|
George Lea, President
Public Lands Foundation
Thank you Mr.
Chairman for this opportunity to present your committee with our
views on the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) budget request for FY
2009. As a national, non-profit organization principally of retired
but still dedicated former BLM employees, the Public Lands
Foundation (PLF) has a unique body of knowledge, expertise and
experience in public land management. We are the only national
membership organization dedicated solely to the protection and
professional multiple use management of BLM public lands. As
retirees, believe we can now offer an objective and non-bureaucratic
view of what is really happening to the public lands and suggestions
for improvement. It is important that the Committee understand that
while we are supportive of BLM and its programs, we are not a
"captive" of the Bureau and are independent in our views. Our
mission's primary focus is on improving the condition of the land
and its natural resources and keeping the public lands in public
hands. We strive to improve the effectiveness of BLM by encouraging
professionalism among employees and to increase the public's
understanding of and support for the proper scientific management of
these lands.
Overview-While
the demands upon BLM public lands continue to increase, yet the
total net budget request of $977.4 million, a decrease of $5.8
million from the 2008 level. It is significant to note that BLM
will return more than $6.2 billion in receipts in 2009, yes that is
not a mistake but $6.2 billion, with 44% of the receipts returned
directly to States and Counties to support roads, schools and other
community needs. We are unaware of any federal agency that returns
such receipts compared with its budget. BLM emphasizes inclusion of
local input in the process of conserving the environment and is a
model of President Bush's idea of cooperative conservation. In
addition to 258 million surface acres BLM, also is responsible for
700 million acres of federal mineral estate throughout the nation.
That is nearly a billion acres of precious assets making BLM the
largest steward of Federal lands. We support the requested budget,
particularly the increases to implement the Healthy Lands
Initiative. However we see certain shortfalls in emphasis and/or the
need for increased dollars in FY 2009 principally to increase
staffing, in the following high priority programs, to enable the
Bureau to adequately address urgent natural resources issues:
Personnel
Needs
BLM's budget
is directed towards the work force requirements needed to put
trained natural resource specialists on the ground to manage the
land. BLM's programs are labor intensive and do not lend themselves
to contracting. Any man-power or budget reductions will not only
directly affect BLM's ability to properly manage and protect the
public lands, but also would have a negative impact on the
generation of receipts to the States, Counties and the US
Treasury. Budgets often contain the false assumption that, with a
smaller budget and fewer personnel the workload will decrease and
less work needs to be accomplished. That is not the case for
natural resources management agencies. It is the constant need to
protect the land and the natural resources and the public's
increasing service demands that drive the budget requirements. For
example the 2000 Census found the West to be the fastest growing
region of the Nation; nine of the 12 fastest growing states are in
the West where the growth rate averages 27% per decade more than
twice the national average of 13%. To demonstrate this constant need
to protect the land, more than 22 million people live within 25
miles of the land the Bureau manages and the BLM lands have become
the outdoor recreation playground of the West. In 2009, over 58
million visitors are expected to participate in recreational
activities on BLM lands. BLM has always been the forgotten
"step-child" in the family of Federal land management agencies and
has never had the personnel needed to match its responsibilities.
Once again we believe the Committee needs to know the personnel
needs of BLM and should encourage BLM to develop a five-year program
to bring BLM's work force to a level adequate to protect the
resources and perform the work needed.
Healthy Lands
Initiative- (+$5,000,000) We support a $15 million total increase
for the Healthy Lands Initiative. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of
good work being done on the ground under this program, much of it in
partnerships with private organizations, and we support a $5 million
increase over the requested budget This new program is directed
towards lessening the impact of energy development and other
resource use activities such as grazing, fire and recreation on the
potential conflicts with the needs of wildlife and habitat
conservation in six priority geographic areas. To a large extent
the areas to receive special consideration are the sagebrush
dominated landscapes associated with managing at-risk species, such
as the sage grouse, to prevent listing of the grouse and to better
assure recovery for other listed as threatened and endangered.
Selling public
lands- The 2009 BLM budget suggests legislation is needed to
stimulate the selling public lands to help reduce the Federal budget
deficit in 2009. The PLF strongly objects to a policy of
accelerated selling of the public lands. The Committee is reminded
that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976
contain adequate authority for BLM to sell lands. Reducing the
federal deficit in any meaningful degree would require a massive
disposal of the public lands, which the public will not support.
