|
Selling Public Lands: In a classic
case of trading the selling of public lands in Nevada for establishing
wilderness areas, the Nevada Congressional delegation have been
working over the past year to use the public lands as the “Cash Cow”
to produce new wilderness legislation. Nevada is encouraged (while
other western states watch) by the passage in a 11th hour
legislation in 2005 that sold off 87,000 acres of BLM managed lands in
exchange for designating wilderness acres in Lincoln County over the
objections of many conservation organizations. PLF and many other
groups are not opposed to wilderness but are opposed to disposing of
public lands as a quid-pro-quo for wilderness. This is the
continuation of the slippery slope we have warned about. Public land
disposal policy and wilderness designation need to be debated
separately on a national scale before proceeding further. PLF members
are encouraged to voice their objections to the Nevada program and to
be alert to more 11th hour efforts during the current
Congress. In a related issue the BLM’s fiscal year 2009 budget once
again contains a proposal to amend the Federal Land Transaction
facilitation Act (FLTFA) to (1) allow BLM to sell lands cleared by
land use plans completed since 2000 (existing authority is limited to
pre 2000 plans) and (2) divert 70 percent of revenues to the Treasury
Department to reduce the federal deficient (how foolish is this). BLM
could keep up to $60 million per year for restoration projects. When
the Administration in the past sought legislation to greatly expand
FLTFA and send 70 percent of revenues to the Treasury Department,
Congressional Democrats and Republicans erupted in opposition. In
our view, selling public lands to pay down the deficit would be a
shortsighted, ill-advised and irresponsible shift in federal land
management policy. There may be towns that need lands for expansion
but there are ways to take care of them, but selling off the public
lands isn't one of them. Congress approved FLTFA in 2000 to authorize
the sale by BLM of excess lands that had been reviewed by pre-2000
land management plans. The proceeds are used to acquire private land
for national parks, national wildlife refuges and national forests.
Most of the money - 80 percent - must be spent in the state where it
is collected. To their credit some environmental groups object to
the proposal to sell off 500,000 acres of public land with the hopes
of raising $182 million over five years and $351 million over 10 years
while supporting the trading of wilderness for the selling of public
lands. Recently The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a
lengthy report stating that the program to sell BLM lands, much loved
by the Administration, has largely been ineffective outside of
Nevada. Members interested in The GAO report, Federal Land Management:
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management
Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions, can find it at
www.gao.gov. Look for GAO
report number: GAO-18-196.
**************************************
BLM's FY 2009 Budget:
Overall for BLM
management of lands and resources the administration recommended an
$11 million increase, or $865 million compared to a fiscal 2008
appropriation of $854 million. But when energy development increases
are deducted, land management would receive less money than the fiscal
2008 appropriation. Some of the high lights of the budget follows:
National Landscape
Conservation System (NLCS) an increase of $3 million over a fiscal
2008 appropriation of $18.8 million. In addition the budget gives
NLCS a line item of its own; in previous requests money for the
program was buried in several other line items.
BLM’s 2009 budget
request also contains a modest increase $5 million to support the
Healthy Lands Initiative- a program of projects designed to restore
landscapes impacted by energy development and in particular the
habitat of Sage Grouse. Restoration efforts particularly in SW
Wyoming, NW and SE portions of New Mexico, SE Idaho, SW Colorado, Utah
and the three-corner area and NW Colorado and parts of California in
FY 2009,
To ensure visitor
and employee safety and to protect the land resources along the
US-Mexico border -, BLM’s budget for the first time has a $3.9 million
increase for law enforcement activities and for cleaning up and
removal of thousands of pounds of litter and abandoned vehicles>
PLF’s 2008 budget testimony urged Congress to help BLM protect the
public land along the border. So someone reads our “Stuff”!!.
Energy Security-
Included in the President’s 2009 budget is the assumption that
legislation would open the Arctic national Wildlife refuge to
exploration and development leading to an initial lease sale in 2010.
Applications to Drill fees- The budget also support legislation
that would allow BLM to undertake rule making to permanently institute
cost recovery on applications to drill and also to authorize an
interim fee while the rule is under development. The 2008 budget
imposed a assessment fee of $4000 for applications to drill which
expires at the end of FY 2008. The proposed FY2009 legislation would
make the fee permanent and to establish a $4150 fee.
