WWP wants bill to fail due to a rider that would lead to lawless grazing on public lands-

The National Defense Appropriations Act (NDAA) set for a Senate vote this week contains language that will forever change the West. Renewal of many grazing permits would be exempted from public oversight and environmental review by being tucked in with a sprawling public lands package, undermining the already inadequate public lands grazing management performed by federal agencies

The new laws would mean that the BLM and Forest Service must continue status quo grazing regardless of the environmental laws being violated until the agencies have sufficient funding (or inclination) to do otherwise.

If this seems like a bad dream, it is. Congressman Raul Labrador and Senator John Barasso snuck the language of the Grazing “Improvement” Act (GIA) into this must-pass defense bill. The GIA would severely limit the ability of groups like WWP to hold the agencies accountable for impacts to clean water, imperiled wildlife and plant species, soils, and sensitive cultural sites.

A coalition of conservation groups is opposing the inclusion of the public lands package in the NDAA because of industry giveaways and problematic anti-conservation language.

Citizens can add their voice to the growing opposition to the bill by calling or emailing their Senators, and asking them to remove the public lands provisions from the defense bill.

This bill will be voted on within the next few days. If it isn’t stopped, it will be hard to ever hold ranchers to account.

The bill is ostensibly about national defense. Bills like this are often called “must pass” legislation because national defense is so important. Because of this they can attract many amendments that would otherwise die on their own. These amendments are unrelated to the main substance, the national defense part of the bill. Most of these additions are usually rejected by those managing a muss-pass bill on the floor of the House or the Senate, but once one of them gets the “go-ahead,” gets on the bill, it tends to ride along with the other stuff right into law.

The grazing rider is one of many amendments. They are mostly related to public land use. The typical senator does not even read the legislation, and if they did the language would seem obscure, hard to understand without a bit of work.

Some of the amendments to the bill would be judged good by conservationists. There is a bit of wilderness designation. Some national battlefield parks are established. However, in addition to the grazing permit changes there are a number of public land giveaways to big mining companies and to “native” timber cutters (SeaAlaska).

The bill has already passed the House. If it dies in the Senate, the national defense part will quickly be revived without the riders, so a person does not have to worry that national defense will be harmed.

– – – –

Recent News. Oil Industry Supports, Enviros Oppose NDAA Federal Lands Deal. Daily Caller

– – – –

Additional information.

Here is a detailed list of other objectionable riders in the bill opposed by WWP and 46 other organizations. This was sent to the U.S. Senators.

Title XXX would result in a net loss of wildland and wildlife protection on tens of millions of acres of public land. The provisions would undermine some of our nation’s preeminent environmental and public lands laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Wilderness Act,would give landscapes deemed sacred by Native American tribes to a foreign-owned mining company, and would diminish the federal estate held in trust for all Americans as an important part of our natural birthright.

Though certainly not an exhaustive list, the following provisions exemplify the problems with the bill:

Sec. 3002, Sealaska Land Entitlement Finalization, would give away 70,000 acres of the Tongass National Forest to Sealaska, a Native Corporation notorious for some of the worst logging practices in Southeast Alaska. The land giveaway would settle land claims outside the selection area Sealaska Corporation was assigned under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Nearly all of the 70,000 acres of forests, including ancient forests, are likely to be logged with minimal environmental regulation. This giveaway has faced strong opposition from grassroots Southeast Alaska conservation groups, many Native people, and communities that would be harmed by intensive clearcutting and theloss of forest habitat.

Sec. 3003, Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation, would trade 2,400 acres of national forest land protected by Executive Order in 1955 to Resolution Copper, a foreign- controlled mining company, in order to facilitate the development of a copper mine that has long been opposed by local interests. The lands are considered sacred by Native American tribes, who have successfully fought the land trade for years.

Sec. 3009, Northern Nevada Land Conveyances. This part of the bill encompasses several sales and conveyances of public land, including the sale of over 11,500 acres to the town of Yerington to facilitate mining. (Locations and acreages of the public lands near Yerington and several other conveyances are not even provided in the legislation, but cited to a map residing in a local Bureau of Land Management field office).

Sec. 3023, Grazing Permits and Leases, would automatically renew livestock grazing permits on tens of millions of acres of public lands even where grazing operations are degrading wildlife habitat and fouling streams and rivers. No environmental analysis under NEPA, and no compliance with other applicable laws, would be required at the time of renewal, inhibiting citizens’ ability to protect public lands from harm. Sec. 3023 would further exacerbate habitat degradation that imperils the sage grouse and hasten the need for the species’ protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Sec. 3064 and 3066, Pine Forest Range Wilderness and Wovoka Wilderness, respectively, would grant exceptions to the Wilderness Act allowing the State of Nevada to routinely land helicopters and manipulate natural habitat conditions in direct contravention of basic tenets of the Wilderness Act.Such provisions diminish the meaning of Wilderness and degrade the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Sec. 3065, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation and Management Area and Wilderness Additions, removes wilderness study area (WSA) protections from two BLM WSAs in eastern Montana, hundreds of miles from the lands involved in the Rocky Mountain Front bill. This stealth provision was inserted in the bill despite never having been publicly discussed nor included in any legislation previously pending before Congress. Who is it for?