

An AUM is an animal unit month, a measurement used to determine sustainable grazing on pastureland. Spencer runs his cattle on public land in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument using grazing rights he paid for.

However, there's a chance his grazing rights, and those of other ranchers, could be dramatically reduced if a new resource management plan is put into place by the Bureau of Land Management.

\"We are not welfare ranchers. We buy these grazing rights to turn out on these public lands," Spencer said. "You wonder why these ranchers are so passionate and willing to fight over these? Because everything they have, every bit of money, every inheritance, everything they have, every savings is tied up in these. You take that away and it kills us, wipes us out."...MORE

Also see:

Supreme Court bound? Utah files appeal after judge drops national monuments lawsuit

Judge dismisses Utah's national monuments lawsuit; state vows to appeal

Why Utah Gov. Spencer Cox opposes Bears Ears, Grand Canyon monuments

• Poll shows support among Utahns for keeping Bears Ears National Monument at current size

• 
  

The Utah lawsuit is here and the professors brief is here.

Forty-Four Tasty Conservation Recipes One Can Make at Home—If One Lives in the White House

 Andy Kerr

Ecological realities are immutable. While political realities are mutable, the latter don’t change on their own. Fortunately, there are two major paths to change the conservation status of federal public lands: through administrative action and through congressional action. 

Ideally, Congress will enact enough legislation during the remainder of the decade to attain 30x30. An Act of Congress that protects federal public land is as permanent as conservation of land in the United States can get. If properly drafted, an Act of Congress can provide federal land management agencies with a mandate for strong and enduring preservation of biological diversity.

If Congress does not choose to act in this manner, the administration can protect federal public land everywhere but in Alaska. Fortunately, Congress has delegated many powers over the nation’s public lands to either the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture (for the National Forest System), and—in the sole case of proclaiming national monuments—the President.

Twenty-two recipes are offered in Table 1 for administrative action by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the President...

READ ENTIRE POST

For More Information

Kerr, Andy. 2022. Forty-Four Conservation Recipes for 30x30: A Cookbook of 22 Administrative and 22 Legislative Opportunities for Government Action to Protect 30 Percent of US Lands by 2030. The Larch Company, Ashland, OR, and Washington, DC.00000

Biden restores Bears Ears, other monuments cut by Trump

 President Joe Biden on Friday restored two sprawling national monuments in Utah, reversing a decision by President Donald Trump that opened for mining and other development hundreds of thousands of acres of rugged lands sacred to Native Americans and home to ancient cliff dwellings and petroglyphs.

The Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments in southern Utah encompass more than 3.2 million acres — an area nearly the size of Connecticut — and were created by Democratic administrations under a century-old law that allows presidents to protect sites considered historic, geographically or culturally important.

“This may be the easiest thing I’ve ever done so far as president — I mean it,'' a smiling Biden said at a White House ceremony attended by Democratic lawmakers, tribal leaders and environmentalists.

...In a separate action, Biden also restored protections at a marine conservation area off the New England coast that has been used for commercial fishing under an order by Trump. A rules change approved by Trump allowed commercial fishing at the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument in the Atlantic Ocean, a nearly 5,000-square-mile area southeast of Cape Cod. Trump's action was heralded by fishing groups but derided by environmentalists who pushed Biden and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to restore protections against fishing...MORE

My computer is acting up so I will make this quick:

The Republicans had two years, with Trump in the WH and they had majorities in the House and the Senate and they did nothing to amend the Antiquities Act.

By doing nothing, they have endorsed the situation where the President can create monuments of any size and with any management prescriptions, without holding public hearings or considering the environmental and economic impact of his action. One man, complete power over 640 million acres.

They have no standing to criticize Biden for exercising an authority they refused to limit when they had the chance. 

