| NEWS | |
MAJOR ISSUES AFFECTING PUBLIC LANDS AND PLF | MAJOR ISSUES | |
| POSITIONS | SMALL TRACTS | |||
| PRESIDENT | PLF MEETING | |||
| MORE INFO | HOME | |||
| CONTACT US | FEATURES | |||
| MEMBERS | ARCHIVES | |||
| HISTORY | NPLD | |||
| MEMORIAL | OTHER LINKS | |||
| AWARDS | MONITORING |
BLM'S LATEST O&G SALES: 392 TRACTS OFFERED, 387 SOLD
In the latest round of five major oil and gas leases sales in the Rocky Mountain West oil and gas companies offered bids on all but one percent of tracts offered. As always, companies were driven by the high price of oil and gas. In addition protests, appeals and lawsuits from states, communities, sportsmen and environmentalists have helped BLM to insure its pre-sale environmental paperwork is in good order, BLM believes. If BLM follows its projected schedule in the five big Rocky Mountain states, only three more rounds of oil and gas lease sales will be held this year. In the next round Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming will hold sales in April, Colorado in May and Utah in June. Here are the results of the most recent round of oil and gas lease sales: COLORADO: On February 14 BLM sold all 35 parcels offered for a total of $3.9 million. The next Colorado sale is scheduled for May 8. MONTANA(AND NORTH DAKOTA): On January 29 BLM sold 35 of 36 parcels offered for a total of $1.7 million. Thirty-two of the tracts are in North Dakota, where the one tract that failed to receive a bid is located. The next Montana sale is scheduled for April 8. NEW MEXICO: On January 16 BLM sold all 128 parcels it offered in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas for $16.5 million. The next New Mexico sale is scheduled for April 16. UTAH: On February 19 BLM sold all 52 tracts that it offered, grossing $3.6 million. The next Utah sale is scheduled for June 5. Wyoming: On February 5 BLM sold 137 of 141 tracts offered for a total of $18.3 million. The next Wyoming sale is scheduled for April 1
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: http://www.gao/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-196.
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.
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.
SENATE PROBABLY WON'T ADDRESS 1872 MINING LAW UNTIL 2008
Senate Energy Committee leaders from both parties intend to work together to write new legislation to revise the 1872 Mining Law next year. The House approved a major landmark bill November 1. The House approved its mining law bill (HR 2262) by a substantial 244-to-166 margin. Despite objections from the Bush administration and the mining industry, the House approved a four percent gross royalty on existing production and an eight percent gross royalty on future production. Chief bill sponsor and House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Joe Rahall (D-W.Va.) defended the royalty, the most contentious provision in HR 2262. He said that miners have removed $300 billion in hard rock minerals from the public lands over the last century without paying any royalty. "Bear in mine that coal, oil, and gas produced from Federal lands have long paid these royalties," he said on the House floor. While environmentalists have long championed reform of the 1872 Mining Law in support of Rahall, a new coalition of hunters and fishermen is also demanding change. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, with substantial Republican backing, praised the House bill for protecting fish and wildlife habitat. Here's a summary of major provisions in House passed bill:* ROYALTY: Section 102 would establish an eight percent gross royalty on "net smelter return" on future production and a four percent gross royalty on existing mining operations. Two-thirds of royalty revenues would be allocated to an abandoned mine fund and one-third would be allocated to a community impact assistance program.* ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS: Title III would require a claimant before mining to gain approval of a permit that included "site characterization data, an operations plan, a reclamation plan, monitoring plans, long-term maintenance plans, to the extent necessary, and such documentation as necessary to ensure compliance with applicable federal and state environmental laws and regulations." * NATIONAL PARK PROTECTION: Title III, Section 309 would bar mining that would "impair" any national park or national monument. * PERMIT TERM: Title III would authorize operations permits for up to 20 years and would have BLM and the Forest Service review each permit every 10 years. Exploration permits would last for 10 years.* PATENT: Section 101 would forbid patent of claims where patent applications were not submitted prior to Sept. 30, 1994, when Congress instituted a moratorium on patenting of new claims. For claims submitted prior to Sept. 30, 1994, the bill would allow patent applications to proceed if applicants had already moved beyond specified stages of BLM review. * PROTECTION OF CONSERVATION LANDS: Title II would bar mining not only in wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern and wild and scenic rivers, but also in 58.5 million acres of roadless national forest as described in a 2001 rule issued by the Clinton administration. * WITHDRAWAL PETITIONS: Section 202 of Title II would authorize any state or "political subdivision" to petition to federal agencies for a withdrawal of any tract from operation of the mining laws. The bill language doesn't limit reasons for such a request but does mention such values as protection of watersheds, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, and cultural or historic resources. * ABANDONED MINE FUND: Section 401 would allocate two-thirds of royalties plus other fees to a fund to clean up old, abandoned mines. The money would be allocated to states in proportion to the amount of mineral production in the state. The bill would place priority on protection of health and safety.* COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUND: Section 421 would allocate one-third of royalties to a fund to help communities impacted by mining. The money would be used for the "construction and maintenance of public facilities and the provision of public services." Money would be provided to states, local communities and Indian tribes.TRANSITION: Section 3 would apply HR 2262's provisions to any mining claim without an approved plan of operation. For claims with an approved plan of operations HR 2262 would not apply for most purposes for 10 years. After 10 years Title III environmental protection standards would apply
FEDS OUTLINE 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.
Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides EIS- BLM has just completed a massive EIS and has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in which the agency has listed the herbicides approved for use in 17 western states for treating vegetation on public lands. The ROD approves the use of 14 herbicide active ingredients to be applied following the label directions and will comply with all state registration requirements. If state registration requirements do not allow the application of a particular herbicide active ingredient approved for use in the EIS, the BLM will not authorize use of the herbicide within the state where its use is prohibited. In response to the threats of wildfire, invasive vegetation and noxious weeds, Congress directed BLM to take more aggressive actions to reduce catastrophic wildfire risk on public lands through implementation of the National Fire Plan and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 and by implementing the Healthy Lands Initiative. As a result of implementing these new programs to manage vegetation, using herbicides by BLM is expected to increase from about 150,000 acres to about 932,000 acres annually, The ROD also commits BLM to conduct monitoring studies to evaluated the effectiveness of the use of these herbicides and to identify corrective measures (if needed).