PLF does not support retaining all public lands in public ownership.
There are scattered, isolated parcels of BLM lands that should be in
private ownership, and there are BLM lands in the vicinity of
growing Western cities and towns that are needed for urban
expansion. However, the bulk of the BLM lands have become the
outdoor playgrounds of the West and the public has repeatedly and
strongly opposed any large-scale disposal of the BLM lands. The BLM
budget before this committee again proposes that the Federal Land
Transportation Facilitation Act be amended to allow BLM to sell all
lands identified suitable for disposal in all updated management
plans. FLPMA already provides BLM this authority. However, the
budget proposal would direct that a portion of the proceeds from
the sale of BLM managed lands be available for the acquisition of
other non-federal lands (in-holdings) in national parks, refuges and
monuments. We object to using BLM lands as a "cash cow" in this
manner. The public land system that BLM administers have the same
importance and integrity as the land system managed by the National
Park Service, for example, and that integrity needs to be respected.
All federal land management agencies, including the Forest Service,
have many lands that are difficult to manage and that could be
sold. Congress should provide the authority that these agencies
need to sell these lands with the proceeds going to the acquisition
of in-holding lands within that agency rather than to rely on
selling BLM lands.
Wild Horse and
Burros (+2,000,000)- The budget proposes a very modest increase for
this program in FY 2009. The Committee is reminded that once the
wild horse and burro population levels is down to Appropriate
Management Levels (AML), each year approximately 20%, the annual
reproductive increment, of the population must be removed to keep
the population with in the AML. BLM estimates they will have
approximately 31,000 animals in contract holding facilities where
the animals must be held until they die of natural causes. BLM has
no alternative. This is ridiculous! There are more animals held in
these facilities than roam the public lands. These holding costs
consume over half of the BLM's wild horse and burro program
($18,000,000) each year and it keeps climbing. In previous years
Congress has provided additional funding in order to remove animals
for the public lands to reach the AML and it would be most
unfortunate to not to provide an increase in FY2009
Range
Improvement Fund- The FY2009 BLM budget again proposes to
eliminate the Range Improvement Fund ($10 M) to further
deficit-reduction efforts. Originally this proposal was based on
the assumption that the Department would change the grazing
regulations to give title to range improvements to grazing
permittees thus reducing the need for the range improvement fund and
give the grazing permittee an incentive to bear the costs of such
improvements. As a result of a court decision, these regulations
have noww been abandoned by BLM. It should be noted that the
current grazing regulations encourages grazing permittees to
contribute towards range improvement projects and further protects a
permittee's financial investment in improvements by authorizing a
grazing permittee to be reimbursed for their financial contribution
to range improvements should they loose the use of such
improvements. It is also important that the Committee understand
that the Range Improvement Fund is not used exclusively to benefit
the grazing permittee. The fund is also used on high priority
watersheds to maximize the potential for overall improvement and
protection of those watersheds by improving the vegetation, habitat
conditions and health of rangeland ecosystems to benefit livestock,
fish and wildlife habitat, riparian values, watershed protection and
other resource values. The funds are thus not tied to an individual
grazing permit or a specific grazing allotment but used for a rather
wide variety of projects not necessarily benefiting directly a
grazing permittee. The benefits to the Range Improvement Fund
out-weigh the small contributions to deficit reduction that
eliminating the fund would make. For the above reasons, the PLF
does not support the budget proposal.
Oil and Gas
Management-+($2,000,000) Increased funding to supervise oil and gas
operations on the ground is needed over the increases granted in
FY2008. According to a December 17, 2007 report by the Subcommittee
on Royalty Management to the Royalty Policy Committee, which is
chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, BLM role in
production accountability reviews needs to be strengthened to ensure
that all royalties are being reported and collected properly.
Renewable
Energy- + ($2,000,000) With the increase in the cost of energy and
the need for alternative energy sources the number of applications
for wind and solar facilities on public lands has mushroomed.
Currently BLM has a backlog of 137 solar and 173 wind applications
awaiting BLM's actions. The Bureau need funding to process these
applications and we suggest that the BLM be given the authority to
retain the fee receipts from renewable energy applications as is the
case with some of the other energy activities, i.e. Oil and Gas and
Geothermal.
