|
|
The President’s Column |
|
||
THE PRESIDENT’S COLUMN
George Lea at: glea2@verizon.net
PLF’s Letter to Rahall on an Energy Agency – June 1, 2009
Dear Mr. Rahall: I am writing on behalf of the Public Lands Foundation (PLF) to express our grave concerns about the draft bill to overhaul the Department of the Interior’s energy leasing program, and to tell you why we believe the proposed reorganization will create more problems and inefficiencies than it will solve.
The Public Lands Foundation is national non-profit conservation organization, whose members are primarily retired former BLM employees who advocates and works for the retention of public lands in public hands, professionally and sustainably managed for the responsible common use and enjoyment of the American people.
Based on what we know about the proposal so far, the PLF endorses the proposals to tighten ethics rules. Considering the often-large amounts of money involved with energy and minerals, employees with those responsibilities should be required to participate in additional ethics and professional training. Further, we would encourage a review and report to the Congress of the adequacy of management controls relative to bidding, rents, and royalties.
However, the PLF strongly opposes the plan to establish a separate energy and minerals management agency within the Department of the Interior. Natural resources on public lands are inextricably connected and leasing the rights to one resource is only a small part of the larger problem of determining and dealing with the impacts that the lease may have on other resources and uses of the land.
Such a reorganization would create duplicate functions within the Department and result in costly increases in overhead; it would create an agency with a mission that would set itself aside from and be in apparent conflict with most other Interior agencies; it would result in instance after instance where the left and right hands do not know what the other is doing; it would delay efforts to utilize federal energy and mineral resources (including land for solar and wind); and, it would frustrate efforts and projects to preserve, protect, and develop wildlife habitat, recreation resources, and other land uses because of the onerous decision-making and coordinating processes which would have to be developed.
In 1946, President Truman combined the Grazing Service and the General Land Office to form the Bureau of Land Management in order to eliminate overlapping responsibilities for the same lands. We learned about the concept of integrated resource management a long time ago. To tear away an integral part of that concept would be to ignore over 60 years of lessons learned about how we manage our public lands and resources.
We look forward to continuing this conversation with you to improve the management of America’s public lands and resources.
Sincerely, George Lea President, Public Lands Foundation (letter also sent to BLM and Department of the Interior)
PLF’s Letter to SRM on Wild Horse
Legislation -- May 21,
2009
Society for Range Management, 19930 W 27th Ave, Wheat
Ridge, CO 80215-6601, Dear Dr.
Kirby:
Thanks for weighing in with SRM's opinion on Congressman Rahall's
proposed legislation--HR 1018. However
well intentioned, the legislation has taken the course of ignoring the
potential drastic effects it could have on the ecology of western rangelands so
well stated in your letter. Instead, the
Restoring Our American Mustangs Act falls in line with the strategy of horse
advocacy groups that are demanding the expansion of wild horse ranges and
increases in population levels. This
approach is contrary to the appropriate management levels (AML's) and herd
management areas (HMA's) already established by BLM under the 1971 WH&B Act
and all but negates the purpose of the Act which is "...to restore a
thriving natural ecological balance to the range, and protect the range from
the deterioration associated with overpopulation." Furthermore, it ignores
BLM's major dilemma on what to do with it's current inventory of 30,000 animals
in holding facilities and virtually eliminates the agency's ability to properly
keep the horse population in check.
Hopefully your letter will have the intended effect of helping to
derail the unfavorable legislation when it comes before the full House for a
vote. As a matter of interest, the
Public Lands Foundation (PLF) has also voiced it's objection to HR 1018 in
letters to Congressman Rahall, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Director
of the Bureau of Land Management. The PLF
also fully supports SRM's position on the legislation, which closely parallels
our own. I would suggest that SRM offer to testify before the Congress should
this bill come up for another vote.
As you probably know, PLF is a non-profit organization whose
members are primarily retired BLMers. We
advocate and work for the retention of Public Lands in Public Hands,
professionally and sustainably managed for the responsible common use and
enjoyment of the American people.
On a personal note, I have been an SRM member now for more than 50
years and I am happy to see SRM speak up on important public land resource
issues. SRM should be more visible. SRM’s professional views matters.