Haaland Sends Recommendation On Utah Monuments, Including Bears Ears, to President

Interior Secretary Deb Haaland has made her recommendation about whether to reverse former President Donald Trump’s decision to downsize two sprawling national monuments in Utah, but details of her decision were not released. The Interior Department gave her report to President Joe Biden on Wednesday, according to a court filing Thursday in a legal battle that began more than three years ago after Trump’s decision. U.S. Department of Justice attorneys mentioned the report as part of a request to have until July 13 to address the judge’s question about whether the legal battle has become a moot point. Interior Department spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz declined to provide any information about the report. Haaland traveled to Utah to visit the monuments in April as she became the latest cabinet official to step into a public lands tug-of-war that has gone on for years. She is the first Indigenous official to get involved in the decision. A string of U.S. officials has heard from advocates for expanding national monuments to protect archaeological and cultural sites, and from opponents who see such moves as federal overreach. Biden asked Haaland to research whether the boundaries of Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante should be restored. Native American tribes supported the creation of Bears Ears by President Barack Obama, but Republican state leaders opposed it. Grand Staircase is older but has long been a point of contention for conservative state leaders who consider both monuments U.S. government overreach. Bears Ears was downsized by 85% and Grand Staircase-Escalante cut by nearly half under the Trump administration...MORE

Secretary Haaland has several options in presenting her recommendations. Tell me which option you believe most likely resembles her recommendation to President Biden:

A.  cutting the boundaries to leave even smaller monuments 

B.  retaining the Trump boundaries with no changes.

C.  restoring the boundaries to their pre-Trump status

D.  restoring the boundaries to their pre-Trump status PLUS adding additional lands to the monuments

Which do you believe it is, A  B  C or D?

'Donument': GOP lawmaker's bill would make Trump's border wall a national monument

A Republican House member has an idea for preventing President Biden from tearing down former President Donald Trump’s border wall. Make it a monument — or rather, a “donument.” Rep. Madison Cawthorn, North Carolina Republican, announced Tuesday that he had introduced the Donument Act last week on the House floor. “This bill would protect the southern border wall built by President Trump by creating a ‘Southern Border Wall National Monument,’” Mr. Cawthorn said on his Twitter account. “This is the first step towards finishing the wall,” he said. In a news release, he noted that the memorial designation would “give[] the monument permanent protection from alteration,” though it was unclear whether such a designation would also prevent the wall from being completed should Mr. Trump or some other wall-friendly Republican win the White House in 2024. The chances of the bill passing in the Democratic-led House are minimal. Nevertheless, Mr. Cawthorn praised the wall segments Mr. Trump was able to build as having “reduced drug and human trafficking, and throttled the flow of illegal immigration.” “If Biden refuses to finish the wall, you can be sure that American patriots will do everything in their power to protect it,” he concluded. Washington Times

The bill number is H.R. 2390, although the text is not available yet.

though it was unclear whether such a designation would also prevent the wall from being completed should Mr. Trump or some other wall-friendly Republican win the White House in 2024. 

There is nothing unclear about it. Presidents of both parties have expanded the boundaries of existing monuments. For instance, Obama, in addition to his 26 new national monuments, added  465.2 million acres to existing monuments.

End the monument where the wall is completed, build another x miles of the wall and designate the new section as an addition.

This bill is a great way to show what a farce many of these national monuments really are, and a fun way to demonstrate the need to revoke or amend the Antiquities Act.

Bears Ears is just the beginning

Long before former President Barack Obama established Bears Ears National Monument — and former President Donald Trump nearly destroyed it — these geographically stunning southern Utah canyons were the setting of countless battles over who belongs to this land and whose history is worth saving. 

In the first weeks, if not days, of his administration, President Joe Biden is expected to restore the boundaries of two national monuments in Utah, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. But tribal leaders say that returning millions of acres should be only the beginning of Biden’s commitment to protect more public lands — and that tribal nations should be leading the charge. It’s more than just the threat of degradation, they say; Indigenous voices are long overdue in public-land management.

While Biden’s nomination of U.S. Rep. Deb Haaland as secretary of the Interior has given Indian Country reasons for hope, tribal leaders and advocates say she should be only one of many Indigenous people working with or inside the new administration. Biden has pledged to work toward protecting 30% of the country’s land and oceans by 2030. Tribal nations and communities have always asserted that their ties to and knowledge of the land should be consulted when land-management decisions are made. That’s a notion likely familiar to Biden.

The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, a group of tribal governments, worked with the Obama administration to create the original boundaries of Bears Ears. The partnership demonstrated an unprecedented reliance on tribal consultation for the federal government. For many Indigenous leaders, it became a blueprint for how to involve tribes in the stewardship of lands that were originally stolen from them but are also important to the country as a whole. 

