Conservation Begins with Multi-Generational Property Ownership

Learn More

Preserving the culture of our rural ranching, farming and agricultural heritage

Learn More

Promoting Public Debate, Agency Transparency, and Measurable Federal Accountability

Learn More


Best Management Practice: Local Resources, Local Decisions.

Learn More

Sound Policy through Interposition for Industry, Ranching & Agriculture

Learn More

Who We Are

The Kansas Natural Resource Coalition (KNRC) is a collaboration of county governments who engage federal agencies during environment and natural resource administrative rule-making processes. 

Our members understand the limited role of federal agencies, the legal parity enjoyed by local government, and that federal procedural mandates require balancing of economic, social, cultural and property interests during the outworking of natural resource policy efforts. 

When federal agencies propose rules for our region, we first investigate the statutory basis under-girding the proposal, a process we call “Show Us The Law.”  Because many administrative agencies believe they have the authority to enact law, we do not accept regulations, policies or memoranda as binding until a clear, statutory connection has been established.  Similarly, because courts Don’t Make Law, KNRC does not accept court opinions, decisions or definitions as themselves being sufficient to justify administrative proposals; we believe the legislative branch of governments to be the sole organic source of lawmaking.

How We Work

KNRC is comprised of elected commissioners from individual member counties, an executive director, a research analyst, a communications analyst and retained professional and legal staff on an as-needed basis.

Day-to-day operations are overseen by a steering committee that in turn reports to a policy committee governed by all member counties.

Each KNRC county has adopted a Natural Resource Land Use Plan that by federal statute requires review, coordination and consistency by federal agencies desiring to impose rules in the jurisdictional areas governed by those counties.

This approach maintains local voice, assures mutual access to data and science, provides a platform for genuine transparency, and ensures balanced decision-making for both the human and natural environments.

Why it’s Effective

Navigating the maze of environmental rule-makings is daunting for even the most resolved of local governments — let alone the balance of America’s 3,000-plus counties.

KNRC’s excellent research, clear understanding of administrative procedure, dogged adherence to statutory requirements and tactical application of coordination brings clarity to the process and accountability to federal agencies who have grown accustomed to bypassing — or dismissing entirely — the needs of local government.

Our philosophy, strategic plan, and long-term objectives include training, equipping and exhibiting hard-won examples for local governments across the nation.  History teaches that centralized, top-down, and autocratic governments don’t work for the long term, ultimately reverting back to local control.  

Only local government — not industry, not associations, and particularly not nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) — are permitted to leverage accountability from federal administrative agencies during natural resource policy rule-makings.

Green Watch

KNRC’s Forecast for 2018: Positive Improvement in Policy Relationships With Federal Agencies –

Tuesday, March 12, 2018 –  In December, 2017 KNRC published its “KNRC: 2013 to 2017….and Beyond” bulletin, highlighting initiatives that have contributed to reform of federal agencies and programs.  Particularly well received was KNRC’s Recommendations for Reforming the Federal Government submitted to the Office of Management and Budget in June, 2017.

Looking ahead, in 2018 KNRC will be formalizing its statewide Rails-to-Trails audit program that will aid members in tracking compliance with Interim Trail Use (NITU) permits issued by the Federal Surface Transportation Board under section 8(d) of the National Trails System (NTS) Act,  [16 U.S.C. 1247(d)]. 

The first-of-its-kind, KNRC audit program will assist members as they inspect Rails-to-Trails (R2T) projects in their counties, and document tax requirements for lands enrolled in NITU programs.

Turning to ESA issues, KNRC has requested pre-publication notice from the Department of Interior (DOI) for any actions surrounding the Lesser prairie-chicken (LPC), noting that the DOI’s Unified Agenda includes an intent to publish a notice of proposed rule-making for the LPC. 

KNRC has requested US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to audit the troubled Black-footed ferret program in Logan County, Kansas and to initiate the a species status-assessment for the Arkansas river shiner, specifically pointing out the shiner’s critical habitat contains stream segments that are dry or too intermittent to support the fish.


KNRC Sets its Agenda with the Department of the Interior

Thursday, March 8, 2017 — In a recent letter to the Department of the Interior (DOI), KNRC President Shawn Tasset, in response to overtures from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), shared KNRC’s 2018 regulatory agenda with the department.

With regard to the NEPA process, President Tasset reminded the DOI of KNRC’s longstanding position that all Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings must include either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement. He also informed DOI that KNRC intends to petition the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to restore a NEPA process that appropriately balances both the human and natural environments.

Commissioner Tasset then noted Attorney General Sessions’ November 2017 directive prohibiting agency use of internal policy and guidance documents to coerce compliance with what otherwise are optional approaches to acheive compliance with federal rules and statutes.  A prolific problem across federal and state agencies, KNRC has offered its support – as local a coalition of governments –  to distinguish binding statutes from optional, agency policies.



Brand Memo Prohibits DOJ Uses of Federal Agency Guidance Documents in Affirmative Civil Enforcement Cases 

March 8, 2018 — On January 28, 2018, U.S. Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand issued a memo on behalf of the Department of Justice (DOJ) expanding on Attorney General Sessions’ November 2017 memo, Prohibition on Improper Guidance Documents, which prevents the department issuing guidance documents binding upon the regulated community without undergoing established notice-and-comment rulemaking.

The “Brand Memo” says that the earlier prohibition extends beyond prohibiting the use of such guidance by the Department of Justice, and that the principles of the Sessions memo extend to DOJ litigators who represent the United States in affirmative civil enforcement (ACE) cases on behalf of other agencies. These are cases brought by the department on behalf of the U.S. government to recover money lost to misconduct or for the purpose of imposing penalties for violations of federal environmental, health, safety, or civil rights laws.

Specifically, AAG Brand’s memo states:

  • “Guidance documents cannot create binding requirements that do not already exist by statute or regulation”
  • “. . . effective immediately for ACE cases, the Department may not use its enforcement authority to effectively convert agency guidance documents into binding rules.”
  • “Department litigators may not use noncompliance with guidance documents as a basis for proving violations of applicable law in ACE cases.”
  • “. . . the Department should not treat a party’s noncompliance with an agency guidance document as presumptively or conclusively establishing that the party violated the applicable statute or regulation.”

The memo does say that DOJ litigators can continue to use agency guidance documents for “proper purposes.” For instance, where a guidance document explains or paraphrases legal mandates, and there is evidence that the regulated party read the guidance, DOJ can use that knowledge to help demonstrate the party’s knowledge of the mandate.