George Lea, President PLF
BLM and Society for Range Management - DVD on Rangelands – May 14, 2009
This 8 minute DVD can be viewed by going to our opening page; clicking on the link to: Society for Range Management or Bureau of Land Management. On the BLM site go to What do we do and then to Grazing
PLF’s Letter to Secretary Salazar on Public Lands Corps Act – May 14, 2009
Dear Secretary Salazar: The Public Lands Foundation is writing to support the enactment of the Public Lands Corps Act of 2009, H.R. 1612 and to congratulate you for supporting the passage of the Act.
The Public Lands Foundation is a non-profit, national organization, whose members are retired former BLM employees. Our main mission is to keep the public lands in the public’s hands and to support professional management of the National System of Public Lands.
We believe that the National Public Lands managed by the BLM contain a wonderful opportunity to provide work and skill training for America’s youth under the Public Lands Corps and encourage you to provide a portion of the funds that may become available to the Department to BLM.
We are also pleased to learn that one of your goals is the support of programs to increase our children’s interest in natural resources. The Public Lands Corps is a direct tie to that goal.
Thank you for considering our views on this important program.
Sincerely, George Lea
TESTIMONY- THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT
AND RELATED AGENCIES- FY 2010- Bureau of Land Management
By George Lea, President, Public Lands Foundation March 25, 2009
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 2010. 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. As retirees, we 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
It is significant to note that BLM administered lands will return more than $6.2 billion to the Treasury in receipts in 2009. Yes that is not a mistake, but $6.2 billion, with 49% 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. 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.
At this point the President’s 2010 budget has not been released to the public. We therefore will comment on what we see as certain shortfalls in emphasis and/or the need for increased dollars in FY 2010 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. Any man-power or budget reductions will not only directly affect BLM’s ability to properly manage natural resources production 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 and in carrying out the President’s priorities. 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. 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.
Renewable Energy
Production
To avoid the “train wreck” that could prevent attaining this country’s goal of increased renewable energy production, there is urgent need to complete the Energy Development Zoning effort requiring increases in funding and manpower. This inventory must precede any accelerated wind and solar energy permitting or rights-of-ways to reduce or eliminate the conflicts with other uses of the land. We support the President’s goal of “Energy Independence”. However, the President and the Congress needs to understand that there needs to be a paradigm shift in the way we do business. For example, solar energy will require 100% of the land surface being denuded of vegetation. BLM will be litigated at every turn with the normal EISs currently contemplated for these projects unless Congress modifies NEPA, for renewable and the transmission of renewable energy only, by requiring an Environmental Analysis (EA) not an EIS with a 30 day public comment period and waiver of any appeal. The US/Mexico border-fencing project is an example of the streamlining that may be required where I understand; the NEPA was waived in its entirety.
The following renewable energy projects are cost recoverable, however, BLM needs personnel ceilings adequate for project supervision, compliance checking, contract supervision, project management and environmental protection.
Solar- Currently BLM has 220 pending solar ROW applications for about 1,786,950 acres of public land concentrated in California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah with more to come. BLM and the Department of Energy are jointly developing a programmatic EIS. Meanwhile, BLM is continuing to accept applications. Perhaps the largest impact of solar development farms is the fact that the photovoltaic collections completely dominate the land surface as a dominant use at the exclusion of all other uses.
Wind- Currently BLM has 243 pending wind and 178 authorized ROW applications for 177,256 acres. In the US perhaps California and Wyoming are experiencing the fastest growth for wind energy production. A final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLM lands was prepared by BLM and the Department of Energy and the Record of Decision was signed on December 15, 2005. This document identified Best Management Practices and mitigation measures that would need to be incorporated into project specific plans and stipulations. This document also amended 52 BLM land use plans in nine of the states in the study area. Any additional environmental analysis will be tiered to the programmatic EIS.
Geothermal Energy- BLM leases lands it manages and other Federal lands, including Forest Service lands for geothermal development and supervises operations of the leases. In December 2008, BLM published the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for geothermal leasing in the western states making more than 190 million acres of federal lands available for leasing and potential development for geothermal energy. The EIS anticipated a potential 5,500 MW of new electric generation capacity from resources in 12 western state, including Alaska by 2015. It also estimates an additional 6,600 MW by 2025 for a total of 12,100 MW. Geothermal is a “hot” issue for BLM. In Nevada, for example, a competitive geothermal lease sale in August 2008 brought in a record-breaking $28.2 million. Half the revenue goes to the state, a quarter to the counties where the land is located and a quarter goes to BLM.