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

<><><><><><><><><><><>

If the environmental community and others were really concerned these tribal lands were "originally stolen from them", wouldn't returning the goods to the original owner be the logical thing to do? If goods were stolen from you, would you want the authorities to turn the management of your goods over to a third party who would "consult" with you from time to time on the eventual use of the goods? That is essentially what the enviros are trying to sell here. Their way of showing deference to the tribes but keeping the lands in federal hands. If they truly revered these tribes and their historical ties to these lands, they would support returning them to tribal ownership and control.

I respect the views of vice chairman Tenakhongva, but believe he errs in two ways.

He uses the terms kiva and church to describe the importance of these cultural sites:

I try to focus on the relationship. Like a church and the kiva: What is the resemblance? It’s a place of worship. It’s a place of prayer, and it’s a place where community gathers. This is a place where a lot of decisions of culture, hope and recognition of life (are made).”

 It is a significant mistake to establish and attempt to practice any religion on government property. Over time the ability to gather, worship, and pray will be subsumed by other government priorities and either banned or regulated beyond recognition.

Tenakhongva states he would like these lands to be protected by "permanent, formal legislation." There is no such thing. Any law passed can be later amended or completely struck. The closest thing to permanent would be to have those cultural sites transferred to the tribes. And I don't mean held in trust by the feds on behalf of the tribes, but owned by the tribes themselves. Only then would you control your own destiny. 

Biden expected to issue swift reversals on climate

Early action on climate change from President-elect Joe Biden is likely to start with a series of executive orders reversing President Trump’s environmental policies, laying the groundwork for an administration that has vowed to sharply curb emissions. Environmentalists are optimistic about Biden’s climate agenda, particularly given his remarks on the topic both before and after the election. On Saturday, after he surged across the 270 electoral vote threshold, Biden cited “the battle to save the climate” among his top five priorities, calling for the nation to “marshal the forces of science” along with decency, hope and fairness. “The fact that climate has made it into every speech — it’s one of top issues on the transition website — I think that really bodes well for taking the federal agencies and shaking them by their shoulders and turning them into the light,” said Nada Culver, an attorney with the Audubon Society. “And that's exciting because without that commitment it's difficult to move a big bureaucracy forward. There’s a lot to be done. We’ve lost four years when we could have been doing important work,” Culver added. Biden certainly faces a monumental task: The Trump administration has rolled back more than 100 environmental regulations and encouraged deregulation of polluting industries. But his pledge to undo Trump administration rollbacks will likely require lengthy rulemaking of his own, while implementing his ambitious plan for reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 could run up against GOP senators, who appear poised to keep their majority in the Senate. Biden has long said he will join the Paris climate accord on Day One of his presidency, and halting new leases for drilling oil on public land is another item atop his list. From there, he could target a number of Trump orders, including those that greenlit controversial projects like the Keystone XL pipeline and scaled down national monuments. Environmental advocates say reversing Trump’s decision to shrink the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments are some of the quickest actions Biden can take...MORE

To protect nature, bring down the walls of fortress conservation

The crisis signs could not be clearer: fires, floods, droughts, pandemic, species extinction … Earth is screaming with all its might. We need to listen and act.

We must defend the planet’s life support against relentless corporate greed and rediscover humanity as part of the natural world, for current and future generations...

...Business-as-usual backed by polluted politics is the problem. The same destructive systems that are stripping our forests and oceans of life are killing environmental defenders and pushing people into peril. To reset our relationship with nature, we need systemic change to the way we produce and consume food, energy and natural resources.

At every level of governance – from our local community to the UN biodiversity summit – decisions can aid a green and just recovery from crises, build resilience against future epidemics, and allow people and the planet to thrive. As governments collectively agree on next steps for global nature protection, it is clear we need a better plan.

Protecting at least 30 percent of land and oceans by 2030 can be an important component in planetary recovery. It is an ambitious, measurable target. A global safety net preventing further degradation of critical eco-regions is essential and could halve the extinction risk for species...

