western watersheds project essenger · western watersheds project state and regional offices ......

Western Watersheds Project

Vol. XXII, No. 1 Spring 2015

Working to protect and restore western watersheds and wildlifethrough education, public policy initiatives and legal advocacy.

MESSENGER

♺ Printed on 100% Post Consumer Waste ♺

FISHER VALLEY, UTAH © JONATHAN RATNER/WW

P

Sage-Grouse Protection inCraters of the Moon

WWP Storms PIELC

Wyoming Ranchers Fightfor Water Pollution

A Second Chance for EagleLake Rainbow Trout

www.westernwatersheds.org

Newsletter Spring 2015_ColorNewsletter.qxp 4/21/15 11:13 AM

Advisory Board

Dr. John CarterDebra DonahueMartin Flannes

Dr. Steven HermanDr. Don JohnsonLouise Lasley

Jon MarvelDr. Elizabeth Painter Dr. Tom PringleTodd Shuman

Louise Wagenknecht

Western Watersheds Project State and Regional Offices

Main Office ..........................P.O. Box 1770 • Hailey, ID 83333

(208) 788-2290 • [email protected]

Boise ....................................P.O. Box 2863 • Boise, ID 83701


Arizona .......738 N. 5th Avenue, Suite 200 • Tucson, AZ 85705


California ............................P.O. Box 2364 • Reseda, CA 91337

[email protected]

Wyoming, UT & CO ........P.O. Box 1160 • Pinedale, WY 82941


Montana ..........................P.O. Box 7681 • Missoula, MT 59807


Oregon ..........126 SE Alberta St, Ste 208 • Portland, OR 97211


WWP’s Fax Number is (208) 475-4702

Western Watersheds Project StaffTravis Bruner ..................................................Executive DirectorGreta Anderson ................................................Deputy DirectorKen Cole ..............................................................Idaho DirectorMichael J. Connor ..........................................California DirectorJeremy Greenberg ........................................Operations DirectorJosh Osher ................................................Montana Coordinator

and Public Policy ConsultantJonathan Ratner ................Colorado, Wyoming & Utah DirectorKristin Ruether ....................................................Senior AttorneyPaul Ruprecht ...................................................... Staff AttorneyErik Ryberg ..............................................Arizona Legal CounselLaura Welp ................................................Ecosystems Specialist

Board of DirectorsKelley Weston ....................................................................ChairDr. Ralph Maughan ....................................................Vice ChairDr. Erin Anchustegui ......................................Secretary-TreasurerKaren Klitz ....................................................................DirectorKaren Perry ....................................................................DirectorDr. Bruce Hayse ............................................................DirectorGeorge Wuerthner..........................................................Director

2 Messenger

Table of ContentsSage-Grouse Protection in Craters of theMoon Paul Ruprecht and Kristin Ruether Accounting for grouse on the Big Desert allotment.

Bad Bills Never Die Josh Osher They just get attached to must-pass legislation.

Fighting for Bison Michael Connor An Endangered Species Act listing petition is filed for this iconic species.

A Good Effort on the Agua FriaLaura Welp Steps are taken to protect the fragile desert in Arizona.

WWP Storms PIELC Kristin Ruether The annual environmental law conference where WWP shines.

Catching the BLM Red-HandedGreta Anderson The BLM bungles their way through managing a national monument.

Wyoming Ranchers Fight for WaterPollution Travis Bruner An attempt to shut down WWP’s water qualitymonitoring through a trespass lawsuit and statelegislation.

A Second Chance for Eagle LakeRainbow Trout Michael Connor and Paul Ruprecht Idaho braces itself for the slaughter.

2014 Annual Financial Report

Western Watersheds ProjectMESSENGER4

5

7

10

11

12

13

14

15


Spring 2015 3

WWP extends special thanks to the following supporters, each of whomcontributed $100 or more to our efforts over the last year. This generousassistance helps to preserve and restore habitat for many species.

Anonymous (11)Jeff AbleMilton AdamBob & Fraida AlandSamuel & Eleanor AlberstadtJohn AlcockEmina AlibegovicDr. Erin AnchusteguiGreta Anderson & Steev HiseJohn AndrickMartha ArveyMark & Martha BaileyRanko BalogSteve & Salli BauerDavid BeckerPeter & Carole BeedlowJerry & Lorraine BensonLeo & Rosemary BensonRobert L. Beschta & Charlaine Beschta TrustDoug BeusGary & Molly BeverlyThe Wayne & Betty Bickley Charitable TrustSharla & Ronald BilchikChet BowersJanice BowersGreg & Kathy BoylstonLarry & Gloria BrightBarbara BrowningRoss & Julia BrunerThomas & Betty BudlongNancy A BullKaren ByingtonCarianne CampbellCascabel Working GroupJohn & Nancy Cassidy Family FoundationDolina CawleyTed ChuErica CollinsCommunity Foundation of Jackson HoleCarol ComtarukCharles ConnCox Family FundNick CoxTim CrawfordCross Charitable FoundationRichard CurtisColleen DalyBarbara & Bob DargatzPaul & Marilyn DavisAlexandra Delis AbramsLouis & Kathleen DerschJack DeWittSally Donart