Bio Energy Production The BLM manages 69 million acres of forest and woodlands plus several
million acres of brush. Maintaining and
restoring the health of these lands and providing forest products to contribute
to biomass energy supply will require increased funding and personnel. For example many millions of acres are being
invaded by juniper forests requiring control/elimination efforts producing huge
amounts of bio products and requiring a large manual/machine labor force
Oil and Gas Production and Accountability
According to recent DOI Inspector General and GAO reports there is a need to capture millions of US receipts from federal oil and gas production leases. This effort will require additional funding and personnel for BLM to verify production reported by oil and gas operators to ensure there is no underreporting of produced oil or gas.
Legacy and Orphan Wells
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires BLM to inventory and to plug, abandon and reclaim the surface of abandoned federally drilled legacy wells (wells drilled by the government and not properly abandoned) and orphan wells which were drilled by operators whose bonds were insufficient to properly close the well and reclaim the site. For example there are over 100 legacy wells in Alaska inventoried and ready to be plugged all requiring increased funding and manpower for contracting the proper closure of these wells.
Abandoned Mine Lands Program
Abandoned hardrock mines pose significant health, safety and environmental hazards. People increasingly are coming into contact with these formerly remote sites given population growth, sprawl and recreational use of off-highway vehicles in the western states. Fortunately, potential risks to people, and costs to the government associated with possible tort claims and environmental lawsuits can be reduced significantly through implementation of an aggressive and well-coordinated AML program administered by the BLM along with its Federal and State partners. The PLF is encouraged by the renewed priority and commitment by this Administration to address long-standing impacts of abandoned hardrock mines. We encourage the Committee to provide funding so that the BLM can pursue a program that balances safety and environmental (clean water) priorities. In addition, the PLF recommends that the Committee ensure adequate funding for the BLM to implement the recommendations of the July 2008 audit report by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector entitled “Abandoned Mine Lands in the Department of the Interior.” The PLF also is aware that the Administration and Congressional Leadership have set goals of Mining Law Reform and establishment of a permanent hardrock AML program and funding mechanism. The PLF supports these efforts.
Youth Education and Involvement
The National System of Public Lands (BLM lands) provides an abundant opportunity to strengthen the ties between this country’s youth and the environment and natural resources conservation. Many opportunities exist to expand the opportunities for youth education including internships to instill environmental awareness and accomplish a backlog of needed work at the same time. Such needed work includes wildlife habitat improvement; recreational developments trail construction and maintenance, cultural resources protection and stabilization, stream improvement and range improvements. In addition there is the need for timber stand improvement, wildlife habitat enhancement and invasive vegetation species control all of which would provide fuel sources for bioenergy production. We encourage the Congress to provide BLM the funding and manpower to accomplish this needed work utilizing our youth.
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.
Wild
Horses and Burros
We are certain members of the Committee are familiar with the serious dilemma BLM faces in keeping the wild horse and burro populations within the capacity of the habitat available for the animals and yet disposing of the unwanted and un-adoptable animals. The number of horses removed from the range far exceeds the number that can be sold or adopted. As of June 2008, BLM was holding 30,088 animals in captivity and the estimated number out on the range was 33,105----5,886 over the Appropriate Management Level (AML) of 27,219. Since 2001, over 74,000 animals have been removed from the range but only 46,400 (62%) have been adopted. It is projected that the holding costs will account for 75% of the WH&B program’s budget in 2009.
The adoption demand for wild horses has dramatically declined attributed to increased hay and fuel costs, the large number of domesticated horses flooding the market, general urbanization of rural areas, and a shift toward other forms of recreation. Compounding the problem, the last horse slaughterhouse in the U.S. closed in the fall of 2007. Without these outlets more domestic horses are available to the public causing direct competition with BLM’s WH&B adoptions.