READ THE ENTIRE OP-ED

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

So why am I posting this environmental gibberish? Because they do get one important thing right. The authors, two employees of Greenpeace, say the 30 percent land set-a-side will only work:

...if failed conservation models are discarded in favour of a global push to recognise customary land and reinforce people’s rights – this is key if countries are to protect biodiversity, fight inequality and attain their climate goals.

While many of the most effective and highly protected ocean sanctuaries have been championed and won by local coastal communities, the 30×30 target for land has been met with deep concern from environmental and human rights groups and activists: Designed without proper consultation and implemented wrongly, protected areas do not deliver protection but make matters worse for people, endangered species, and the planet. The current draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) lacks credible guarantees against such an outcome. Success depends on approaches that both promote justice and protect biodiversity and the GBF must reflect that.

...However, there is a much darker side of conservation that commits human rights violations and outright atrocities in its name. This needs a reckoning as governments set higher targets for protected areas.

So-called “fortress conservation” – which evicts people from land that has been home to Indigenous peoples and local communities for generations – is ethically deeply problematic and has had horrific consequences on the ground. In the Congo Basin and elsewhere, armed eco-guards funded by international donors and organisations have reportedly harassed, abused, raped and murdered local people. These atrocities are not standalone incidents, they are the outcome of a failed conservation model predicated on colonialism that treats marginalised and forest-dependent communities as a threat to wildlife.

This outdated conservation approach must be discarded entirely. It is not a solution to the planetary crisis we are faced with and needs ruling out before governments look for “easy ways” to meet 30×30 targets. This needs to happen fast or there is a very real risk we see a boom in colonial-style conservation that pushes millions of people off their land.

...We will not live in “harmony with nature”, as the Convention on Biological Diversity vision states, if we throw people off their land and make it inaccessible for customary use. 

Well said, and something that needs to be driven home to NM Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich, who have spearheaded recent actions to set aside huge protected areas in Dona Ana County and Northern NM and ignored the concerns of "those who have lived close and long" upon the land and who have passed legislation specifically designed to outlaw customary land use. They are forcing this "outdated conservation approach" of "fortress conservation" upon us with a vengeance. And they have done so to increase the profits of the outdoor industry companies and the corporate-like environmental lobby.  This "darker side of conservation" is being foisted on New Mexico on an almost daily basis, and it is nice to see two members of the environmental community bring this to light.

Ranchers seek more clarity on Canyonlands bill

A bill supported by Malheur County ranchers and others to protect the Owyhee Canyonlands, as well as keep the area open for cattle grazing, is scheduled for hearing in the U.S. Senate on Sept. 16, according to a story filed by Oregon New Service. However that date was not confirmed by Senate staff. The Malheur Community Empowerment of the Owyhee Act is the result of an initiative by the Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition, Malheur County ranchers and supporters, to prevent the designation of more than 2 million aces in the county as a monument in the waning days of the Obama administration. If passed, the bill will designate about 1 million acres as wilderness, free from human development, according to a summary of the proposed bill, and about 1 million would be designated for multiple use. All land covered by the act would be managed to improve health.Members of the coalition organized to develop a plan for management of the region in central and southern Malheur County to protect the natural resources, environment and the local cattle industry to prevent an another attempt for a monument in the future. Sponsor of the bill is U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, who has been working on the bill at the request of the ranchers, and has been mediating the negotiations between the ranchers and proponents of the monument designation. Andy Bentz, secretary of the Stewardship Coalition, said he was unaware of the hearing date, as more work was needed to done in the bill to clarify some the wording. “Ranchers are not comfortable with vagueness,” he said.  LINK

Trump to reopen Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument for fishing

President Trump on Friday announced that he will reopen the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument off the coast of Massachusetts for commercial fishing. The monument, about 130 miles from Cape Cod, Mass., was established in 2016 by then-President Obama to protect deep-sea environments and marine life. It includes several undersea mountains and canyons and is often visited by animals including whales, dolphins, turtles, swordfish, sharks, Atlantic puffins and deep-sea coral. “We’re opening it today. We’re undoing his executive order,” Trump said on Friday, speaking from Bangor, Maine. “We are reopening the Northeast Canyons and the Seamounts Marine Region to commercial fishing.” According to the White House, the president’s proclamation will amend the restrictions put forth in Obama’s executive order, but will not alter the boundaries of the monument...MORE 

