|
Congressman Nick J. Rahall II
Chairman Committee on Natural Resources
Room 1324
LHOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Rahall:
We are writing to express our concerns with
several aspects of the Dońa Ana County Planned Growth, Open Space,
and Rangeland Preservation Act of 2008 (H.R. 6300), which was
introduced and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources on
June 18, 2008.
The Public Lands
Foundation (PLF) is a national non-profit conservation organization
founded in 1987. Our membership is primarily retired former
employees of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and as such
represents a broad spectrum of knowledge and experience in public
land management. Our membership includes former BLM State
Directors, District and Area Managers, and a wealth of experienced
personnel in land and realty management and land appraisal. Our
mission is to advocate and work for the retention of America's
Public Lands in public hands, professionally and sustainably managed
for responsible common use and enjoyment.
BLM administered public lands are a national
asset and a national “public land system” that should be retained in
public hands for use and enjoyment by the American people and that
should not be viewed as a source of funding for local projects,
programs or purposes.The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (FLPMA) provides that the BLM public lands are to “be retained
in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning
procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal
of a particular parcel will serve the national interest.”
(Emphasis added).
PLF opposes special land disposal
legislation which transfers large blocks of public land out of
federal ownership and gives special privileges to local interests
without regard to the requirements of existing statutes like FLPMA
and the National Environmental Policy Act.Congress has equipped the
BLM with adequate authorities to dispose of federal public lands
where needed for local development and uses, and special land
disposal legislation is, in most cases, unnecessary.
Title I of H.R. 6300 would establish two
“special preservation areas” and provide a special prescription for
management of these areas.Title II of the bill would establish four
“rangeland preservation areas” and provide a different special
prescription for management of these areas. BLM already manages land
under numerous special designations—National Conservation Areas,
National Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers and
more. The use of these new and additional descriptors is
ill-advised and will only lead to confusion within BLM, and with
public land users.
We also notice that Titles I and II allow
for the acquisition of non-Federal land from the state, local
governments and non-profit organizations, but not from private
landowners. BLM should not be prohibited from acquiring private
inholdings from a willing seller. Thus, the acquisition provisions
in these two titles should be amended to allow BLM to retain the
acquisition authorities granted to it under FLPMA.
Title III provides for the consolidation of
the surface and subsurface estates of certain lands belonging to New
Mexico State University and BLM with a legislative conclusion that
the values are approximately equal without the benefit of an
appraisal. Without an appraisal it is impossible to know whether
this exchange is in the public interest or not. What is the
potential for oil, gas and mineral development in the subsurface
estate? What is the highest and best use of the surface estate to
be exchanged? We believe an appraisal should be required to assure
both parties and the public that the exchange has merit.
Title IV provides for the disposal of
federal land for community growth based upon recommendations from an
advisory board that would be established by the bill. It
establishes a special account for proceeds, giving 10% of the
proceeds to the County and 10% to local communities. And, a portion
of the remaining funds in the account are to be used for other than
BLM purposes. PLF opposes all of these provisions. As stated
earlier in this letter, PLF opposes special land disposal
legislation which transfers large blocks of public land out of
federal ownership and gives special privileges to local interests
without regard to the requirements of existing statutes. BLM has
adequate disposal authority without the provisions in Title IV.
This title should be removed from the bill.
Thank you for considering our views and
concerns. Our membership is committed to seeing that the public
lands are sustained, protected and managed in the public
interest.Sincerely, George Lea, President Cc: NM SD
Sincerely,
George Lea President,
Public Lands Foundation
Cc: NM State Director |