BLM must continue to managing the range to prevent overpopulation and exercise one or both of its options: 1) Destroy the animals, or 2) sell them without limitation. The October 25, 1978 Rangeland Improvement Act allowed for the destruction of excess, unadoptable horses. BLM has a WH&B sales policy that directs the sale, without limitation, of excess horses or burros or their remains, if the animals are more than 10 years of age or have been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least 3 times. Even though BLM has had the authority to destroy horses, BLM has not destroyed any animals since January 1982. They have chosen not to destroy excess animals or sell them without limitation because of concerns about public and congressional reaction to large-scale slaughter of thousands of horses. However unless some way is found to place in private ownership all of the excess animals removed from the public lands, BLM has to consider euthanization, but as a last resort. We encourage the Committee to provide funding needed to keep the animal population in balance with the AML and be supportive of BLM when it becomes necessary to sell animals without restrictions
Urbanization of the National System of
Public Lands
The National Public Lands managed by BLM are
rapidly becoming the playground and the backyard to millions of our
citizens. Nearly 4,100 nearby
communities rely on critical watersheds near the communities; an estimated 22
million people reside within 25 miles of BLM lands; and an estimated 58 million
annual visitors combined with an increase in use of all-terrain an
off-road-vehicles are all placing demands on the public lands and resources. This increase in interest to visit and use
these public lands requires a similar increase in funding for BLM for road
maintenance, recreational maintenance and new developments, law enforcement,
open space protection, and private/federal land exchanges. In many places these urban lands are an
important element of our Treasured Landscapes.
Mr. Chairman, we hope these comments for priorities for BLM’s FY 2010 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.
/S/
George Lea, President
President's Letter on New Mexico Land Bill -- July 2, 2008
Congressman Nick J. Rahall II, Chairman Committee Natural Resources, Room 1324 LHOB, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Rahall: We are writing to express our concerns with several aspects of the Doña 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
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
TESTIMONY - THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND RELATED-March 13, 2008
AGENCIES- FY 2009- Bureau of Land Management-By 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.
UPDATE ON MAJOR PUBLIC LAND ISSUES
SMALL TRACTS
The Privatization Scheme
The national argument over whether the public lands would be better off if the lands where in private hands continues today but on a new course. Those who support such changes have not been successful and so they seek new ways to realize their vision of privatizing the public domain. Reducing the public’s ability to review of decisions is one tactic. But there is another scheme sweeping through government today. If they can’t privatize the land, perhaps they can realize the same objective by privatizing the land’s managers. Today’s effort to privatize is called "outsourcing". The current administration’s effort is called "The Competitive Sourcing Initiative" which, as a beginning, directs federal agencies to identify federal employees who perform "commercial" activities to compete for their positions with the private sector. The Office of Management and Budget defines commercial activity as anything that can be, could be, or should be contracted. With such a broad definition, all BLM employees could be required to compete for their employment and could potentially be preformed by private contractors. Currently BLM is examining "maintenance" positions but all BLMers could be scheduled and will be in time. In a typical BLM field office all employees except perhaps the office manager could be considered "inherently government" employees. The staff of natural resource managers, forester, fisheries biologist, land surveyor, minerals manager or rangeland manager, according to the guidelines could be performed by a private sector company. Is the private sector ready to take over these functions? Oh yes. Just as an example, they would love to take over the rangeland manager’s or the fisheries biologist’s job. Sure, the private sector has biologists, foresters and other technically trained staff who could fulfill many of the functions carried out by federal workers. But federal employees are governed by binding and enforceable rules of ethical conduct while private contractors are not. Ethical conduct rule prohibit federal employees from accepting gifts or bribes. No such prohibitions apply to consultants. Federal employees are barred from making decisions they might financial profit from, nor give preferential treatment to anyone, nor hold outside employment that creates a conflict of interest, nor accept compensation from persons affected by decisions. No such prohibition applies to consultants. The proponents of privatization may not believe that ethics are important. The likes of Enron and its ilk would indicate this to be the case. Who do we want to manage our public lands; workers who are required to place the public interest first or workers whose first loyalty is the agency that hires or fires them?
The recently enacted Healthy Forest Initiative contains the encouragement for the BLM to contract such programs as the collection of range monitoring data for a District Manager to use in adjusting grazing use. Few managers would not want to nor should they make decisions based on such data.
But an even more serious consideration comes into play here. So let’s say we do privatize our forest and rangeland positions, and for example, the administration changes and the outsourcing policy is dropped or the contractor decides they want out, or the availability of contractors dries up for what ever reasons, then what does BLM do? They have lost the expertise and must start over to hire, train, etc.
Oh, and who is it that pays the bill for profit oriented consultant contractors?
One has to wonder what’s this all about. Is there something bigger going on here? We believe there has to be because on the surface it does not add up. Outsourcing does not appear to be motivated by national budget savings or efficiency. What ever the rational behind outsourcing is, the government ought not jeopardize the public land and natural resources by turning the management over to private run-for-profit companies.