You can read the Presidential Proclamation here.
President Trump revised the management section of the Proclamation. The language of interest to us follows:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, hereby proclaim that Proclamation 9496, which established the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, is amended as follows:
(1)  in the section entitled “Prohibited Activities,” by deleting paragraph 6; and
(2)  in the section entitled “Regulated Activities,” by deleting paragraph 5 and by re-designating paragraphs 6 and 7 as paragraphs 5 and 6, respectively.
Furthermore, nothing in paragraph 4 in the section entitled “Prohibited Activities” in Proclamation 9496 shall be deemed to apply to commercial fishing that is carried out in accordance with Magnuson-Stevens and other applicable laws, regulations, and requirements.
Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to revoke, modify, or affect any withdrawal, reservation, or appropriation, other than the one created by Proclamation 9496.
Nothing in this proclamation shall change the management of the areas designated and reserved by Proclamation 9496, except as explicitly provided in this proclamation.

 

President Trump needs to do something similar for livestock grazing in the two Obama-designated national monuments in NM. Here are two excerpts from my previous writings on this issue: 

From August 9, 2017 

 By Proclamation 7373 President Clinton enlarged the Craters Moon monument on November 9, 2000. Here is the grazing language in that proclamation:

 Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the Bureau of Land Management in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the monument administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

Let's compare that with the grazing language in the Proclamation designating the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument:

Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the monument, consistent with the protection of the objects identified above. 

Notice the new clause inserted at the end of the language. Here is what I've previously written about this new language:

 A new phrase has been added to the livestock grazing language in the OMDP Proclamation that makes it the most anti-grazing of any Proclamation where grazing is still allowed. The new language is underlined:

Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the monument, consistent with the protection of the objects identified above.

This “consistency” phrase sets up a two-tiered management system, where other uses (such as wildlife, recreation, science, etc.) are the dominant use and livestock grazing is the subservient use. If a rancher wants to maintain an existing range improvement or continue a current management practice and it is determined to be not consistent, that maintenance or current management practice will be denied or not be allowed. The same would hold true for constructing a new range improvement, as livestock grazing is no longer on an equal footing with other uses.

The environmental community wanted this new language in the Proclamation, as they have not had the success they had hoped for in filing lawsuits against livestock grazing in National Monuments.

Who is responsible for this anti-grazing language? Look no further than Senators Udall and Heinrich. Six months prior to President Obama signing the OMDP Proclamation, they introduced the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act, and therein you will find the “consistency” phrase.

To demonstrate just how anti-grazing the OMDP language is, let’s compare it to a Proclamation signed by President Obama a year later. The Proclamation for the 700,000-acre Basin and Range National Monument in Nevada reads:

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to affect authorizations for livestock grazing, or administration thereof, on Federal lands within the monument. Livestock grazing within the monument shall continue to be governed by laws and regulations other than this proclamation.

The language is clear and precise that the designation does not affect the administration of livestock grazing, and results in livestock grazing being on an equal footing with other uses.

In the New Mexico monument, grazing is subservient to all the other objects to be protected, while in Nevada the monument designation has no affect on grazing.  How can this be?  Where is the “consistency” in that? Why are ranchers in one state treated differently than ranchers in a similar situation in another state? The NM ranchers should not be singled out and discriminated against  and President Trump can remedy this by revising the NM Proclamations accordingly.

 I believe what just happened at Craters Moon is an example of why the enviros wanted the new language inserted. Just read Evolving Presidential Policy toward Livestock Grazing in National Monuments and you will understand their long-standing concerns with grazing in national monuments.

Our fears about the new language were confirmed early on in preparing the management plan for the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument which has consistency language almost identical to ours. There, in the BLM's scoping documents, the first three grazing issues to be resolved were:

What are the potential impacts of livestock grazing on the Monument objects? How can any adverse impacts be avoided or otherwise mitigated?

Should any areas within the Monument be made unavailable for livestock grazing?

Should voluntarily relinquished grazing permits be allocated to other uses?

The new language is having the affect the enviros sought. In the Craters Moon case one wonders what the judge would have ruled and what the BLM's decision would have been had the consistency language been in that Proclamation?
Secretary Zinke and President Trump have a clear choice before them. Either they let the Enviro/Udall/Heinrich anti-grazing language stand, or they do the appropriate thing for the West and the resource by revising the Proclamations to instead have grazing language such as that in the Basin and Range Proclamation. Which will it be?     