Michele & Lloyd DorseyThe Good Works InstituteSusan & David DrownPony & Mary Ellen DukeE&H Humbly Bumbly FoundationRichard & Debra EasterlyMichael & Linda EngleJonathan EpsteinRichard ErmanRoxanne & Tom FactorDaralene & John FinnellRandy FischerMartin FlannesJerry FlyntTim FordJayne ForemanRobbie & Carole FreundMarlene Fritz & John GriffinKevin & Tina FrostadJerome Fulton & Mary Wills FultonMark GillSusan H GillilandGlad To Be Here Foundation Leslie & Merrill GlustromJohn C GoetzTaylor & Bill GoforthJohn & Vicky GrahamRobert G GreggAlan GregoryCJ GribblePaul GriffinJini & John GriffithAndrew GutmanRalph & Louise HaberfeldSusan & Ken HanawaltLeonard & Carol HarligGinger HarmonAnn HarveyDuke & Sarah HaydukDavid HayesDavid L HaynesBruce HayseNancy Eccles & Homer M Hayward Family FoundationMargaret HechtChris & Ron HeggeTom HeinrichRebekah & Larry HelzelDave HendershotRandy HermannFrederic C. HoffmanVirginia S. & Michael J. Halloran Charitable FundChristopher J. HormelAmber A Jackson

Kenny JacksonJames & Barbara Cimino FoundationKevin JamisonMarilyn JasperDale & Robin JensenTeresa JesionowskiAndrew JohnsonArthur JohnsonEarnest JohnsonLeila JohnsonJim JohnstonJones Family Charitable FoundationRobert & Fay JonesSteve & Cynthia KearnsBruce KeeganLarry KeeneyMichael KenneyRobert KernJerry G & Viesia M KirkBill KlitzKaren Klitz & Ralph AdamsKnobloch Family FoundationRichard KolbrenerMichael KossowDaniel KozarskyRichard H. & Suzanne E. KurthKen & Ginna LagergrenDiana LandisInge-Lise & Jack LaneBarbara LauterbachJill LenhardtDr. Charles A LenknerSteven Leuthold Family FoundationEd LevineCarole J Lewis & Ted WalczakDavid LiebGreg LindDeborah & Peter LipmanLive Oak FoundationRichard & Barbara LounsburyBill & Josephine LoweElise LufkinScott & Lynda MacButchSuzan R. Mackler FundJustin MarceauPam MarcumRon & Cay MarquartAlyson R. MartinPaul MartinJon & Stefanie MarvelRalph & Jackie MaughanNathan Maxon

Cynthia McAfeeJames D. McClureBob McCoyThomas & Patricia McGrathLarry McLaudJoe & Trina McNealMike McQueenWilliam & Carol MealerMark MeltingChris Merker & Diann De RosierSarah MichaelDick B & Linda P MillerSaralaine MilletMalcolm MinasianRebecca MirskyGlenn Monahan & Nancy SchultzDave MooreGreg MooreWilliam MooreChristopher MorrisThe Nalen FoundationChuck NealRay & Merri NeiwertAnn & Kent NelsonMike NemacheckJohn NiehussNosworthy FamilySteve NovakMelissa OdomGil OrdwayNancy OrrThomas OsoskiPeter & Jean OssorioRoberta ParryLeslie PattenNuri & John PierceTom PomeroyJack PrierMike Quigley & Bonnie OlinJoe RatliffRazoo FoundationReverb NationGary RichardsonKathy & Dave RichmondCarlyn RingRichard RingelstetterGeorge RiveraLisa & Stephen RobertsonBill & Sharon RobinsKathy RobinsonFred & Jeanne RoseJudi RoyeSusan RudnickiKristin RuetherJeff & Judy Ruprecht