Illegal
Immigrants Impacting Public Lands (+$2,000,000)-Undocumented aliens
continue to cross from Mexico into the United States, crossing
public lands administered by BLM, and continue to damage or destroy
valuable natural and cultural resources, abandon vehicles, pollute
with their trash and human waste, and create serious safety risks to
employees and the visiting public. Increased funding is required to
mitigate these damages, repair infrastructure, improve signage, and
close mine shafts. BLM is responsible for managing 8.8 million
acres of borderlands.
Fire Fighting
Funds--As the Committee knows BLM has historically borrowed funds
from programs that carry over funds from year to year to pay fire
fighting costs. The borrowed money is repaid through supplemental
appropriations. This system has generally worked well. However,
should these funds not exist, this would cause serious disruption of
on-going programs. It is our understanding that the Forest Service
has such a problem, as may other federal land management agencies.
The procedures for funding fire suppression should be changed. The
cost of funding fire suppression should be taken out of the agency's
budgets and made available by a separate fire suppression fund
Recreation and
Visitor Services Program (+$10,000,000) Despite the fact that
recreation uses of BLM lands are increasing exponentially, the FY
2009 budget for this program proposes a substantial decrease. In
many respects the recreational uses on public lands is a dominant
feature on the landscape and a major element in the economy of the
western states. Issues related to increased urbanization of the
west and continuous advances in technology, particularly motorized
recreation and increased off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, have
overwhelmed the many BLM field offices especially in fast growing
urban areas. Issues such as irresponsible target shooting, rampant
OHV use, vandalism, trash dumping are generating considerable
resource damage and visitor safety concerns. Increase funding is
required to improve on-the-ground management of OHV, mapping and
signing of roads and trails, and increasing law enforcement and BLM
patrol efforts. BLM's current recreation challenge-cost share
program is one of the most effective in the Department of Interior,
often leveraging resources and funding at about 4 to 1, sometimes
even as great 10 to 1.
Cultural
Resources- (+$3,000,000) We are disappointed to see the reduction in
this important program particularly when the program received a long
overdue an increase for FY2008. We have been asking for the
Congress for many years to recognize the extensiveness and value
of the public lands as a national storehouse of cultural and
historic treasures. With the increase in recreational uses of the
BLM lands, these cultural resources require constant protection,
restoration and surveillance.
Cost Recovery-
The 2009 budget again proposes to repeal provisions of Section 365
of the Energy Policy Act, which prohibits BLM from implementing cost
recovery fees for processing APDs. This change would allow BLM to
make permanent the recovery of the cost of processing these types of
applications. We support this change. The total cost of processing
a permit averages $4,500. The industry objects to paying a
processing fee, a minor cost that surely would not severely impact
the financing of exploration nor reduce the number of permit
applications. More than 10,000 APDs are anticipated in 2009.
Fixed costs-We
encourage the Committee to fully fund BLM's fixed costs.
Mr. Chairman,
we hope these comments for priorities for BLM's FY 2009 budget
request and our ideas for changes will be of value to your
committee. We remain sincere in our efforts to see the public's
land managed well. George Lea, President
Selling
public lands
On May 10 the House Appropriations Committee
killed the Administrations’ proposal (thanks in no small measure to
PLF members who let their representative know their view of such
proposals) to sell BLM lands to reduce the budget deficit. However
this land sale may well resurface during this session of Congress or
the next for that matter or it may take different routes. For
example Congressional representatives in Idaho and Utah have
introduced bills into Congress, which would sell and transfer
significant amounts of federal land, mostly BLM land, to individuals
or local and state governments. A notable change in tactics has
emerged in these new bills. It is known as the “Quid Pro Quo
Template” where in exchange for designating wilderness area, BLM
lands are sold or transferred out of federal ownership. The PLF
supports the establishment of new formal wilderness areas but not as
part of “horse trading “ with BLM lands. Wilderness legislation
should be considered, as in the past, strictly on the merits of the
wilderness quality of the area and not as a “Trojan Horse” for
selling public lands. Equally the disposal of public lands should be
addresses for the merits involved as developed through the planning
system and not as part of a quid pro quo wilderness In addition
FLPMA and BLM’s land use planning system both have set the nation’s
policy for the disposal of public lands and the establishment of
wilderness areas. Those processes should be allowed to proceed from
the bottom up and not circumvented top down, by Congress.