And previously, from Feb. 1, 2015

Livestock Grazing in National Monuments - What A Mess

by Frank DuBois

Several days ago I posted that Senators Hatch & Lee of Utah would be introducing the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Grazing Protection Act.

They did, in the interim, introduce an amendment to the Keystone Pipeline legislation then being debated in the Senate.  Here is the language in their amendment:


SA 44. Mr. HATCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2 proposed by Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. RISCH, Mr. LEE, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. DAINES, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. ALEXANDER, and Mrs. CAPITO) to the bill S. 1, to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

    At the appropriate place, insert the following:
   SEC. __. PROTECTION OF EXISTING GRAZING RIGHTS.
    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any rule or regulation of the Bureau of Land Management, within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, in areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management, any grazing of livestock that was established as of September 17, 1996, or the date that is 1 day before the designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in accordance with Presidential Proclamation Number 6920 (whichever is earlier), and any grazing of livestock that has been established since that date, shall be allowed to continue subject to such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices as the Secretary of the Interior considers to be necessary, on the condition that the Secretary shall allow the grazing levels to continue at current levels to the maximum extent practicable.
    (b) Permits.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior may issue new permits (or renew permits) for the grazing of livestock in the areas described in subsection (a).
 
I've highlighted the important language.

Its disturbing to see they are having these problems in this Utah monument, when they have friendlier grazing language than New Mexico has in its two new national monuments.

On Sept. 18, 1996 President Clinton issued Presidential Proclamation 6920 creating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.  The relevant grazing language in that proclamation is:

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to affect existing permits or leases for, or levels of, livestock grazing on Federal lands within the monument; existing grazing uses shall continue to be governed by applicable laws and regulations other than this proclamation.

That's the standard, boiler-plate language for grazing, i.e., the proclamation was to have no impact upon grazing.

Let's move forward to March 25, 2013, when Obama issued a Presidential Proclamation designating the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument with this grazing language: 

Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the monument, consistent with the purposes of this proclamation. 

Notice the language I've highlighted.  This ties grazing directly to the purposes section of the proclamation.  Clinton's says "Nothing in this proclamation" affects grazing, while the Obama proclamation does just the opposite.

Then on May 21, 2014 Obama signed a Presidential Proclamation designating the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument and with the following grazing language:

Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the monument, consistent with the protection of the objects identified above.

Again we see the move from "Nothing in this proclamation" affects grazing to tying grazing directly to provisions in the proclamation. And instead of a generic tie to purposes, the consistency language is for each object identified in the proclamation.

Why the interest in these consistency languages?  Because they are highly discriminatory against livestock grazing, placing it a tier below any of the objects or purposes listed in the proclamations.  If the BLM plans an action to protect an object and there is a conflict with a grazing practice, grazing will be diminished.or eliminated.  If a current ranching practice is determined to be in conflict, it will have to be discontinued.  If a rancher proposes a range improvement project or any other new activity which is determined to be in conflict, it will be disallowed.  This is confirmed now by the BLM's own planning documents.  The Rio Grande Del Norte National Monument's scoping report lists the following as the first three grazing issues to be resolved in the planning process:

What are the potential impacts of livestock grazing on the Monument objects? How can any adverse impacts be avoided or otherwise mitigated?

Should any areas within the Monument be made unavailable for livestock grazing?

Should voluntarily relinquished grazing permits be allocated to other uses?

Under the Clinton language, grazing is on an equal footing with the other uses when management decisions are made.  Under the Obama language, grazing is subservient to the other uses or objects.

No doubt this has been a goal of the environmental community for some time.  I would like to know when the consistency language was first put in a proclamation and did an agency push for the new language or did it come from outside interests? 

We now have one agency, BLM, with at least three different grazing languages in national monuments.  Congress has the authority to fix this.  Its time for some "consistency" of our own.