Need for a National Public Land System
In March, 2000, Secretary Babbitt established a new land system of areas that parallel the park and refuge system. He directed BLM to set up a new office to provide guidance for the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). Although the BLM has different types of Congressionally and Presidentially designated units, they have not, until now been identified as a "system". To guide the management of the NLCS a National Landscape Conservation System Office (NLCSO) was established in the Washington Office reporting to the Director. This office was to give the BLM the opportunity to provide focused direction and budget coordination for the over all system. The land units will continue to be managed by the Field office managers.
The PLF has supported of the establishment of this new land system composed of 7 National Monuments (at this time) containing 3.3 million acres, 8 National Conservation Areas containing 2.2 million acres, the 9.5 million acre California Desert Conservation Area, the .7 million acre Headwaters Forest Reserve in California. 1.0 million acres in 35 Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 1,238 Wilderness Areas of 5.2 million acres. Several Historic Trails and National Scenic Trails are also included in the NCLS. All in all the NCLS takes in perhaps 15% of all BLM managed public lands.
Our greatest concern at this point is that there is a distinct potential to downgrade or throw up for grabs the other 85% of BLM public lands that are not presently included in the new land system. If this results in the majority of the BLM lands as being seen by the public as second rate or not worthy of being included in a national land system, it will be a disaster. By placing only certain areas in the NLCS we create the public impression that the remaining majority of the BLM lands are "not so special" and that could revive the efforts to transfer the large area of the not so special BLM lands to state and private ownership. The special areas in the NLCS should be the "Jewels in the crown" of a national public lands system managed by the BLM, not a stand alone system scattered throughout an anonymous expanse of public domain land that lacks an identity with the public can relate to and support for keeping it in public ownership an open to public use and enjoyment
We believe, therefore, that the success of the NCLS will be in how it is publicly perceived and understood. If it is a "stand alone" organizational unit it will be a failure. However, if it is seen, as we hope it is intended, that is as one part of the Public Lands of the United Sates managed by the BLM under the principals of Multiple Use and Sustained Yield as set forth in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and the public understands that these designated areas are some but not all of such special areas of the BLM public lands and that the NCLS is a part of that overall land system, then NCLS could be a significant step in the paradigm shift in understanding and using our public lands that began in the early 1960's and was spelled our in FLPMA.
A very important element in this public perception will be any logo or symbol used in connection with the NCLS. It our view that there is no need for such a separate logo because the public must never be allowed or induced to think that NCLS is anything other than a subset of BLM and the National Public Lands managed by BLM. The idea that NCLS designations are a sound and appropriate part of multiple use management must be encouraged. Whether we like it or not perception is reality and BLM is engaged in a process of shaping perception. In that process symbols play a critical part and we urge the BLM not to create the image of the NCLS as a separate stand alone organization.
We call on the new Administration to establish a "National Public Lands System" for all of the BLM lands as a way for this Administration to leave a Legacy for the Land.
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED
If you believe public lands should be protected and that all
the natural resources found on these lands should be managed professionally in
the best interest of the public, the owners of the land, please consider a tax
exempt contribution to the Public Lands Foundation. All Foundation Board of
Directors and Officers serve as volunteers without compensation. We do not hire
professional fund raisers nor consultants and 100% of your contributions go to
program services. You may use the following secure give button. 
Please note that we use a non-profit vendor to
process your secure credit card transaction. For more information please
contact me at my email address: glea2@verizon.net.
COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN- CFC #11786
Attention BLM employees and PLF members. The Public Lands Foundation is again a part of the 2008 Combined Federal Campaign. Again this year we have adopted an assumed name, called a “doing business as (d.b.a)” name of “Conservation and Protection of Public Land. However this year we have a new CFC number. It is 11786. So look for us under this name at our new CFC number. We have adopted this new name just for CFC efforts in that our formal name of Public Lands Foundation does not describe to an uninformed person what it is that PLF does. We believe this d.b.a. will help do that. We are still affiliated with the Conservation and Preservation Charities of America, a group of 30 national organizations, all dedicated to conserving and preserving the natural resource of our country. We ask current BLM employees to look for PLF in the CFC Catalogue, CFC #,11786 when the 2008 campaign begins this fall. The working children and grand children of PLF members can also find us listed in both the United Fund and CFC.