Paul RuprechtWayne SalvoSangham FoundationPaul & Linda SchuttClee & Mary SealingRobert D. & Marsha SellersThe Shapiro Family Charitable FoundationLeon Shaul & Kathleen JensonT.R. & Emily ShelbyHoward & Roberta SiegelChris & Donna SimmsBarbara SlottB.J. SmithDon SmithSomalwar Family FundWill & Karen SomersColleen SorensenAllan Souligny & Roberta McCollumSperling FoundationJeffrey Steinberg & Sherry Warner-SteinbergNancy StokleyCarl W. & Frann StremmelScott StruthersStuart Sugarman & O'Ann FeldmanWalter H SykesMeredith & Tory TaylorSteve TaylorTerra Nova FoundationThe Riverbend FoundationTroy ThomasMichael ToddTara K TrailsAl TrearseDr. Charles TrostSteve & Amy UnfriedDyrck & Karen Van HyningThe Von Der Heyden Family FoundationLouise & Bob WagenknechtCharlie WalterDean & Susan WarrenWiliam WatermanBill & Kim WegenerF1 Key FoundationKelley Weston & Kathleen DiepenbrockMichael WickesMartin A & Carol L WilkeJennifer WilliamsJohn & Carol WillischGeorge WuerthnerTheresa ZmolaBen Zuckerman


Sage-Grouse Protectionin Craters of the Moon

By Paul Ruprecht and Kristin Ruether A few years ago, following decadesof legal advocacy by WWP and allies,the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)promised to adopt a “new paradigm”for managing sage-grouse. Specifically,the agency issued a report and guidelinesintended to hold the line on protectingsage-grouse until completion of themuch-anticipated amendments to itsland use plans across the range of sage-grouse, expected later this year. Theinterim guidelines provide direction toprotect the unfragmented sagebrushhabitats necessary for sage-grouse. In its guidelines, the BLM committedto evaluate the need for new fences,troughs, and other livestock structures

known to harm sage-grouse. This isimportant because sage-grouse fly low,and collisions with fencing leads to manydeaths. Sage-grouse also innately avoidvertical structures like fence posts becausethey provide perches for predators likeraptors. Water developments attractravens and other predators as well, andground-disturbing construction providesareas for invasive plants like cheatgrassto establish and spread. The BLM guidelines also promisedto manage grazing in a way that improves

sage-grouse habitat and meets seasonalhabitat requirements. This is criticalbecause research has shown that grazingat certain times is more harmful thanothers. Spring grazing is particularlyharmful due to disturbance of nestingfemales and chicks, as is twice-a-yeargrazing (spring and fall), which bothdisturbs chicks early in the year andremoves necessary residual grass coverin the fall. Unfortunately, even good policiesand guidance do nothing to help sage-

Please join us at Western Watersheds Project’s 2015 Board Meeting!

You are cordially invited to the Annual WWP Board and Members Meeting Friday, June 12, 2015 from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM

at the Murie Center in Grand Teton National Park. Lunch will be provided by WWP.

Please join us to learn the latest news about WWP and our plans for the next year!

The Murie Center is located 13 miles north of Jackson, Wyoming. It is a dynamic center wherepeople gather for study, debate and inspiration on behalf of wild nature.

For directions, information about an informal gathering, and details about a presentation byGeorge Wuerthner please visit: www.westernwatersheds.org/boardmeeting

Please RSVP by calling 208-788-2290 or emailing [email protected]

Craters of the Moon National Monument

© BLM http://bit.ly/1EaaqE5

4 Messenger


grouse if not implemented on the ground,and application of these protective meas-ures has been spotty. BLM’s grazingdecisions for the Big Desert Sheep allot-ment are a prime example of agencymanagers choosing not to implementthese protections. The Big Desert Sheep allotment ispartly within the Craters of the MoonNational Monument and Preserve locatednorthwest of American Falls, Idaho.This low-elevation area of the SnakeRiver Plain has proven susceptible towildfires, causing conversion of somesagebrush habitat to annual grasses suchas cheatgrass. BLM authorizes up to40,000 sheep to graze the allotmentevery year in both spring and fall. Sage-grouse populations have been in declinesince the 1950s, and dozens of leks inthe area have disappeared. Clearly, thisis not an area that will continue to supportsage-grouse under status quo managementpractices. What was the BLM’s solution? Moregrazing and more fences. The BLMissued decisions expanding the season

of grazing use on the Big Desert Sheepallotment by 40 days. Now sheep cangraze there earlier in the spring, andlater into the summer—overlappingnearly the entire sage-grouse breedingseason. So much for managing grazingto meet seasonal sage-grouse habitatrequirements! The decisions also authorizeconstruction of 17 miles of new fencing

in priority sage-grouse habitat—withinclose proximity to active sage-grouseleks—and approve construction of acorral, a well, pipelines, and troughs. Somuch for the “new paradigm.” Unwavering in its defense of Greatersage-grouse, Western Watersheds Projectfiled suit in the District of Idaho federalcourt this February to challenge theBLM’s grazing decisions for the BigDesert Sheep allotment. WWP explainedthat the decisions are inconsistent withBLM guidelines and obligations to protectsage-grouse and its habitat, and that theBLM failed to consider the implicationsof the expanded grazing and range devel-opments on sage-grouse. BLM actions in this beautiful cornerof Craters of the Moon NationalMonument show that the current guide-lines and policies are not adequate. Ifthe BLM is serious about saving sage-grouse, the forthcoming land managementplan amendments need to contain firmparameters protecting sage-grouse includ-ing, limits on new infrastructure, andprovisions for immediate enforceability.