Cattle could return to Escalante tributaries under new Grand Staircase monument plan

Back in the 1990s, Utah rancher Dell LeFevre was riding his federal grazing allotment along the Escalante River when his horse tripped. Its leg fractured as it collapsed, and the rancher spent the next three hours pinned under the disabled animal until he rescued himself in a flash of inspiration. “It dawned on me when I was in the Army, an old mule guide told me if you pour water in a mule’s ear, they will move,” LeFevre said. He reached for a bottle of warm cola he had with him and emptied it into the ear of his stricken horse, triggering enough motion for the rancher to pull himself free. Walking back toward home, he decided running his cattle along the river had become too much of a hassle. LeFevre would later cut a deal with environmentalists to abandon his allotments along the Escalante and elsewhere in what was then the new Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Under a new management plan, however, some of this land, including Escalante tributaries such as Death Hollow, may soon see the return of bovines after two decades without grazing. In a recent interview from his home in Boulder, the former Garfield County commissioner explained why he agreed to give up his allotments. Federal land managers had gradually narrowed LeFevre’s grazing season; extremists shot 24 of his cows and put sand in his vehicles’ engines; and his livestock operation was the target of countless complaints by monument visitors flocking to the Escalante and its side canyons. “When they took away summer grazing, it grew over, and now you can’t even hike it,” said LeFevre, who at age 80 and undergoing chemotherapy still ranches elsewhere on the monument. “They put so much pressure on me, it wasn’t worth it.” In the late 1990s, he and several other ranchers retired their allotments, totaling about 64,000 acres or less than 4% of the monument, receiving compensation from the Grand Canyon Trust and other conservation funders. The deal won the support of Utah’s governor and wildlife agency and drew plaudits from Gale Norton, a conservative lawyer who served as then-President George W. Bush’s Interior secretary...MORE

A Trump Plan Breaks a Great Deal for Ranchers and Park Lovers

John Leshy

The Trump administration has struck another blow to common-sense management of public lands in the West. Virtually all the spectacular country neighboring the Escalante River in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah will be reopened to cattle grazing, thanks to a new plan for managing the monument released by the Interior Department last month.

The move manages to be both anti-rancher and anti-environment.

Without justification, the Interior Department’s decision upends a landmark deal between ranchers and conservationists that for the past 20 years has allowed the flora and fauna in the remote red rock canyons of the monument to flourish once again. This backward step threatens free-market solutions that have given ranching families across the West the financial flexibility to move to greener pastures.

Under that deal, which had been honored by the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, local ranchers voluntarily relinquished their permits to graze public lands in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars from conservationists.

Over the past few decades, similar deals around the West have sought to resolve conflicts between conservationists and ranchers running livestock on public lands by cooperation rather than confrontation and litigation.

In Nevada’s Great Basin National Park, for instance, ranchers who held public land grazing permits when the land became part of the park in 1986 agreed to relinquish their permits in return for being compensated by the Conservation Fund, a nonprofit conservation group...MORE

John Leshy was the DOI Solicitor in the Carter administration who came up with concept of "non-reserved" federal water rights, which was promptly revoked by William Coldiron, the DOI Solicitor during the Reagan administration.        

BLM cuts livestock grazing in final Grand Staircase plan

The Bureau of Land Management reversed its proposal to return livestock grazing along some 40 miles of the Escalante River, a notion that drew fire from the groups that invested heavily in restoring the fragile desert corridor. With backing from Utah officials, the BLM previously had removed cattle from the river running through the Escalante Canyons portion of the Staircase monument and it has since become a popular hiking destination. Officials with the Interior Department and the BLM on Thursday unveiled the three management plans, one for each monument and a third for the 860,000 acres axed from the Staircase, lands now part of the reconfigured Paria River District. Garfield County commissioners said the new plan fixes “problems” with the original plan, which they maintain made it impossible to develop recreational amenities and ignored the concerns of local officials...MORE

The BLM press release has more info on all three plans.

