Details

Last Updated on Thursday, 15 October 2009 04:41

Written by Kerin Clark

Sheridan — In an Aug. 31, 2009 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Brimmer upheld the Big Horn National Forest Plan Revision. In the case, Western Watersheds Project (WWP) v. United States Forest Service, et al., WWP’s primary focus alleged the Forest Service failed to consider livestock grazing alternatives in the revised Bighorn National Forest Plan.
    Represented by Attorney Dan Frank, the defendant interveners in the case included the counties of Bighorn, Johnson and Washakie, the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, the Muddy Creek Grazing Association and Joe Foss. Other supporters in this lawsuit were the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts and Guardians of the Range.
    “The counties worked very hard to obtain cooperating agency status to gain the Forest Service’s cooperation in the Bighorn Forest Plan Revision and wanted to ensure the hard work and resources they put into the several-year process encompassed by the Plan Revision would not be undone by the Western Watersheds Project lawsuit,” says Attorney Dan Frank. “The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Muddy Creek Grazing Association and Joe Foss also wanted to protect the counties’ work and protect as much as they could of livestock grazing on the Bighorn National Forest, which seems to be under continual pressure from groups like Western Watersheds Project as well as the Forest Service itself.”
    “The interveners were not confident the Forest Service would protect their interests, so they intervened to protect themselves,” he continues. According to the court decision, WWP asserted the Forest Service failure to consider grazing alternatives was arbitrary and capricious. To support this assertion, WWP had requested the Court look at Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) from different forest plans. The Court upheld the decision denying this request, stating EIS’s from other national forests are unrelated and would provide no useful information.
    Judge Brimmer wrote in his ruling: “To use an EIS piecemeal in the fashion requested by WWP is disingenuous, and the Court refuses to utilize portions of those EIS’s absent the context in which the alternatives were considered.”
    According to the court decision, another assertion by WWP was that since the Forest Service had considered grazing alternatives in the 1985 Bighorn National Forest Plan, then they should have again in 2005. According to the document, the 1985 plan called for an output of 143,000 AUMs each year with a projected annual output of 144,000 AUMs for the years 2000 to 2030.
    In the 31-page ruling Judge Brimmer wrote: “…what the Forest Service did 20 years prior to implementing the Revised Plan is irrelevant to the question of whether the Forest Service complied with NEPA in 2005.”
    “Livestock grazing on the Forest has evolved to be based upon a desired condition, rather than an output of AUMs. By focusing on the desired condition of the Bighorn National Forest, instead of a specific output of AUMs, the Forest Service is better able to determine which areas need additional conservation and which areas can sustain higher levels of grazing,” Brimmer continues.
    The court ruling also affirmed the Forest Service met the “hard look” requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Judge Brimmer wrote: “The Court is convinced sufficient information existed in the administrative record regarding the detrimental and advantageous effects of livestock grazing for the Forest Service to make an informed decision. Simply because WWP may not like the ultimate outcome does not mean that the Forest Service was in violation of the law.”
    “The Forest Service did vigorously defend the Bighorn Forest Plan Revision as did the defendant-interveners and the State of Wyoming through a friend of the court brief,” Frank states. “I am pleased that we were able to show Judge Brimmer the livestock grazing aspect of the Forest Plan Revision was thoroughly analyzed and the alternatives were considered. That is what the law required and the counties and Forest Service met that requirement. Everyone’s efforts paid off.”
    “The counties and users of the forest will still have to hold Forest Service’s feet to the fire to make sure they implement the Plan Revision, but it was nice to be able to cooperate with the Forest Service in beating back the Western Watersheds Project’s challenge,” Frank concludes.
    It is unknown at this time if WWP will appeal this ruling. They have 60 days to make that determination.
    Article by Kerin Clark, courtesy of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation.