Kristin Ruether is WWP’s Senior Attorney.She lives in Boise, ID.

Paul Ruprecht is WWP’s Staff Attorney.He lives in Portland, OR.

Spring 2015 5

Craters of the Moon National Monument

© BLM http://bit.ly/1EaaOCt

Craters of the MoonNational Monument

Big Desert Allotment

Big Desert Allotment and Craters of the Moon National Monument

© KEN COLE/WW

P


Bad Bills Never DieBy Josh Osher

For over a decade,the United States ForestService (USFS) and theBureau of LandManagement (BLM)have been attachingCongressional riders

to appropriations bills to shirk respon-sibilities under federal law. This loopholeallows agencies to forgo environmentalanalyses when renewing federal publiclands grazing permits. The riders were purportedly enactedto address the agencies’ backlog in com-pleting environmental reviews prior tograzing permit expiration and allow fora temporary delay in permit processing.However, it has become the practice ofthe agencies to use the rider on a regularbasis, particularly for allotments whereconditions are the worst and reductionsin grazing would be required to complywith federal law. This insidious practice

has led to the rubber stamp renewal ofthousands of grazing permits withoutany public involvement and often timeswithout even investigating the conditionson the ground. Over the years, WWP has docu-mented the significant impact livestockgrazing has on wildlife and sensitiveecosystems throughout the AmericanWest including these permits that get afree pass from public scrutiny and envi-ronmental analysis. We have successfullychallenged many of these permit renewalsbased on violations of the EndangeredSpecies Act and other landmark envi-ronmental laws. However, the systematicuse of these permit renewal riders hasmade our task much more difficult andallowed the agencies to ignore many ofthe problems caused by livestock. Furthermore, the livestock lobbyhas been pressuring senators and rep-resentatives in western states to makethese riders permanent and to provideadditional cover from public scrutiny.The so-called Grazing “Improvement”

Act (GIA) sponsored by WyomingSenator John Barrasso and IdahoRepresentative Raul Labrador reads likea wishlist for the livestock lobby. Whilethe bill managed to make it through theSenate Energy and Natural ResourcesCommittee, it had little chance of passingas stand-alone legislation. However, asis often the case, rather than shelve anunpopular bill or allow it to be amended,portions of the GIA were included in11th hour, must-pass legislation. In thiscase, the rider was included as part ofthe public lands package attached to theNational Defense Authorization Actwhich became law in December of 2014. This new language not only makesthe rider a permanent fixture allowingthe agencies to continue sidesteppingthe public, but also allows them to avoidtheir responsibility to manage for thehealth of public lands by completelywaiving the requirement to prepare envi-ronmental reviews for the majority ofgrazing permit renewals. These categoricalexclusions even apply to permits in

6 Messenger

US Capitol Building

© L’ENNUI D’ENNUI http://bit.ly/1IyNxIo


Spring 2015 7

habitat for imperiled species such assage-grouse and endangered fish, wildlifeand plants. It is not clear how all this will affectWWP’s site-specific work in the longrun. The categorical exclusions have yetto be clearly defined and the agenciesare still relying on the existing riders torenew permits. Our success in challengingagency decisions to renew grazing permitslikely has a lot to do with these newlaws. Rather than address the damageto our public lands caused by subsidizedlivestock grazing that violates federalenvironmental laws, the livestock lobbyhas provided federal agencies with mech-anisms to avoid public scrutiny and tocontinue to allow livestock to degradepublic lands. WWP will challenge thesenew laws and seek to find ways to holdthe federal agencies accountable in orderto end the subsidized destruction ofour western public lands.

Josh Osher is WWP’s MontanaCoordinator and Public Policy Consultant.

He lives in Hamilton, MT.