Trump administration finalizes plans to shrink Bears Ears, Grand Staircase monuments

The Trump administration has finalized plans to dramatically shrink the scope of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments despite an ongoing legal challenge from environmentalists and Native American tribes. Officials said during a call with reporters that the finalized plans were similar to previous proposals but contained some "tweaks," including that cattle will not graze on a large portion the Escalante River. "We are advancing our goal to restore trust and be a good neighbor," said Casey Hammond, the acting assistant secretary for land and minerals management. President Trump in 2017 issued proclamations to shrink the size of both Utah monuments. The administration decided to shrink Bears Ears by 85 percent and Grand Staircase by about half. Hammond told reporters Thursday that Trump's 2017 proclamations "return certain lands to multiple use, removing them from the boundaries of the national monument" but that the new decisions "do not authorize the transfer of any lands out of federal ownership." Critics have expressed concern that the plans for Bears Ears would open certain lands for development. "This president is willing to inflict lasting damage on our country to benefit his industry boosters, and anyone who invests a dollar in drilling or digging in the newly opened areas should be prepared to lose their bet against public opinion and the strength of our legal system,” said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.)...MORE

Heinrich Maneuver: White Sands to become New Mexico's next national park, if federal defense bill passes

White Sands National Monument could become New Mexico's next national park, as the National Defense Authorization Act proceeded through Congress with a conference report, following passage in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. The bill included language to re-designate the national monument as White Sands National Park, and included specifics about a land swap between the National Park Service and the U.S. Department of the Army. The House and Senate must now vote on the conference report before it is sent to the desk of U.S. President Donald Trump to be signed into law. U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) said he expected the item to reach the President's desk by next week. He said the Senate and House versions of the bill were identical, and were supported by both Republicans and Democrats. "We expect that to be successful on both sides based on previous votes and information," Heinrich said. "I really think this will likely be on the President’s desk by next week." About 2,826 acres of land within the monuments current boundaries would be transferred from the Army's management to that of the U.S. Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, per the bill. Another 5,766 acres of "new additions" would also be added to NPS management in White Sands National Park. In exchange, about 3,737 acres of land previously managed by the DOI, would be transferred to the jurisdiction of the DOA...MORE 

About the Heinrich Maneuver, I wrote in April of this year: 

President Trump has signed into law S. 47, the “John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act”, now Public Law No: 116-9. Tucked within this massive, 640-page, 105,634-word bill, you will find Section 1201 containing 3, 338 words that designate 10 Wilderness areas in  Dona Ana County, NM and in Section 1202 there are 820 words designating 2 Wilderness areas in northern NM.

Both of these sections were a result of legislation introduced by members of the NM Congressional Delegation. Were any of these legislative initiatives as stand-alone bills passed by the House of Representatives? No. Were they subject to debate on the Senate floor and passed by the Senate? No. Instead, they were rolled into this huge federal lands package.

If these are such wonderful bills that benefit the public, why are they unable to pass them as stand-alone bills? If they have such broad public support, why are they afraid to subject them to the scrutiny and debate of the regular, traditional legislative process?

What we are witnessing is a particular legislative tactic by Senator Heinrich. He introduces a bill, gets a committee hearing held and sometimes gets the committee to pass the bill. But rather than taking the bill to the Senate floor, he holds back and does nothing until an Omnibus bill of some type comes along, and then attaches his legislation to the larger packet of bills.

Remember the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness legislation? Remember the bill to transfer the Valles Caldera from a public trust to the Park Service? Those were attached to the National Defense Authorization Act in 2014, just like these Wilderness bills were attached to this federal lands package.

Let’s call it the Heinrich maneuver, and I’m confident he will choke us with it again in the future.

And on this particular bill, in October I wrote: 

Rep. Torrez Small says, “It is included in the NDAA because it involves military land."

That ain't necessarily so. Heinrich has used the NDAA to designate the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness in Taos County, to expand the Wheeler Peak Wilderness and to transfer the Valles Caldera from the Forest Service to the National Park Service, no military lands involved. So let's call it what it is - another Heinrich Maneuver.

Heinrich will take whatever legislative vehicle is available to take federal land out of multiple-use status, or take it from a less burdensome management category to a more restrictive management regime. At least this time the legislation has passed both Houses of Congress before going to conference, which is not the typical tactic.

It only takes 275 words in Sec. 2854 of the NDAA to designate the National Park. Sec. 2865 of the NDAA contains 1062 words and provides for the land exchange. It was not necessary to designate a national park in order to effectuate the land exchange. The driving force here is Senator Heinrich using his position on the Senate Armed Services Committee to insert an environmental land-use designation in a national defense bill.