Details

Last Updated on Friday, 10 June 2011 10:23

Written by Christy Martinez

May 16 marks the deadline for comments on Forest Service planning regulations, and many national groups have signed onto a draft of an extensive set of comments on the topic.
Jim Magagna of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association says his group will sign onto those comments, and will also submit their own. He says he sees two big issues with the planning regulations.
“The first is the topic of ‘species of viability,’” he says. “That is what the Forest Service, under the current rule, has used to shut down domestic sheep grazing because of interaction with bighorn sheep, and this rule extends that concept from vertebrate species to all species, including plants and insects.”
The second topic relates to a shift away from a multiple use focus.
“This set of rules talks about multiple use on an equal basis with things like climate change, and they also give recreation its own little spot, and nothing is defined in terms of outputs,” says Magagna. “It’s all about protection, with no outputs of grazing or recreation days. Everything is measured in terms of the resource.”
This set of regulations would guide how individual forest plans are developed in the future. Currently the Shoshone Forest is updating their plan under the 1982 planning rule. There were rules released in 1995 and 2002, but both were shut down by the courts, returning rules twice to the 1982 version.
“We tried to get a 90-day extension to the comment period because of its complexity, and because the Forest Service also recently released an independent scientific study of the regulations, but we received a letter denying that extension,” states Magagna.
The Forest Service began a year ago with public scoping meetings throughout the west and a series of meetings held in Washington, D.C. More recently, another round of meetings were held, one of which was in Cheyenne, to give an overview of what was in the regulations.
“The development of the regulations had a lot of public input, but the opportunity to comment on the actual final draft has been more limited,” says Magagna of the reasoning behind requesting the denied comment period extension.
Christy Martinez is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Monday, 17 August 2009 10:24

Written by Jennifer Womack

Casper — Legislation that would designate an additional 24 million acres of wilderness in five states and 1,800 more miles of “wild and scenic” rivers, as well as biological corridors, made its 19th appearance before Congress on May 5.
    According to Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis’ office, “Another less known but equally troubling section of the bill would create new federal reserved water rights that would preclude future development upstream of any Wilderness area created in the legislation. Not only are these federal reserved water right provisions in the bill ripe for numerous lawsuits from impacted states, they are in fact inconsistent with the language of the original Wilderness Act itself.”
    In a hearing before the House Resource Committee’s Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Lummis revealed that the legislation’s sponsor, Carolyn Maloney’s (D-N.Y.) visits to Wyoming had only brought her within a six hour drive of the area of the state her legislation would most greatly impact. While H.R. 980, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act,” called NREPA by its supporters, has nearly 75 co-sponsors, none of them are from areas where the designations would be made.
    According to an Associated Press article following the hearing, the House Natural Resources Committee Chairman said no additional action has been scheduled on the legislation at this time.
    Sublette County Commissioner and Boulder rancher Joel Bousman represented Sublette and Lincoln counties at the hearing. At a meeting in Pinedale just days ago he said a capacity crowd filled the local auditorium in opposition of the H.R. 980.
    “This proposed legislation would seriously change the very custom and culture of our region,” said Bousman. “Existing land management emphasizes multiple use; it provides for a healthy local economy and tax base. We already have an effective land management scheme, but this bill would take away many of our management options by eliminating multiple use.” Among the many numbers Bousman used to counter the legislation he said it would increase the amount of wilderness in his area from 430,000 acres to 1.6 million acres.
    “Because of these human activities, this land in our opinion does not meet wilderness criteria and thus is not eligible for consideration as wilderness,” said Bousman. He said the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) outlines a locally driven process for wilderness designation.
    “This bill usurps the public process by seeking a congressional mandate rather than a well conceived plan at the local level,” said Bousman. He estimated that the economic losses resulting from the legislation could amount to $1.2 billion. “Nothing about this legislation is good for our citizens or our economy.”
    After listing a lengthy list of Wyoming organizations that oppose the legislation, Lummis told the legislation’s sponsors that the bill could very well preclude them from visiting the very areas they’re working to “protect.”
    Among the opponents is the Wilderness Society’s Wyoming chapter. In a late April statement at Pinedale On-line the group’s representative says local land planning made with local support is a better approach.
    Maloney, on the contrary, pitched the legislation as “grassroots” with “local support.” Among the supporters are the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, the Endangered Species Coalition and the Humane Society of the United States. Keeping with popular Congressional phrases Maloney said the legislation would create “green jobs,” stave off climate change and eliminate wasteful spending subsidizing the timber industry.
    “It’s a homegrown, grassroots bill that by necessity had to go elsewhere for a sponsor,” said Maloney.
    Representative Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) said that of the 10,000 pieces of correspondence he’s received on the legislation, very few supported the bill. He said the legislation isn’t even in the best interest of the ecosystem it professes to protect. For the Montanans who utilize the land, he said land conservation is a daily choice.
    “This recycled bill has been reintroduced every Congress for nearly two decades, never once passing the House or Senate,” Lummis said in a prepared statement following the hearing. “Not one member of Congress whose district is impacted by this bill is currently a cosponsor of the legislation. More importantly, I don’t know of one locally elected official, municipality, or even public land manager in Wyoming who has been approached by the sponsors of this legislation to seek their input, discuss the bill’s sweeping impacts, or find ways to work together.”
    Lummis said, “The most basic governing principle upon which our nation was founded is: ‘by the people, for the people.’ The sponsors of H.R. 980 have either forgotten this edict or have simply chosen to ignore it.”
    Jennifer Womack is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Monday, 17 August 2009 07:53