Fighting for BisonBy Michael Connor

In November of 2014,Western WatershedsProject and Buffalo FieldCampaign petitioned theU.S. Fish and WildlifeService to list theYellowstone bison as

threatened or endangered under theEndangered Species Act. Yellowstone bisonare found primarily in Yellowstone NationalPark but periodically move outside the parkboundaries into Montana, Idaho, andWyoming where they are subject to harass-ment, capture, forcible removal, or slaugh-ter.Once numbering tens of millions, therewere fewer than 50 wild bison remaining

in the remote interior of Pelican Valley inYellowstone National Park at the turn ofthe 20th Century. Yellowstone bison arethe only extant population of bison in theUnited States that retains their geneticintegrity and that have persisted in theirnative range.The best available science presented in

the petition shows that the Yellowstonebison populations are unique, significant,and genetically and behaviorally distinct.Nearly all other plains bison in the UnitedStates are kept as domestic livestock and/orare descendants of bison that were deliberatelyinterbred with cattle by ranchers. For thisreason, the Yellowstone bison population

is critical to the overall survival and recoveryof the species.The petition catalogues the many threatsthat Yellowstone bison face. Specific threatsinclude: extirpation from their range tofacilitate livestock grazing, livestock diseasesand disease management practices by thegovernment, overutilization, trapping forslaughter, hunting, ecological and genomicextinction due to inadequate management,and climate change.Copies of the petition are available on

the Western Watersheds Project website.

Michael Connor is WWP’s CaliforniaDirector. He lives in Reseda, CA.

Bison Calling in Yellowstone National Park

Bison Taking a Dust Bath

© KEN COLE/WW

P© KEN COLE/W

WP


Ever


Watercolor by WWP Member David Hayes

verything has beauty, but not everyone sees it.

~ Confucius


A Good Effort on theAgua FriaBy Laura Welp Agua Fria NationalMonument is part ofthe BLM’s NationalLandscape Conser-vation System, a net-

work of special BLM lands that are setaside to protect unique natural andcultural resources. Agua Fria was spe-cially-designated because its mesa topscontain hundreds of archaeologicalresources representing one of the mostsignificant systems of late prehistoricsites in the Southwest. In addition, theupland semi-desert tobosa grasslandsare interwoven with biologically richriparian zones, which provide habitatfor a wide range of sensitive fish andwildlife species. Many people don’t realize that nationalmonuments under BLM management

allow grazing. In most BLM monuments,livestock management isn’t any differentfrom other BLM lands. However, AguaFria National Monument’s manager andstaff may be on track to break out of

that mold. A Coordinated ResourcesManagement Plan (CRMP) is currentlyunderway to guide grazing managementon Agua Fria’s Horseshoe allotmentover the next ten years. A BLM stafferand permittee put most allotment man-agement plans, if they exist at all, togetherover the phone. This CRMP processis unusual in the amount of public par-ticipation it invites. Before complete,the Monument will have held at leastseven stakeholder meetings and fieldtrips in addition to the usual public inputprocess required by the NationalEnvironmental Protection Act. I went to one of the meetings andexpected a typical BLM event with boredstaff going through the motions andfending off questions with one-wordanswers. I knew I was in for somethingdifferent when the biologist told theroom that they were following rangescientist Jerry Holochek’s recommen-dations for forage utilization levels indesert grasslands. (WWP routinely citesHolochek in their comments on grazingdocuments.) The preferred alternativealso describes detailed plans for moni-toring and research. They include grazing

Petroglyphs at the Agua Fria National Monument

Agua Fria National Monument, Arizona10 Messenger

Agua Fria National Monument

© KEN COLE/WW

P

© BLM http://bit.ly/1GUaB6V


exclosures to serve as controls for variousexotics treatments and for research intograzing management and ecological con-ditions. Many BLM plans pay lip serviceto monitoring that doesn’t happen. Thisplan is different, however, with clearand measurable objectives and manage-ment triggers that can be verified, suchas maintaining a 6-8 inch stubble heightin riparian areas. It’s not a perfect plan and there arecauses for concern in several areas. Forexample, the preferred alternative proposesnew water developments to be fed by anew well. This would replace the currentsystem in which water is pumped outof the creeks, so ultimately more waterwould be left in the riparian area forecosystem processes. However, howwould the new well alter upland waterregimes? I ask this question often inmeetings with the BLM. Usually I’mmet with eye rolls. In this case, however,the staff acknowledged the issue andtalked about measuring depth to ground-water, wet/dry mapping, and installingpiezometers to monitor changes toground water levels. I still don’t thinknew water developments should beinstalled to support grazing, but I wasimpressed by the thoughtful, consideredanswer. The Agua Fria scoping letter says,"An additional purpose of this effort isto improve ecological conditions withinthe project area using tools such as adap-tive grazing management." WWP dis-agrees with the notion that grazing hasa role in improving ecological conditions,having never seen a successful example.However, this group appears to have asincere commitment to considering rec-ommendations from the CRMP stake-holders in making grazing managementdecisions. WWP will be at the tablemaking those recommendations everystep of the way.