Wild Horses and
Burros. To continue BLM’s efforts to achieving the appropriate
management level (AML) of wild horses and burrow the budget provides
additional funding . Currently BLM estimate that 29,000 animals or
about 1500 more that the AML roam the public lands. Given that wild
horses and burros have virtually no natural predators, their herd
sizes can double about every four years. As a result, BLM must remove
thousands of animals each year to keep hear populations in balance
with their habitat. Currently, off the range, more than 30,000 other
wild horses and burros (more than are on the public land!!!) are fed
and cared for at corrals or long term pasture holding facilities by
contractors until they die of natural causes. This is ridicules!
These holding cost account for more than half of the BLM’s wild horse
and burro budget each year, approximately $37 million.
Range Improvement
Fund The budget supports legislation that would amend FLPMA to direct
that the 50% of grazing fee receipts currently deposited in the Range
Improvement Fund be deposited instead in the general treasury (to
reduce the deficient). The budget suggests that responsibility for the
construction and maintenance of range improvements would shift to
public land users, public land advocacy groups and State agencies. In
our view this will never happen. The recent BLM effort to establish
new grazing regulations would have transferred maintenance of range
improvements to the livestock permittees. Those regulations were not
adopted.
State Oil and Gas
Share The budget requests asks Congress to make permanent a FY 2008
appropriations provision that diverts two percent of the state
royalties to federal mineral management costs. At stake is about $40
million per year. For example the two percent deduction would cost
Wyoming about $20 million, new Mexico $11million and other states
lesser amounts. The two percent would be deposited into the US
Treasury.
**************************************
Sage Grouse Update:
A federal
judge’s recent order to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to
reconsider the listing of the sage-grouse as an imperiled species
could have huge impacts on oil and gas development on public lands.
That at least is the intention of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership (TRCP.) It has filed a protest against the sale of
150,000 acres in Wyoming that BLM has scheduled for February 4 on the
grounds that oil and gas development damages sage-grouse habitat. TRCP
is concerned that oil and gas development will so harm sage-grouse
habitat that FWS will be forced to list it and forbid sport hunting of
the bird. TRCP protested the offering of 125 of the parcels covering
about 150,000 acres. TRCP has frequently protested the Wyoming BLM’s
oil and gas lease sales in the past but not such a large percentage of
the acreage. TRCP faulted BLM and FWS for not conducting up-to-date
analyses of the impact of energy development, not only on the
sage-grouse but also on mule deer, elk and pronghorn antelope. A
federal judge December 4 ordered FWS to reconsider a Jan. 6, 2005,
decision not to list the sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered
species. Idaho Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill charged that FWS did not
obtain adequate information from BLM on the impact of energy
development on the sage-grouse. He said that FWS was unable to obtain
information on stipulations on older leases, exceptions to sage-grouse
protections in newer leases and the applicability of best management
practices. Winmill also took to task former deputy assistant
secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife Julie McDonald for her
role in FWS’s decision not to list. “Finally, the FWS decision was
tainted by the inexcusable conduct of one of its own executives, Julie
MacDonald,” he said. “Her tactics included everything from editing
scientific conclusions to intimidating FWS staffers. Her extensive
involvement in the sage-grouse listing decision process taints the
FWS’s decision and requires a reconsideration without her
involvement.” At one time more than 1 million sage-grouse populated
the West. They were primarily dependent on sagebrush habitat. Since
then the population has shrunk to 100,000 to 500,000 birds. Winmill
said that overall the experts ranked these as the greatest threats to
the sage-grouse, in order: “(1) invasive species, (2) infrastructure,
(3) wildfire, (4) agriculture, (5) grazing, (6) energy development,
(7) urbanization, (8) strip/coal mining, (9) weather, and (10) pinyon-juniper
expansion.” As we understand the current situation at Interior now the
FWS is scrambling to shore up the weakness in their analysis following
the Court’s direction hoping to finish the reassessment prior to the
national election this fall.
**************************************
Energy Corridors for Rights-of-Ways:
Five federal departments proposed November 16 broad corridors in
11 western states that, when finally designated, would facilitate the
location of energy rights-of-way (ROWs.) The departments said they
took extra care to route the proposed corridors on public lands away
from sensitive lands. The five departments - Agriculture, Energy,
Commerce, Defense and Interior - made their proposal in a draft EIS.
They are preparing the EIS as a step toward formal designation of the
right-of-way corridors. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT)
requires the corridors. Eight-four percent of the corridors are
proposed for BLM lands, 14 percent for national forests, and the rest
for the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the
National Park Service and the Department of Defense. The corridors
are proposed for Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming The
departments have scheduled eight hearings in January on the draft EIS
and one for February 5 in Washington, D.C.
|