Congress’s role in all of this is to establish the policy for land
disposal as has been done in FLPMA and the establishment of
wilderness areas in the Wilderness Act. There have been several
cases of quid pro quo wilderness (or maybe it is in reality a quid
pro quo public land disposal) areas. The most recent quid pro quo
wilderness was the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation and
Development Act of 2004 in Nevada to establish 768,000 acres of
wilderness north of Las Vegas while trading off water pipelines
rights-of-ways across public lands, conveying over 18,000 acres of
BLM lands to the County, and selling 100,000 acres of BLM lands to
the highest bidder. The “slippery slope” to disposal of public
lands we have spoken of is getting wider and slipperier. We do not
support retaining all public lands in public ownership. However,
what is needed is a comprehensive analysis of a BLM land tenure plan
that is thoroughly and openly debated on a national scale before
proceeding further with a quid pro quo BLM land disposal program.
Public Lands to be
sold for Debt Relief
The Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act (SNPLA) has brought in so much money, almost $1.8 billion in the
last couple of years, that the Administration has proposed to take
70 % of the land sales receipts and send it to the US Treasury to
pay down the ballooning federal deficit. SNPLA became law in 1998
to authorize BLM to sell land needed for town expansion around Las
Vegas. The law provides for the State of Nevada and local
governments to receive 15% of the proceeds for water resource
projects and parks and 85% is allocated the federal agencies for
acquisition of conservation land around the state. This new policy
to sell our national assets to reduce our national debt is of course
dumb and short sited. To reduce the deficit, first expenditures
should be reduced and brought under control. And as expected other
counties in Nevada and other states such as Idaho are considering
similar measures. And so once again the public lands are looked upon
as the “Cash Cow”, as an unlimited source of new money. It wasn’t
too many years ago that the then current Administration proposed to
sell public land assets as a quick way to cover the expanding
federal debt. Those efforts, after many millions of federal dollars
were spent in going through the motions to do so faded away, but not
forgotten. Lets hope this current try will also go nowhere. There
will be special situations as in the case of Las Vegas, that
surrounding public lands would be better in private ownership. The
Public Lands Foundation is committed to keeping the public lands
public and available for all the citizens to enjoy.
Energy
Within the last few years the pace of exploration for natural
gas and coal bed methane has exploded. The well density planned is
beyond what anyone has considered and the geographical scope may
stretch along the entire Rocky Mt Front, from Montana to New Mexico.
For example, the Powder River Basin is looking at more than 50,000
coal-bed methane wells being drilled just for gas in the immediate
future or in Meeker, Colorado over 1900 wells are planned in 2004.
The total number of wells planned in the Front Range area is
unknown. We could be talking about a 40-acre gas field stretching
from Wyoming south to New Mexico. Unless public opinion forces the
administration to back off and let BLM start managing this
development with large spacing like 640 acres or more with
directional drilling from one pad, the Rocky Mountains will be one
huge industrial zone similar to the congested oil fields of Texas.
The sheer magnitude of the surface disruption from well pads, roads
and pipelines, to say nothing of the traffic, air quality and water
quality degradation, and the lost of other uses of the land, will
far surpass anything we've ever dreamt of. It is mind-boggling. The
new proposed energy bill calls for the oil & gas industry to be
exempted from the Clean Water Act. They are already exempt from the
Hazardous Materials Act. Also the only way to produce coal bed
methane is to dewater the formation to release the gas. All this
poor quality water must be dealt with in an environmental sound
manner.
Gas companies are planning a drilling program based on 5 to 10
acre down-hole spacing. Directional drilling should be required,
particularly on deep structures, but neither the land management
agencies nor State regulatory agencies seem inclined to require
directional drilling until the surface spacing gets down to 20
acres. At that spacing there is 660' between the well bores.
Subtract another 300' of disturbed ground-150' from the well
bores-for the well pads, subtract another 100' for cuts and fills
and we're talking just roughly 300' of undisturbed ground between
well sites. Of course this doesn't include the access roads and
pipelines. Directional drilling is a perfected technology that has
improved tremendously within the last 5 years. .
The biggest objection is that it’s a new way of doing things.
However, some companies are used to directional drilling and do not
have a problem with it. In many cases these companies use it a lot,
without agency requirements, because they save money with every
directional hole because of the savings from pads, roads etc they
don’t have to build. This is with off the shelf technology.
BLM has got to start managing this gas exploration. They can’t
just react to whatever the gas industry asks for and give it to
them.
Sincerely,
George Lea President,
Public Lands Foundation
Cc: NM State Director |