Laura Welp is WWP’s EcosystemsSpecialist. She lives in Phoenix, AZ.

WWP Storms PIELCBy Kristin Ruether

WWP staffers andboard members hit thepodiums for a recordnumber of panels atthis year’s PublicInterest EnvironmentalLaw Conference

(PIELC) held in Eugene, Oregon. Sage-grouse protection and livestock-relatedpredator killing were both hot topics atthis year’s environmental reunion. I gave an overview of the agencythat everyone loves to hate, WildlifeServices, explaining how they kill wildlifein the name of livestock across the West.The audience was cheered to hear aboutWWP’s exciting recent legal challengeto the agency’s killing practices in Idaho. Executive Director Travis Brunerpresented on livestock grazing impactsto sage-grouse on a panel discussingemerging threats to sage-grouse and theexpected next steps from the BLM, asit works on West-wide revisions to itsland management plans. The audiencewas horrified to learn that sage-grousepopulations have reportedly plunged

over 50% since the last range-wide countin 2007. Deputy Director Greta Andersongave a hard-hitting explanation of howthe BLM’s upcoming land managementplan revisions fail to tackle the problemsof grazing and other threats, and howthe agencies are failing to consider theneed to recover the large historic rangeof sage-grouse. Idaho Director Ken Cole participatedon two panels, with presentations onWWP’s ongoing efforts to close the dis-ease-spreading U.S. Sheep ExperimentStation in eastern Idaho, and efforts toobtain protection for bison under theEndangered Species Act. Board member GeorgeWuerthner was on so many panels, itwas hard to keep track! He was involvedin panels about bad collaborative processes,“Protecting Biodiversity in theAnthropocene,” and the rider to theNational Defense Appropriations Actthat further reduces BLM and ForestService responsibility to analyze grazingimpacts. Great work, Team!

Kristin Ruether is WWP’s Senior Attorney.She lives in Boise, ID.

Spring 2015 11

Renowned high desert legal eagles Mac Lacy of Oregon Natural Desert Association andsolo practitioner Dave Becker plotting with WWP's Kristin Ruether at PIELC.


Catching the BLM Red-HandedBy Greta Anderson

It was a pleasantsurprise from a conser-vative judge in a con-servative state whenWWP won its caseagainst the Bureau of

Land Management’s (BLM) flawedgrazing program on the Sonoran DesertNational Monument (SDNM) in centralArizona. Years of litigation pressed theBLM to analyze grazing at all, and recentlyexposed faults in the BLM’s analysis.District Court Judge Paul G. Rosenblattagreed that the BLM failed to adequatelyexplain itself in its determination thatongoing livestock grazing was compatiblewith the paramount purposes of themonument designation.

The SDNM’s 2001 proclamationwas unique in that it excluded livestockgrazing upon permit expiration frompart of the Monument and allowed graz-ing to continue in other parts of theMonument as long as it was found tobe compatible with protection of mon-ument objects, including plant commu-nities, wildlife and iconic species suchas saguaro cactus. The BLM began study-

ing the monument and comparing theresults to similar areas of livestock-freelandscapes to determine this compatibility.However, when the grazed lands weren’tmeeting the bar for land health, theBLM lowered the bar. In seven iterationsof the Land Health Evaluation, standardswere consistently lowered and more andmore of the monitoring sites weredeemed passing as a result.

Because this case relied so heavilyon science, and because the courts areknown for being very deferential to the‘experts’ at BLM, WWP and SeniorAttorney Laurie Rule at Advocates for

the West worked very hard to craft thelitigation with a simplified narrative.This tactic eased the judge’s understandingof the arcane concepts of vegetationcomposition, recruitment success, andecological site objectives. Hard workpaid off with a February 26 order findingthat the Land Health Evaluation was“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of dis-cretion, or otherwise not in accordancewith law.” The judge agreed that BLM“cherry-picked” which data to use, ana-lyzing only a subset of the data it hadand choosing inconsistent data setsacross the monument.

The saga continues, however, becausethe judge refused to vacate the decisionand instead gave BLM another chanceto explain. The issue is not that the BLMdidn’t explain itself well enough in thecourt filings or find the right parts ofthe record to demonstrate the validityof its decision. It’s that BLM repeatedly,unilaterally, and knowingly rejected anydata that found livestock to blame forpoor conditions on the monument. Ifthe Arizona District Court doesn’t getthat, perhaps the Appellate Court will.

Greta Anderson is WWP’s DeputyDirector. She lives in Tucson, AZ.

Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona

Sonoran Desert National Monument,6 Arizona

Sonoran National Monument

© BLM

© KEN COLE/WW

P

12 Messenger


Spring 2015 13

Wyoming RanchersFight for Water Pollution

By Travis Bruner

Western WatershedsProject has spent overa decade monitoringthe impacts of livestockgrazing on water qualityin Wyoming. JonathanRatner, our Wyoming

Director, spends countless field daysevery year assessing and documentingunhealthy levels of animal waste instreams, creeks, and rivers on publiclands. He then submits his results tothe Wyoming Department ofEnvironmental Quality to demonstratethat a particular body of water shouldbe included on the state’s list of impairedwaters. The identification and validationof these impacts helps WWP advocatefor better livestock management onpublic lands grazing allotments andaffirms the need for improved manage-ment of wildlife habitats. While clean water should be in every-one’s interest, the livestock industry andthe Wyoming lawmakers under theircontrol aren’t so appreciative of WWP’sefforts. In June of 2014, longtime anti-WWP attorney Karen Budd Falenbrought a lawsuit on behalf of the ranch-ers against WWP alleging that WWPmust have trespassed to collect waterquality data. WWP is fortunate to havelegal assistance from two skilled lawprofessors at the University of Denver,Justin Pidot and Justin Marceau, and anexperienced Wyoming trial attorney,Bob Southard, in defending us fromthese frivolous claims. The lawsuit claims that the rancherswere harmed by trespass, but fails topresent any solid evidence of the allegedtrespass. WWP filed a Motion to Dismissthe ranchers’ lawsuit, and the Reply tothat Motion by Ms. Falen and her clients

contained the startling argument thatdangerous contamination of ruralWyoming waters is not of concernbecause few people reside in those areas. It’s clear that what the ranchers andMs. Falen are really after is a look insidethe internal workings of WWP ratherthan compensation for any real harmthey have suffered. Rather than focuson the factual issues related to the allegedtrespass during the depositions, Ms.Falen asked Jonathan numerous questionsabout his water quality data collection,such as what type of cooler he uses.Furthermore, when WWP deposedranch managers a few days later, it becameclear that WWP’s efforts to protectpublic lands motivated this lawsuit, andnot any harm related to an alleged tres-pass. We’re hoping that the court willgrant WWP’s motion to dismiss followingthe hearing on May 18 in Lander, allowingus to put this absurd litigation behindus. Unfortunately, the ranchers hadanother trick up their sleeves to try tostop WWP’s water quality work. In lateMarch 2015, the Wyoming legislature

passed and Governor Mead signed alaw criminalizing trespass to “unlawfully”collect data and prohibiting any datacollected “unlawfully” from being usedin a civil, criminal, or administrative pro-ceeding, i.e. in WWP’s legal advocacyefforts. Effectively, crossing open andunmarked roads through private propertyto sample water on public lands is nowa high crime in Wyoming, and using theresults of that monitoring data to informa discussion about grazing permits isalso illegal. Heaven forbid we reveal thetruth about unhealthy E. coli levels! Plainly, this new law is unconstitutionaland wouldn’t stand up in any courtoutside of perhaps Wyoming. What itwill take to get the new law overturnedremains to be seen. In the meantime,the Cowboy State’s cows will continueto pollute public waters and the realillegal activities – violations of the CleanWater Act, the Endangered Species Act,the Federal Lands Policy and ManagementAct, and others – will continue.

Travis Bruner is WWP’s ExecutiveDirector. He lives in Hailey, ID.

A fenceline demonstrates riparian damage in Wyoming.

© JONATHAN RATNER/WW

P


14 Messenger

A Second Chance forEagle Lake RainbowTrout By Michael Connor andPaul Ruprecht

As the result of a legal action byWestern Watersheds Project, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) hasagreed to conduct a full review to deter-mine if California’s Eagle Lake rainbowtrout warrant threatened or endangeredspecies status under the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA). The Eagle Lake rainbow trout werepetitioned for ESA protection in 2003.In September 2014, Western WatershedsProject filed suit after the USFWS hadfailed in its mandatory duty to issue atimely “12-month finding” on the statusof the fish. In mid-March, a federalcourt judge for the Eastern District ofCalifornia approved a settlement agree-ment between WWP and the USFWS.Under the terms of the settlement, theService will now conduct a full statusreview to determine if Eagle Lake

rainbow trout warrant listing and willpublish its finding by June 2016. The Eagle Lake rainbow trout areendemic to Eagle Lake, the secondlargest natural lake in California. Locatedon the east side of the Sierra Nevadarange in Lassen County, Eagle Lake hasno natural outlet and its waters are highly

alkaline. Eagle Lake rainbow trout areuniquely adapted to this harsh environ-ment. Living up to eleven years allowsthe trout to weather periodic dry spellswhen access to Pine Creek, their mainspawning stream, is temporarily inter-rupted due to low flows. A century ago, the Eagle Lake rain-

Eagle Lake, California


© KEN COLE/WW

P© DON BARRETT http://bit.ly/1Hg8wkr


Spring 2015 15

IncomeMemberships and Major Donations $141,700.00Grants $371,500.00Events and Earned Income $40,700.00Legal Fee Recovery $139,300.00Total Income $693,200.00

ExpensesAccounting $3,400.00Portfolio Management $200.00Donation Processing $2,200.00Conferences and Meetings $5,000.00Contract Services $37,200.00Equipment Rental and Maintenance $3,500.00Insurance $23,000.00Legal $96,600.00Occupancy $21,800.00Payroll $490,700.00Payroll Expenses $42,500.00Postage and Shipping $14,400.00Printing and Publications $119,100.00Grazing Leases $400.00Supplies $11,000.00Telephone $9,600.00Travel $51,900.00Website $900.00Total Expenses $933,400.00

Net Income -$240,200.00Transfers from Capital Assets $260,000.00Year End Balance $19,800.00

Western Watersheds Project2014 Annual Financial Report

Income

Expense

Grants

Programs

Memberships andMajor DonationsLegal Fee Recovery

Administration

Fundraising

Events andEarned Income

bow trout population was robust enough that it supporteda commercial fishery. However, overfishing quickly led tomajor declines. Thanks to livestock grazing and logging,the lower reaches of Pine Creek shifted from a permanentto an intermittent stream. As a result of that restrictedaccess to the natural spawning areas, state agencies developeda hatchery program in order to maintain a recreationalfishery in the lake. Unfortunately, the hatchery was built atthe mouth of Pine Creek and a hatchery weir now blocksnatural access to the creek from Eagle Lake. Hatcherypractices may have also weakened the genetic fitness of thespecies. In the upper reaches of Pine Creek, the speciesfaces competition from non-native, introduced brook trout. The threats to the Eagle Lake rainbow trout are manmadeand reversible. The impacts of livestock grazing, water with-drawals, impoundments, and roads along the Pine Creekwatershed should be minimized to restore flows in PineCreek. The Forest Service and BLM must reduce or eliminatelivestock grazing in watersheds where the trout spawn. Thefish hatchery has to be reconfigured so it no longer blocksaccess to the trout’s natural spawning grounds. Protectionof the Eagle Lake rainbow trout under the EndangeredSpecies Act will provide the impetus needed to limit grazingand other threats, and will ensure the conservation andspeedy recovery of this iconic fish.

Michael Connor is WWP’s California Director. He lives inReseda, CA.

Paul Ruprecht is WWP’s Oregon Staff Attorney. He lives inPortland, OR.


© MINDY http://bit.ly/1HALNzY


WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECTP.O. Box 1770Hailey, ID 83333

NON-PROFITORG.

U.S. PostagePAID

Boise, IdahoPermit No 220

~Address Service Requested~

Thank You for Your Continued Support!

Every day the public lands, streams and wildlife throughout the West benefit because of the work done byWestern Watersheds Project. The agency management plans we challenge, the allotments we monitor, and thelawsuits we file all help to protect and restore our western public lands.

• Any size donation is greatly appreciated and makes a difference! Everything WWP does to influence therestoration of western public lands is based on a vision that western North America may be one of the only placeson earth where enough of the native landscape and wildlife still exists to make possible the restoration of a wildnatural world.• Make a gift of appreciated stock. Talk to your accountant or financial planner about the potential taxbenefits of making this type of donation. • A gift through careful estate planning can make a lasting difference for WWP. A bequest, an arrangementmade in a donor’s will, is a simple and uncomplicated approach to planned giving. Other methods to facilitate aplanned giving donation include: charitable remainder trust, charitable lead trust and gift annuity. It may be wise totalk to your accountant or financial planner to fully understand the potential tax benefits of different giving options. • Help others learn about WWP! Recently, WWP supporters hosted events in Pocatello, Idaho and Berkeley,California to help us spread the word about our important work. You can host an event too and WWP will help.We’ll supply informational materials, send out email/printed invitations combining your guest list with local WWPsupporters, and even have a WWP representative attend a “meet & greet” which can be customized to your area ofinterest or concern.

The Western Watersheds Project Messenger is printed usingvegetable-based inks on carbon neutral, 100% post-consumer waste.


western watersheds project essenger · western watersheds project state and regional offices ......

Documents