U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner is doing some good for Conservation Colorado, but perhaps not in the way he would like.

The state’s largest environment organization sent out a fundraising e-mail Wednesday with the Republican from Yuma as its centerpiece.

Here’s what the pitch from deputy director Jessica Goad said, in part:

Wow. We knew Senator Cory Gardner was bad on environmental and public health issues, but after looking at his entire voting record from 2017 now we know that he actually couldn’t be any worse. He just received an abysmal zero percent score in the League of Conservation Voters’ most recent environmental scorecard.

This is shameful … Despite the fact that the vast majority of Coloradans care about our land, air, and water, Cory Gardner has repeatedly sided with President Trump’s relentless attacks on the environment and public health. Instead of representing the values and needs of his constituents, he endorsed the administration’s anti-environment agenda.

Gardner’s office declined to return fire.

Gardner wasn’t the only Coloradan rated by the League of Conservation voters this week:

You can read the national report card by clicking here.

Goad continued on Gardner’s case: “Cory Gardner voted to confirm anti-environment nominees like Oklahoma oil and gas proponent Scott Pruitt and Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson in Trump’s cabinet. He voted against common sense safety measures protecting us from methane and air pollution. He voted for a resolution to block public input on how our federal government manages public lands. He voted for the tax package that gives huge tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, exploding the deficit which could be used as a future justification for massive cuts to environmental and other critical programs. And the list goes on.”

The same day, Gardner sent out a video showing his speech on the Senate floor to bring the Bureau of Lane Management headquarters to the West, preferably Colorado.

“Grand Junction, Colorado, is a beautiful place that can accommodate an agency headquarters and has the benefit of a populace that is intimately familiar with public land management policy and decision-making,” Gardner said.

“Making this agency more accountable to the people who have to deal with its management decisions by putting its headquarters among the land it manages would be a great start to modernizing for the next 100 years.”