Written by Jennifer Womack

Casper — Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) says legislation that will enhance preservation of the Continental Divide Trail, among others around the United States, is completely voluntary and should not infringe on private property rights.
    Lummis is co-sponsoring the “Complete America’s Great Trails Act” with Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) to protect America’s eight National Scenic Trails, including the Continental Divide Trail that runs through Wyoming.
    “This legislation will ensure one of America’s greatest scenic trails, the Continental Divide Trail, will be protected for future generations,” Lummis said in a prepared statement on the legislation. “The bill will provide voluntary incentives for landowners to complete the trail while protecting their property rights and safeguarding Wyoming rich agricultural heritage.”
    H.R. 1912 would provide landowners with a tax credit to grant conservation easements and public access easements in half-mile corridors of National Scenic Trails.
    “I am proud to work with Wyoming’s agricultural community and private landowners to protect our heritage by encouraging the completion of this important scenic trail corridor,” Lummis added.
    During an April 24 interview with the Roundup Lummis elaborated on the legislation. “The trails bill does not make any federal trails designations, it doesn’t mandate any enhancements of current trail protections. The purpose is to provide incentives to landowners to assist in the completion of the national trails corridors.” She said, “Most importantly, participation is 100 percent voluntary.”
    Asked whether or not the legislation would create additional trespasses for those landowners along the trail, Lummis said she envisions participants designating areas covered by the easement and those that are private property and not open to the public. Access is a stipulation of the easements that would be written with a land trust of the landowner’s choice.
    “There would be no liability,” said Lummis when asked if landowners could be held accountable if someone is injured on the portion of the trail that passes through their private property. “The opportunity to cross the land is not an accepting liability. Even though they’re under the law an invitee, the fact that it has been designated as a federal trail under federal law would prevent the landowner from liability.”
    “It’s all voluntary,” stressed Lummis. “If a landowner decides to voluntarily create an easement under the bill they can help craft the restrictions.” She said each conservation easement is unique and catered to the situation at hand.
    Lummis said she’s also been asked about the legislation’s impact on the development of transmission lines. She said, “There are no public lands affected because easements can only be made on private lands on a voluntary basis. The only way transmission could be affected is if a private landowner is the one who decides a conservation easement is better use of his or her property than a transmission line.” In that regard Lummis said the legislation also serves to enhance private property rights.
    Jennifer Womack is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .