| <html> | |
| <title> - OVERSIGHT HEARING ON LOCAL AND STATE PERSPECTIVES ON BLM'S DRAFT PLANNING 2.0 RULE</title> | |
| <body><pre> | |
| [House Hearing, 114 Congress] | |
| [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] | |
| LOCAL AND STATE PERSPECTIVES ON BLM'S DRAFT PLANNING 2.0 RULE | |
| ======================================================================= | |
| OVERSIGHT HEARING | |
| before the | |
| SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS | |
| of the | |
| COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES | |
| U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES | |
| ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS | |
| SECOND SESSION | |
| __________ | |
| Thursday, May 12, 2016 | |
| __________ | |
| Serial No. 114-42 | |
| __________ | |
| Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources | |
| [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] | |
| Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov | |
| or | |
| Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov | |
| ______ | |
| U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE | |
| 20-117 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016 | |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing | |
| Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; | |
| DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, | |
| Washington, DC 20402-0001 | |
| COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES | |
| ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman | |
| RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member | |
| Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA | |
| Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU | |
| Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA | |
| Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, | |
| John Fleming, LA CNMI | |
| Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA | |
| Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR | |
| Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA | |
| Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA | |
| Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA | |
| Paul A. Gosar, AZ Matt Cartwright, PA | |
| Raul R. Labrador, ID Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA | |
| Doug LaMalfa, CA Norma J. Torres, CA | |
| Jeff Denham, CA Debbie Dingell, MI | |
| Paul Cook, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ | |
| Bruce Westerman, AR Lois Capps, CA | |
| Garret Graves, LA Jared Polis, CO | |
| Dan Newhouse, WA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO | |
| Ryan K. Zinke, MT | |
| Jody B. Hice, GA | |
| Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS | |
| Thomas MacArthur, NJ | |
| Alexander X. Mooney, WV | |
| Cresent Hardy, NV | |
| Darin LaHood, IL | |
| Jason Knox, Chief of Staff | |
| Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel | |
| David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director | |
| Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel | |
| ------ | |
| SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS | |
| LOUIE GOHMERT, TX, Chairman | |
| DEBBIE DINGELL, MI, Ranking Democratic Member | |
| Doug Lamborn, CO Jared Huffman, CA | |
| Raul R. Labrador, ID Ruben Gallego, AZ | |
| Bruce Westerman, AR Jared Polis, CO | |
| Jody B. Hice, GA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO | |
| Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Vacancy | |
| Alexander X. Mooney, WV Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio | |
| Darin LaHood, IL | |
| Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio | |
| ------ | |
| CONTENTS | |
| ---------- | |
| Page | |
| Hearing held on Thursday, May 12, 2016........................... 1 | |
| Statement of Members: | |
| Dingell, Hon. Debbie, a Representative in Congress from the | |
| State of Michigan.......................................... 4 | |
| Prepared statement of.................................... 5 | |
| Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative in Congress from the | |
| State of Texas............................................. 1 | |
| Prepared statement of.................................... 3 | |
| Statement of Witnesses: | |
| Cowan, Caren, Executive Director, New Mexico Cattle Growers' | |
| Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico....................... 11 | |
| Prepared statement of.................................... 12 | |
| Fisher, Corey, Senior Policy Director, Sportsmen's | |
| Conservation Project, Trout Unlimited, Missoula, Montana... 20 | |
| Prepared statement of.................................... 22 | |
| French, Jim, Commissioner, Humboldt County, Winnemucca, | |
| Nevada..................................................... 7 | |
| Prepared statement of.................................... 8 | |
| Obermueller, Pete, Executive Director, Wyoming County | |
| Commissioners Association, Cheyenne, Wyoming............... 25 | |
| Prepared statement of.................................... 27 | |
| Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: | |
| American Motorcyclist Association, May 11, 2016 Letter to | |
| Chairman Gohmert and Ranking Member Dingell regarding the | |
| Hearing.................................................... 45 | |
| List of documents submitted for the record retained in the | |
| Committee's official files................................. 48 | |
| Park County, Board of County Commissioners, May 12, 2016 | |
| Letter to Neil Kornze, Director, BLM regarding Planning 2.0 35 | |
| Utah State, Public Lands Policy Coordination Office, May 10, | |
| 2016 Letter to Neil Kornze, Director, BLM regarding | |
| Planning 2.0............................................... 46 | |
| OVERSIGHT HEARING ON LOCAL AND STATE PERSPECTIVES ON BLM'S DRAFT | |
| PLANNING 2.0 RULE | |
| ---------- | |
| Thursday, May 12, 2016 | |
| U.S. House of Representatives | |
| Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations | |
| Committee on Natural Resources | |
| Washington, DC | |
| ---------- | |
| The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:06 p.m., in | |
| room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Louie Gohmert | |
| [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. | |
| Present: Representatives Gohmert, Labrador, Westerman, | |
| Hice, Radewagen, Dingell, Huffman, Polis, and Clay. | |
| Also Present: Representative Lummis. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. The Subcommittee on Oversight and | |
| Investigations will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting | |
| today to hear testimony on Local and State Perspectives on | |
| BLM's Draft Planning 2.0 Rule. | |
| Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements of | |
| the hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking | |
| Minority Member. Therefore I ask unanimous consent that all | |
| other Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing | |
| record if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 | |
| p.m. today. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. | |
| I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady from Wyoming, | |
| Mrs. Lummis, be allowed to sit with the subcommittee and | |
| participate in the hearing. Hearing no objection, that is so | |
| ordered. | |
| I also politely ask that everyone in the hearing room | |
| please silence your cell phones. This will allow for minimum | |
| distractions for both our Members and our guests to ensure that | |
| we all gain as much from this opportunity as possible. It is a | |
| little different from when I was a judge. If your cell phone | |
| went off, the bailiff took it and you had to do so much | |
| community service before you got it back. I do not have that | |
| authority at this point, but I would just ask that you turn | |
| those to vibrate at a minimum. | |
| I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening | |
| statement. | |
| STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN | |
| CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS | |
| Mr. Gohmert. The Subcommittee on Oversight and | |
| Investigations is meeting today to hear directly from witnesses | |
| who are a part of the throngs of people most affected by the | |
| Bureau of Land Management's proposed resource management | |
| planning rule. This draft rule is part of BLM's Planning 2.0 | |
| initiative, which would completely revamp the process by which | |
| BLM prepares and amends resource management plans for hundreds | |
| of millions of acres throughout the West. | |
| When Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management | |
| Act, sometimes referred to as FLPMA, it made clear that BLM is | |
| required to coordinate with local governments on management | |
| plans. But BLM's Planning 2.0 effort and this proposed rule | |
| seem not to take that responsibility seriously enough. | |
| BLM has said that its draft Planning 2.0 rule would not | |
| really change BLM's practice. But, if that's the case, it is | |
| counterproductive to go to the trouble of making another | |
| regulation. Words have meaning, and we are here today to take a | |
| look at what BLM's regulation actually does. In fact, there are | |
| several changes in the proposed rule that are worth mentioning, | |
| and I am sure our witnesses will have additional matters they | |
| would like to address. | |
| First, instead of keeping most planning activity at the | |
| field office level, this proposed rule would transfer that | |
| authority to BLM headquarters here in Washington, DC. Doing so | |
| opens the door to political gamesmanship and to special | |
| interests in Washington, influencing decisions that affect | |
| Americans thousands of miles away. | |
| This proposed rule also introduces a lot of uncertainty. | |
| From simply changing ''shall'' to ``will,'' to renaming | |
| cooperating agencies, to giving BLM wide discretion to | |
| unilaterally and arbitrarily designate large planning areas, | |
| BLM's draft rule makes it much more difficult for local | |
| individuals and officials to keep up with and participate in | |
| the planning process. In some instances, BLM even explicitly | |
| shifts the burden to local and state governments. | |
| For example, BLM would no longer have to familiarize itself | |
| with local land use plans and policies to determine whether or | |
| not there are any inconsistencies. Instead, BLM will only | |
| consider inconsistencies that states or counties raise in | |
| writing. | |
| How can BLM say it is cooperating with state and local | |
| governments when the Agency is trying to shirk its | |
| responsibility to understand the plans and policies that local | |
| and state officials have already developed? A truly | |
| collaborative process is a two-way street, and making state and | |
| local governments entirely responsible for this part of the | |
| process is unwarranted. | |
| BLM says Planning 2.0 is all about being more nimble and | |
| working collaboratively with local governments. Yet, BLM has | |
| refused to grant requests to extend the public comment period. | |
| That would make it appear that they wish to nimbly avoid | |
| receiving grant requests. The average request was for an | |
| extension of about 108 days, but BLM only extended the comment | |
| period for 30 days. They apparently want to nimbly avoid | |
| receiving comments. This was not the best way to kick off a | |
| rule that is supposed to make coordination better and easier. | |
| On the other hand, the Administration is trying to churn | |
| out as many new, heavy-handed rules, regulations, and policies | |
| as possible before the President leaves office, such as changes | |
| in critical habitat designation, venting and flaring rules, | |
| restrictive resource management plans, a new take on the | |
| Migratory Bird Treaty Act, designation of new national | |
| monuments, coal lease suspensions, offshore exclusions, and | |
| conservation mitigation requirements. Planning 2.0 is just one | |
| more thing creating havoc for Americans already unfairly | |
| burdened by over-regulation. | |
| It is worth repeating that management decisions must be | |
| made at the local level, in concert with the people whose lives | |
| are most affected by those decisions, not by bureaucrats in | |
| Washington. That is why today we are hearing from individuals | |
| from across the West who understand the implications of | |
| Planning 2.0 and can express those concerns and critiques that | |
| BLM should heed. | |
| I would like to thank each of the witnesses for joining us | |
| today. I know you are not here because of the pay; you are here | |
| because you care about the country. We look forward to hearing | |
| your testimony. | |
| [The prepared statement of Mr. Gohmert follows:] | |
| Prepared Statement of the Hon. Louie Gohmert, Chairman, Subcommittee on | |
| Oversight and Investigations | |
| The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is meeting today | |
| to hear directly from witnesses who are a part of the throngs of people | |
| most affected by the Bureau of Land Management's proposed resource | |
| management planning rule. | |
| This draft rule is part of BLM's ``Planning 2.0'' initiative, which | |
| would completely revamp the process by which BLM prepares and amends | |
| resource management plans for hundreds of millions of acres throughout | |
| the West. | |
| When Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act | |
| (FLPMA), it made clear that BLM is required to coordinate with local | |
| governments on management plans. But BLM's Planning 2.0 effort and this | |
| proposed rule seem not to take that responsibility seriously. | |
| BLM has said that its draft Planning 2.0 rule would not really | |
| change BLM's ``practice.'' But if that's the case, it is | |
| counterproductive to go to the trouble of making another regulation. | |
| Words have meaning, and we're here today to take a look at what BLM's | |
| regulation actually does. | |
| In fact, there are several changes in the proposed rule that are | |
| worth mentioning, and I'm sure our witnesses will have additional | |
| matters they would like to address. | |
| First, instead of keeping most planning activity at the field | |
| office level, this proposed rule would transfer that authority to BLM | |
| headquarters in Washington, DC. Doing so opens the door to political | |
| gamesmanship and to special interests in Washington influencing | |
| decisions that affect Americans thousands of miles away. | |
| This proposed rule also introduces a lot of uncertainty. From | |
| simply changing ``shall'' to ``will,'' to renaming ``cooperating | |
| agencies,'' to giving BLM wide discretion to unilaterally and | |
| arbitrarily designate large planning areas, BLM's draft rule makes it | |
| that much more difficult for locals to keep up with and participate in | |
| the planning process. | |
| In some instances, BLM even explicitly shifts the burden to local | |
| and state governments. For example, BLM would no longer have to | |
| familiarize itself with local land use plans and policies to determine | |
| whether there are any inconsistencies. Instead, BLM will only consider | |
| inconsistencies that states or counties raise in writing. | |
| How can BLM say it's cooperating with state and local governments | |
| when the Agency is trying to shirk its responsibility to understand the | |
| plans and policies that locals have already developed? A truly | |
| collaborative process is a two-way street and making state and local | |
| governments entirely responsible for this part of the process is | |
| unwarranted. | |
| BLM says that Planning 2.0 is all about being more ``nimble'' and | |
| working collaboratively with local governments--yet BLM has refused to | |
| grant requests to extend the public comment period. The average request | |
| was for an extension of about 108 days, but BLM only extended the | |
| comment period for 30 days. This was not the best way to kick off a | |
| rule that's supposed to make coordination better and easier. | |
| On the other hand, this Administration is trying to churn out as | |
| many new heavy-handed rules, regulations, and policies as possible | |
| before the President leaves office, such as changes in critical habitat | |
| designation, venting and flaring rules, restrictive resource management | |
| plans, a new take on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, designation of new | |
| national monuments, coal lease suspensions, offshore exclusions, and | |
| conservation mitigation requirements. Planning 2.0 is just one more | |
| thing creating havoc for Americans already unfairly burdened by over- | |
| regulation. | |
| It's worth repeating that management decisions must be made at the | |
| local level, in concert with the people whose lives are most affected | |
| by those decisions--not by bureaucrats in Washington. | |
| That is why today we're hearing from individuals from across the | |
| West who understand the implications of Planning 2.0 and can express | |
| concerns and critiques that BLM should heed. I'd like to thank each of | |
| them for joining us today, and look forward to hearing their testimony. | |
| ______ | |
| Mr. Gohmert. At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking | |
| Minority Member for 5 minutes, Mrs. Dingell. | |
| STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN | |
| CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN | |
| Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have some of | |
| the same goals in agreement; we just might see things through | |
| different perspectives, so I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. | |
| Today's hearing is about an important issue, the management | |
| of our public lands. Our public lands hold a wealth of both | |
| natural and cultural resources. They are a hub for recreational | |
| activities, from fishing and bird watching, to white water | |
| rafting and mountain biking. | |
| They provide critical habitat for endangered species and | |
| free ecosystem services like water filtration that we rely on | |
| every day. They support local economies and entrepreneurship. | |
| It is our duty to ensure that these lands and their diverse | |
| resources are maintained for many generations to come. | |
| The Bureau of Land Management has an especially critical | |
| role to play as the largest land holder among the Federal | |
| agencies. The Agency must have a process for managing lands and | |
| resources that is efficient, effective, and responsive to ever- | |
| changing needs. | |
| That is where Planning 2.0 comes into the picture. Planning | |
| 2.0 is the BLM's first major proposal for updating their | |
| resource management planning process in over 30 years; and | |
| although the new planning process is only in proposal form, it | |
| is clear that the Bureau is doing its due diligence in trying | |
| to make the process as transparent and accessible to the public | |
| as possible. | |
| Planning 2.0 proposes to involve the public earlier and | |
| more often in the planning process. By doing so, they will be | |
| better able to manage resources in a way that honors diverse | |
| needs, prevents expensive lawsuits down the road, and increases | |
| their own efficiency. | |
| Planning 2.0 also recognizes the importance of managing a | |
| land's resources where they are, at that local level that you | |
| talk about, not where they think it should be. It simply does | |
| not make sense to manage resources according to political and | |
| jurisdictional boundaries. Rivers do not stop at county lines. | |
| The sage grouse does not turn around and strut the other way | |
| when it reaches the BLM field office boundary. We cannot manage | |
| resources in a way that pretends it is any different. | |
| With changes like these, Planning 2.0 is trying to bring | |
| the Bureau's public land and resource management into the 21st | |
| century. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues seem to have a | |
| desire to want to maintain the status quo by holding onto the | |
| outdated process that is less efficient, less evidence-based, | |
| and less open to public input. We all want that public input | |
| that you talked about. What disappoints me even more is that | |
| there may very well be ways to improve the current Planning 2.0 | |
| proposal that both sides can agree on, but we are not going to | |
| learn it here today. Rather than seizing this opportunity to | |
| engage BLM in a productive conversation about ways to improve | |
| the planning process, we did not invite the Agency to be at the | |
| table when we should have. It is like taking your car to the | |
| shop and telling the receptionist, the other customers, and | |
| passers-by about your squeaky brakes, and then leaving without | |
| talking to the mechanic. You might feel a little better after | |
| venting, but nothing gets diagnosed or fixed. | |
| This hearing is an even bigger missed opportunity for our | |
| witnesses who have come a long way at their own expense, and we | |
| thank you for that. I think they deserve better. I yield back | |
| the balance of my time. | |
| [The prepared statement of Mrs. Dingell follows:] | |
| Prepared Statement of the Hon. Debbie Dingell, Ranking Member, | |
| Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations | |
| Thank you, Mr. Chairman. | |
| Today's hearing is about an important issue--the management of our | |
| public lands. Our public lands hold a wealth of both natural and | |
| cultural resources. They are a hub for recreational activities, from | |
| fishing and birdwatching to white water rafting and mountain biking. | |
| They provide critical habitat for endangered species and free ecosystem | |
| services like water filtration that we rely on every day. They support | |
| local economies and entrepreneurship. It is our duty to ensure that | |
| these lands and their diverse resources are maintained for many | |
| generations to come. | |
| The Bureau of Land Management has an especially critical role to | |
| play as the largest land holder among the Federal agencies. The Agency | |
| must have a process for managing their lands and resources that is | |
| efficient, effective, and responsive to our ever-changing needs. | |
| That's where Planning 2.0 comes into the picture. Planning 2.0 is | |
| the BLM's first major proposal for updating their resource management | |
| planning process in over 30 years. And although the new planning | |
| process is only in proposal form, it is clear that the Bureau is doing | |
| its due diligence in trying to make the process as transparent and | |
| accessible to the public as possible. Planning 2.0 proposes to involve | |
| the public earlier and more often in the planning process. By doing so, | |
| they will be better able to manage resources in a way that honors | |
| diverse needs, prevents expensive lawsuits down the road, and increases | |
| their own efficiency. | |
| Planning 2.0 also recognizes the importance of managing a land's | |
| resources where they are, not where we think they should be. It simply | |
| doesn't make sense to manage resources according to political and | |
| jurisdictional boundaries. Rivers don't stop running at county lines. | |
| The sage grouse doesn't turn around and strut the other way when it | |
| reaches the BLM Field Office boundary. We can't manage resources in a | |
| way that pretends any different. | |
| With changes like these, Planning 2.0 is trying to bring the | |
| Bureau's public land and resource management into the 21st century. | |
| Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to | |
| have a desire to maintain the status quo by holding onto an outdated | |
| process that is less efficient, less evidence-based, and less open to | |
| public input. | |
| But what disappoints me even more is that there may very well be | |
| ways to improve the current Planning 2.0 proposal that both sides can | |
| agree on, but we won't learn them here today. Rather than seizing this | |
| opportunity to engage BLM in a productive conversation about ways to | |
| improve the planning process, my colleagues did not invite the Agency | |
| to be at the table. It's like taking your car to the shop and telling | |
| the receptionist, other customers, and passers-by all about your | |
| squeaky brakes and then leaving without talking to the mechanic. You | |
| might feel a little better after venting but nothing gets diagnosed or | |
| fixed. | |
| This hearing is an even bigger missed opportunity for our witnesses | |
| who have come from afar at their own expense. I think they deserve | |
| better. | |
| I yield back the balance of my time. | |
| ______ | |
| Mr. Gohmert. All right. I thank the gentlelady. | |
| At this time, I will now introduce our witnesses from right | |
| to left. First, we have Mr. Jim French, County Commissioner | |
| from Humboldt County, Nevada. To his right, our left, Ms. Caren | |
| Cowan, Executive Director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' | |
| Association in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Next, we have Mr. Corey | |
| Fisher, Senior Policy Director for the Sportsmen's Conservation | |
| Project at Trout Unlimited--I like the sound of that, Trout | |
| Unlimited--in Missoula, Montana. | |
| Now, I would like to invite the gentlelady, the quite | |
| honorable gentlelady, from Wyoming to introduce our final | |
| witness. | |
| Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for | |
| allowing me to participate in this hearing today. | |
| It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Pete Obermueller, who is | |
| the Executive Director of the Wyoming County Commissioners | |
| Association. Some of you, who have been around for a while, | |
| might recognize Pete as a former legislative director for my | |
| office here in Washington. We did a lot of work together on | |
| this committee, and on the Interior and Environment | |
| Appropriations Subcommittee. | |
| Pete was juggling a lot of hats when he was here working | |
| for me. I asked him one time what experience in his life best | |
| prepared him for the many, many tasks that he was carrying in | |
| our office. He said, ``That is really easy. I was the manager | |
| of a Christian rock band.'' I thought about that for a while, | |
| and, you know, it made a lot of sense, because you are doing | |
| scheduling, contract management, people management, and | |
| logistics; and you start thinking about what it takes to handle | |
| people on the road working that way with their different | |
| personalities. For heaven sakes, it made perfect sense that | |
| that was his most equatable experience to serve my office so | |
| well here in Washington. | |
| He is now serving the Wyoming County Commissioners | |
| Association very well. In fact, the Wyoming County | |
| Commissioners Association, under Pete's capable leadership, | |
| considering that Wyoming has 17 million acres of BLM land, put | |
| out a publication of all the different Federal agencies the | |
| counties have to deal with, what their statutory duties are, | |
| and how county commissioners are expected or the law expects | |
| county commissioners to interact. | |
| So, Pete's experience on behalf of county commissioners in | |
| the West in public land states, as well as here in Washington | |
| where he worked on the Western Caucus issues and this | |
| committee's issues, make him an exceptional witness today. | |
| So welcome, Pete. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield | |
| back. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. The witness has a lot to live up to | |
| after that introduction. | |
| [Laughter.] | |
| Mr. Gohmert. At this time, I need to remind the witnesses | |
| that under our Committee Rules, all oral statements must be | |
| limited to 5 minutes. Your written statements have been | |
| submitted and will be part of the record. We have all had a | |
| chance to review those, and we appreciate them. When the light | |
| comes on, it will be green for 4 minutes. When it turns yellow, | |
| you have 1 minute remaining; and when it turns red, then it is | |
| my job to help you immediately finish. So, again, understand we | |
| have your written statements. | |
| The Chair will now recognize Mr. French for your testimony. | |
| You are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. French. | |
| STATEMENT OF JIM FRENCH, COMMISSIONER, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, | |
| WINNEMUCCA, NEVADA | |
| Mr. French. Good afternoon, Chairman Gohmert, Ranking | |
| Member Dingell, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for | |
| the opportunity to testify today to provide local and county | |
| perspective on BLM's Planning 2.0 rule. | |
| My name is Commissioner Jim French, a member of the | |
| Humboldt County Nevada Board of Commissioners. Humboldt County | |
| has a population of 16,528 residents, and a land area of nearly | |
| 6.2 million acres. Of those acres, BLM manages over 4.3 million | |
| acres, nearly the size of the state of New Jersey. All total, | |
| the Federal Government owns nearly 90 percent of my county. As | |
| a county commissioner and a biologist with the Nevada | |
| Department of Wildlife for more than 34 years, I know firsthand | |
| how important it is for Federal land managers to work with | |
| local communities. When land management decisions are handed | |
| down from Washington, DC, they impact more than just Federal | |
| lands. They impact our counties, economics, and way of life. | |
| After reviewing the proposed BLM Planning 2.0 rule, I am | |
| concerned that the BLM has not provided sufficient time for | |
| counties to fully analyze the rule. Local governments and | |
| locally generated information should play a significant role in | |
| guiding the planning process. Commonly, public lands counties | |
| lack the staffing and budgetary resources necessary to employ a | |
| full-time natural resources manager. County coordination and | |
| approval of outside contractor analysis will exceed the 90 days | |
| offered by the BLM for comment. For many more counties, the | |
| task will likely fall on county commissioners like me who will | |
| volunteer to sit down and sift through the Planning 2.0 and try | |
| to assess the impacts. | |
| Given the significant impact of Planning 2.0, the National | |
| Association of Counties and Local Governments from across the | |
| Nation has called for additional time to analyze the regulatory | |
| changes for the proposed 2.0. | |
| Second, I am concerned that BLM's proposed changes will | |
| reduce Federal consistency with local master plans and | |
| policies. FLPMA makes it clear that local governments are not | |
| just another member of the public. Counties must have a seat at | |
| the table and an opportunity to shape management decisions and | |
| partnership with land managers. | |
| The proposed changes would revise consistency requirements | |
| so that the BLM would not be required to consider local | |
| implemented policies or programs or other local government | |
| actions. This change would significantly impact the ability of | |
| local government and the BLM to work together to address the | |
| evolving needs of a community and its landscapes. | |
| Additionally, the proposed rule seeks to distinguish | |
| between plan components whose revisions require public | |
| consultation and an implementation strategy which can be | |
| revised at any time without consultation with local government | |
| or cooperating agencies. This change fails to recognize that | |
| how a plan is implemented can have as significant an impact as | |
| the components of the plan itself. | |
| Engagement with local governments should not be | |
| discretionary. The BLM must be required to engage local | |
| governments at all stages of RMP development and | |
| implementation. | |
| Finally, Planning 2.0 proposes a fundamental shift in the | |
| BLM's RMP planning area. In this rule, BLM has proposed a | |
| change toward broad geographic planning boundaries, shifting | |
| the focus to a regional level which dilutes the voice of the | |
| resource management in those communities. For example, in my | |
| county, working with district managers has been successful in | |
| harmonizing local, state, and Federal plans to promote recovery | |
| in the wake of wildfire events. We have worked with our Federal | |
| partners to coordinate large fire reclamation teams, and have | |
| seen positive results in coordinating recovery plans to the | |
| existing local resource plans. | |
| In contrast, a regional approach will encourage a | |
| disconnect by defaulting to a directive not specific to the | |
| needs of the local communities or the natural resources. | |
| Although I understand the need for flexibility, | |
| scalability, and planning, establishing a default boundary that | |
| does not begin at the local level will only serve to reduce the | |
| local voice, lose valuable local knowledge and expertise, and | |
| drown out the voices to local stakeholders and cooperating | |
| agencies and a sea of form letters from national interest | |
| groups. | |
| Counties like mine continue to urge the BLM to work with us | |
| to implement a Planning 2.0 rule that benefits from significant | |
| local government input, guarantees consistency with local | |
| plans, and ensures robust local cooperation at all phases of | |
| the planning process. As a partner with the Federal land | |
| managers, counties want a practical Federal policy that works | |
| at a local level. | |
| Thank you. | |
| [The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:] | |
| Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jim French, Humboldt County, Nevada, | |
| Board of Commissioners | |
| Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Dingell and members of the | |
| subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today to provide | |
| a local county perspective on BLM's Draft Planning 2.0 Rule. | |
| My name is Commissioner Jim French, member of the Humboldt County, | |
| Nevada, Board of Commissioners. I also serve as one of Nevada's | |
| representatives on the Board of Directors of the National Association | |
| of Counties' (NACo) Western Interstate Region. Humboldt County is | |
| located in northern Nevada, approximately 170 miles northeast of Reno. | |
| We have a population of 16,528 residents and a land area of nearly 6.2 | |
| million acres. Of those 6.2 million acres, the Bureau of Land | |
| Management (BLM) manages over 4.3 million acres. Additionally, over | |
| 660,000 acres in our county are managed by either the U.S. Forest | |
| Service (USFS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). All | |
| totaled, the Federal Government owns nearly 90 percent of my county and | |
| the BLM alone manages an area in Humboldt County nearly the size of the | |
| state of New Jersey. | |
| As a county commissioner in a public lands county and as the | |
| Winnemucca District biologist for the Nevada Department of Wildlife for | |
| almost 30 years, I know firsthand how important it is for Federal land | |
| managers to work with local communities. Our citizens travel on roads | |
| across Federal land to get to work every day and many families make | |
| their living working our region's natural resources. Those that live, | |
| work and raise their families in my county know that our community is | |
| linked to the land. When land management decisions are handed down from | |
| Washington, DC, they impact more than just the Federal lands, they | |
| impact our community's economy and way of life. | |
| After reviewing the proposed BLM Planning 2.0 rule, I am concerned | |
| that BLM: | |
| <bullet> Has not provided sufficient time for counties to fully | |
| digest and offer comment on the proposed rule change; | |
| <bullet> Has proposed changes that will reduce requirements to | |
| ensure Federal consistency with local policies; and | |
| <bullet> Seeks to implement a multi-state landscape level of | |
| analysis that could diminish the ability of BLM to | |
| meaningfully assess the local impacts of management | |
| decisions. | |
| First, the BLM has not provided sufficient time for the counties to | |
| fully analyze and comment on the rule. The proposed rule will have a | |
| significant impact on how the BLM plans for and manages its 245 million | |
| acres of public lands and 700 million acres of subsurface minerals for | |
| years to come. Each of the 477 counties across the Nation that contain | |
| BLM lands will be impacted by the proposed Planning 2.0 rule. As co- | |
| regulators and intergovernmental partners in the land management | |
| mission, counties have a significant interest in providing the most | |
| meaningful information and analysis possible to help develop BLM | |
| regulations. Local governments and locally generated information should | |
| play a significant role in guiding the planning process. | |
| Commonly, public lands counties like mine lack the staffing and | |
| budgetary resources necessary to employ a full-time natural resources | |
| coordinator or similar position dedicated to assessing the impacts of | |
| sweeping Federal land management actions like Planning 2.0 at the | |
| county level. For many public lands counties, obtaining the necessary | |
| expertise to fully assess Planning 2.0 and its impacts will require | |
| them to contract outside assistance to perform a comprehensive analysis | |
| of the proposed rule. Coordination, preparation and approval of outside | |
| contractor analysis will exceed the 90 days offered by the BLM for | |
| comment. For many more counties, their budgets do not allow them to | |
| obtain outside counsel to analyze Planning 2.0's impact. In those | |
| cases, the task will likely fall to county commissioners like me who | |
| will volunteer to sift through the hundreds of pages that make up | |
| Planning 2.0 and try to assess its impact on their communities. | |
| Given the potentially significant impact of Planning 2.0, the | |
| volume of information involved, as well as the staffing and budgetary | |
| realities facing counties like mine, NACo, along with county | |
| governments from across the Nation, called on BLM to provide additional | |
| time for local governments to analyze the implications of the | |
| substantive regulatory changes presented in Planning 2.0. | |
| By allowing sufficient time for counties to offer input and suggest | |
| changes to the proposed regulation, local governments can help the BLM | |
| mitigate any unintended consequences or challenges posed by the | |
| proposed rule, some of which are foreseeable from a local government | |
| perspective. | |
| Second, I am concerned the BLM has proposed changes to current | |
| planning rules that will reduce local government's ability to ensure | |
| Federal consistency with local master plans and policies. The Federal | |
| Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) charges the BLM to ``. . . | |
| provide for meaningful public involvement of state and local government | |
| officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of . . . land | |
| use regulations . . ..'' Public lands counties provide essential law | |
| enforcement, search and rescue, public health, transportation | |
| infrastructure and many more services on Federal public lands. | |
| Rightfully so, FLPMA makes it clear that local governments are not just | |
| another member of the public. Local governments interact with our | |
| natural resources on a daily basis and hold a wealth of practical, on | |
| the ground knowledge that should be actively sought out by Federal | |
| agencies to inform Federal decisionmaking. As elected officials and | |
| intergovernmental partners with the Federal Government, counties must | |
| have a seat at the table and an opportunity to help shape management | |
| decisions in partnership with land managers. | |
| Integrated land management efforts across levels of government are | |
| key to successful land management planning. The Planning 2.0 | |
| regulations attempt to change the way the BLM interacts with state, | |
| local and tribal governments for land management planning. For example, | |
| proposed changes would revise consistency requirements so that resource | |
| management plans (RMPs) must only be consistent with officially adopted | |
| local land use plans. BLM would not be required to consider locally | |
| implemented policies, programs or other local government actions, nor | |
| would BLM have to consider local land use plans that are in the process | |
| of being crafted or revised. This change could significantly impact the | |
| ability of local governments and BLM to work together to address the | |
| evolving needs of a community or the local landscape. | |
| Presently, the BLM planning protocol recognizes county planning | |
| documents including additions, changes and updates. It is widely | |
| recognized that as conditions change, management direction must adjust | |
| in parallel. FLPMA requires ``consistency with local master plans and | |
| policies.'' However, changes offered in the proposed Planning 2.0 rule | |
| attempt to revise consistency requirements to allow BLM to recognize | |
| only plans that have been fully adopted before the planning process | |
| begins. | |
| When the original ``RMP Winnemucca district'' was adopted in 1982- | |
| 83 Humboldt County had approximately 20 percent fewer residences and | |
| most of our natural resource related jobs had not yet been created. | |
| Over the course of the 30 years that the RMP was in place Humboldt | |
| County completely revised its master plan three times, created a water | |
| and natural resource plan, a regional transportation plan and | |
| implemented countless other planning efforts to meet the challenges of | |
| our changing community. As these new local plans were implemented, we | |
| were able to work with BLM to ensure consistency between local and | |
| Federal plans. Under Planning 2.0 the addition of new local plans and | |
| revisions to existing documents may not be officially recognized by the | |
| BLM. | |
| Additionally, the proposed rule seeks to distinguish between ``plan | |
| components,'' which can only be changed by amending or revising an RMP, | |
| and an ``implementation strategy,'' which guides future actions the BLM | |
| may take on the land but can be revised at any time without triggering | |
| a requirement for consultation with local counties and cooperating | |
| agencies. This change fails to recognize that how a plan is implemented | |
| can have as significant an impact as the components of the plan itself. | |
| By failing to consult and cooperate with local governments on | |
| implementation strategies, the BLM would not benefit from valuable | |
| local insights. This could result in implementation strategies with | |
| significant negative impacts on local communities. Engagement with | |
| local government should not be discretionary. The BLM must be required | |
| to engage local governments at all stages of RMP development and | |
| implementation. | |
| Finally, Planning 2.0 proposes a fundamental shift in the BLM's | |
| default RMP planning area. Rather than continuing the policy of | |
| utilizing local BLM Field Office boundaries as the default planning | |
| area, the BLM has instead proposed a shift toward broader geographic | |
| planning boundaries that cross regional districts and, in some cases, | |
| even state lines. Shifting the BLM's focus to a regional ``30,000 foot | |
| level,'' rather than focusing on discrete local landscapes, dilutes the | |
| local voice in resource management planning, empowering regional line | |
| managers' decisions far removed from the land. | |
| In my county, by taking a local focus and working with local land | |
| managers we have been successful in harmonizing local, state and | |
| Federal plans to promote recovery in the wake of wildland fire. | |
| Following fire events, our response to these events has centered on | |
| locally focused planning efforts. We work with our Federal partners to | |
| coordinate large fire reclamation teams of managers, regulators, and | |
| local officials assembled to assess damage and prioritize response | |
| efforts on behalf of the citizens and the natural resources impacted by | |
| the fire. These efforts have been largely successful due to our team | |
| approach of collecting data and coordinating recovery plans to existing | |
| local resource plans, regional master plans and other regional | |
| strategic plans. | |
| In contrast, a regional approach based at the ``basin'' level, | |
| formulated by disconnected line managers who have no connection to the | |
| land, resources or the communities affected by the disaster would not | |
| benefit from the kind of on the ground knowledge local governments and | |
| stakeholders have been able to provide. I'm afraid a ``one size fits | |
| all'' approach, based in regional directives will result in what is | |
| commonly referred to as ``analysis paralysis'' and a project | |
| disconnect. In the case of fire events in our area, when a regional | |
| approach has been applied to post-fire restoration the resulting | |
| disconnect and delays in action have resulted in a failure to reclaim | |
| damaged lands, large-scale infestation of noxious weeds and damage to | |
| critical infrastructure. As currently proposed, Planning 2.0 will | |
| encourage that disconnect by defaulting to a regional directive not | |
| specific to the realities and needs of the local communities or natural | |
| resources. | |
| Land management decisions must balance many ecological, economic, | |
| historical and cultural factors. In my experience as a county | |
| commissioner and a land manager, the management decisions that strike | |
| the best balance are those made in close coordination with the local | |
| community by individuals with a deep understanding of the landscape. | |
| This understanding can only be built over time by being ``on the land'' | |
| and in the community. Defaulting the planning focus to a broader | |
| regional scale divorces decisionmaking from the land itself. BLM's | |
| focus should remain at the local level and impact decisions should be | |
| made, literally, on the ground. | |
| Although I understand the need for flexibility and scalability in | |
| planning, establishing a default boundary that does not begin at the | |
| local level will only serve to reduce the local voice, cause valuable | |
| local knowledge and experiences to be lost to an overly broad | |
| perspective, and drown out the voices of local stakeholders and | |
| cooperating agencies in a sea of form letters from national interest | |
| groups without a direct connection to the land itself. | |
| Local county governments can be invaluable allies to Federal land | |
| managers. The necessity for local government to be close to its land | |
| and its people makes us a significant resource. Local governments can | |
| provide a real-time, on the ground perspective that can help to avoid | |
| many of the pitfalls caused by distant land management decisions made | |
| in far-off offices. We are at the forefront of protecting both our | |
| citizens and the environment. Counties like mine continue to urge the | |
| BLM to work with us to implement a Planning 2.0 rule that benefits from | |
| significant local government input, guarantees consistency with local | |
| plans and ensures robust local cooperation at all phases of the | |
| planning process. As a partner with Federal land managers in this | |
| pursuit, counties want a practical Federal policy that works at the | |
| local level. | |
| ______ | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Thank you very much, Mr. French. | |
| At this time, Ms. Cowan, you are recognized for 5 minutes. | |
| STATEMENT OF CAREN COWAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW MEXICO CATTLE | |
| GROWERS' ASSOCIATION, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO | |
| Ms. Cowan. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Dingell, and | |
| members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to come | |
| here today and speak to you about this issue that is so | |
| important to ranching families in New Mexico and throughout the | |
| West. | |
| My name is Caren Cowan, and I am the Executive Director of | |
| the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association and the New Mexico | |
| Wool Growers' Association. In addition, I publish a monthly | |
| magazine and a monthly newspaper that covers 40 states from | |
| Maine to Hawaii on ranching and private property issues. | |
| The New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association has members in | |
| all 33 of our state's counties. The association also has | |
| members from 19 other states. | |
| The use of Bureau of Land Management lands is critical to | |
| the ranching communities in New Mexico, as well as to NMCGA's | |
| members in other states. Given the vast amounts of land managed | |
| by the Agency within the western states, the ability for local | |
| government to participate in Federal activities on lands that | |
| make up a large majority of counties is of critical importance. | |
| I was blessed to have known some of the men who crafted FLPMA. | |
| They were wise men, and I ask for their guidance often. | |
| The proposed Planning 2.0 regulations certainly do not | |
| reflect the concerns that led to the creation of FLPMA, nor do | |
| they reflect the spirit or the intent of the law. One of the | |
| beauties of FLPMA is the ability to make decisions on the | |
| ground with the involved public following the multiple use | |
| mandates of the Bureau of Land Management. This proposal will | |
| destroy that ability, favoring the command and control top-down | |
| driven decisions that we find so distasteful in other Federal | |
| land management agencies. | |
| Not only is the local government participation in the | |
| planning a huge concern, but the redefining of the term | |
| ``landscape'' to cover vast amounts of land without recognition | |
| of geopolitical boundaries is a not-very-well-veiled attempt at | |
| Federal control in the states. | |
| The proposed planning rule also eliminates the requirement | |
| that the areas of critical environmental concern, ACECs, must | |
| still be managed for multiple use by eliminating a sentence in | |
| the existing ACEC definition that states, ``The identification | |
| of a potential ACEC shall not of itself change or prevent | |
| change of the management of use of public lands.'' By | |
| eliminating that sentence, the BLM is granting the ability to | |
| eliminate multiple use on ACECs. Although the BLM describes | |
| ACEC designation as the BLM's attempt to clearly communicate | |
| the BLM's intent to prioritize those resources and their | |
| values, such prioritization will eliminate part of the use. | |
| These are but a few concerns contained within the 244-page | |
| proposal. I could go on for some time, and I did so with my | |
| written comments. | |
| The request that we bring to you today is that the process | |
| and development of this new planning proposal be slowed down, | |
| and backed up, to include all of those who utilize BLM lands. | |
| This process should include at least one meeting in each state, | |
| and better yet, within each district. To date, to my knowledge, | |
| there has been one public meeting in 2015 in California, and | |
| another one in Colorado in 2016. | |
| The Denver meeting was a Webinar on a weekday in the middle | |
| of the week. That certainly does not fit into the time frame | |
| that most working Americans can participate in. We have | |
| requested up to a 180-day extension on the comment period, but | |
| we were granted only a paltry 30 days. We hope that the BLM | |
| will reconsider the short extension and provide us one that is | |
| more meaningful and that allows for more participation. | |
| A lot of my members do not even have access to a computer. | |
| All of this is on the computer, so you have left out a huge | |
| group of people. | |
| I agree with Mrs. Dingell that there are things that | |
| probably do need to be changed; and I agree with her that we | |
| need to sit at the table and change them. We need to have time | |
| to do that. | |
| I want to thank you for the time today. I also want to | |
| thank the New Mexico Department of Agriculture and the Cattle | |
| Growers' attorney, Karen Budd-Falen from Wyoming, for their | |
| help in preparing these comments. Thank you for your time. | |
| [The prepared statement of Ms. Cowan follows:] | |
| Prepared Statement of Caren Cowan, Albuquerque, New Mexico, on behalf | |
| of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association | |
| Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the | |
| opportunity to speak to you today about this most important issue. My | |
| name is Caren Cowan; I am the Executive Director of the New Mexico | |
| Cattle Growers' Association (NMCGA) and the New Mexico Wool Growers, | |
| Inc. (NMWGI). Additionally, I published the New Mexico Stockman | |
| magazine and the Livestock Market Digest monthly newspaper. The NMCGA | |
| has members in all 33 of New Mexico's counties as well 19 other states. | |
| The NMWGI is New Mexico's oldest trade organization. The Stockman and | |
| Digest reach over 40 states in the Nation ranging from Maine to Hawaii. | |
| The use of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in critical to the | |
| ranching communities of New Mexico as well as to NMCGA's members in | |
| numerous other states. Given the vast amounts of lands managed by the | |
| Agency within the western states, the ability for local governments to | |
| participate in Federal activities on lands that make up a large | |
| majority of many counties is of critical importance. | |
| I was blessed to have known some of the men who crafted the Federal | |
| Land Policy & Management Act (FLMPA). The proposed 2.0 planning | |
| regulations certainly don't reflect the concerns that lead to the | |
| creation of FLMPA, nor does it reflect the letter and intent of the | |
| law. | |
| One of the beauties of FLMPA is the ability to make decisions on | |
| the ground with the involved publics following the multiple use | |
| mandates of the BLM. This proposal will destroy that ability, favoring | |
| the command and control, top driven down decisions that are so | |
| distasteful with other land management agencies. | |
| Not only is local government participation in planning a huge | |
| concern, but redefining the term ``landscape'' to cover vast amounts of | |
| land without the recognition of geopolitical boundaries is a not well- | |
| veiled attempt at Federal control over counties and states. | |
| The proposed planning rule also eliminates the requirement that | |
| Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) must still be managed | |
| for ``multiple use'' by eliminating a sentence in the existing ACEC | |
| definition that states ``the identification of a potential ACEC shall | |
| not, of itself, change or prevent change of the management or use of | |
| public lands.'' | |
| By eliminating that sentence, the BLM is granting to itself the | |
| ability to eliminate multiple uses from ACECs. Although the BLM | |
| describes ACEC designation as the BLM's attempt to ``clearly | |
| communicate the BLM's intention to prioritize these recourses values or | |
| uses,'' such prioritization will lead to elimination of use. | |
| These are but a few concerns within the 244 page proposal. I could | |
| go on for some time, and did in my written comments. | |
| The request we bring you today is that the process of the | |
| development of a new planning proposal be slowed downed and backed up | |
| to include all of those who utilize BLM lands. This process should | |
| include at least one meeting in each state, better yet with in | |
| district. | |
| To date there has been one public meeting in 2015 in California and | |
| another in Colorado in 2016. The Denver meeting was a ``Webinar'' on a | |
| weekday in the middle of the day. That certainly does fit into a time | |
| frame that most working Americans can participate in. | |
| We have requested up a 180-day extension on the comment period, but | |
| were granted only a paltry 30 days. We hope that the BLM will | |
| reconsider this short extension and provide one that is more | |
| meaningful. | |
| Thank you for your time today. | |
| specific comments | |
| Background | |
| February 11, 2016, the Bureau of Land Management (``BLM'') | |
| introduced new draft planning regulations (``draft Planning 2.0'') to | |
| ``enable the BLM to more readily address landscape-scale issues . . . | |
| and to respond more effectively to environmental and social change.'' | |
| The statutory authority for the BLM to adopt these new planning | |
| regulations is the (``FLPMA''). FLPMA was adopted in 1976; that Act (1) | |
| changed the BLM's mission from the disposal of public land to retention | |
| of these lands, (2) required the BLM to prepare land and resource | |
| management plans (``RMP'') which govern all activities on the BLM- | |
| managed lands, and (3) required that BLM lands be managed for | |
| ``multiple use and sustained yield.'' | |
| FLPMA itself, as well as the current BLM regulations, mandate the | |
| involvement of state and local governments and Indian tribes | |
| (collectively ``local governments'') in the BLM's decisionmaking | |
| process. However, although the BLM claims that the draft Planning 2.0 | |
| regulations do not change the BLM's ``practice'' in developing RMPs, | |
| some areas in the draft rules are a significant departure or the | |
| language of the agency's previous planning rules and in some cases a | |
| significant departure for the agency's interpretation of FLPMA. In my | |
| view, these changes are detrimental and severely limit local | |
| governments' involvement in the BLM planning process. The BLM's | |
| rationale for these changes makes no sense. Words mean something; thus, | |
| if there is no change ``in practice'' as the BLM claims, why is there a | |
| change in the language being used to support that practice? | |
| A. General Comments: | |
| 1. The draft Planning 2.0 regulations would eliminate the mandatory | |
| notification requirements from the BLM to impacted local | |
| governments and replace them with a requirement that the | |
| BLM only notify those local governments ``that have | |
| requested to be notified or that the [BLM] responsible | |
| official has reason to believe would be interested in the | |
| resource management plan or plan amendment.'' In other | |
| places, the new regulation replaces the required | |
| notification requirements with the requirement for | |
| notification to only those local governments the BLM | |
| believes would be ``concerned with'' or ``interested in'' | |
| the Federal land use plan. | |
| 2. Throughout the draft Planning 2.0 regulations, the BLM proposes | |
| to replace the word ``shall'' and replace it with the word | |
| ``will.'' Although some courts have determined that the | |
| word ``will'' denotes a mandatory action, others have held | |
| that the word ``will'' must be read in context to determine | |
| its meaning. On the other hand, I found no court cases that | |
| held that the word ``shall'' can have any other meaning | |
| except a mandatory command. If this BLM change denotes ``no | |
| change in practice,'' it is hard to understand why this | |
| change is necessary. | |
| 3. FLPMA requires management of BLM lands for multiple use and | |
| sustained yield. Nowhere in FLPMA does Congress allow the | |
| management of BLM lands for ``social changes.'' However, | |
| according to BLM draft Planning 2.0; ``Goal 1'' is to | |
| ``improve the BLM's ability to respond to social and | |
| environmental change in a timely manner.'' | |
| 4. It is not clear how the draft Planning 2.0 rules intersect with | |
| the requirements for environmental, economic and ``custom | |
| and culture'' analysis pursuant to the National | |
| Environmental Policy Act. For example, the draft Planning | |
| 2.0 rules describe BLM's planning as a two-step process | |
| with the first step being for the BLM and public to | |
| understand the current ``baseline in regards to resource, | |
| environmental, ecological, social and economic conditions | |
| in the planning area.'' NEPA also requires that baseline | |
| information be gathered and additionally, that the status | |
| quo management be the ``no action alternative.'' I believe | |
| it is critical to ensure that the ``status quo'' or ``no | |
| action alternative'' accurately reflect the current | |
| baseline and not be some departure from analysis that | |
| accurately describes exactly the conditions as they exist. | |
| 5. The comment period for review of draft land use plans is | |
| shortened from 90 days to 60 days and the comment period | |
| for review of land use plan amendments is shortened from 90 | |
| days to 45 days. | |
| B. Local Government Involvement in BLM Land Management Plan Decisions: | |
| The BLM draft Planning 2.0 regulations represent a significant | |
| departure in the way that local governments can become involved in the | |
| BLM decisionmaking process. Specifically the draft regulations provide | |
| less opportunity for local governments to have meaningful and | |
| significant input in violation of FLPMA. | |
| 1. Consistency Review With Local Land Use Plans, Policies and | |
| Programs | |
| a. The draft Planning 2.0 regulations strictly limits the | |
| types of local government plans that the BLM will consider as | |
| part of its consistency review. Existing BLM regulations state | |
| that: | |
| The BLM is obligated to take all practical measures to resolve | |
| conflicts between Federal and local government land use plans. | |
| Additionally, the BLM must identify areas where the proposed [BLM] plan | |
| is inconsistent with local land use policies, plans or programs and | |
| provide reasons why inconsistencies exist and cannot be remedied. | |
| Sec. 1601.0-4 Responsibilities. | |
| The proposed regulations would shift responsibility for determining | |
| the deciding official and planning area from state directors to the BLM | |
| director. Westerners are concerned about this shift of responsibility | |
| farther away from the level at which plan components will be | |
| implemented. It is paramount that decisionmakers have first-hand | |
| knowledge of local resources, their uses, and benefits to communities. | |
| Additionally, designation of planning area boundaries from a national | |
| perspective to address landscape-scale priorities could lead to plan | |
| components that address national concerns while local concerns and | |
| impacts are obscured. | |
| Sec. 1601.0-5 Definitions. | |
| This section would modify, delete, and create new terms. Rather | |
| than addressing changes here, each will be addressed under their | |
| corresponding section of the proposed rule. | |
| Sec. 1601.0-8 Principles. (Emphasis added) | |
| The existing rule requires BLM to consider the impacts of RMPs on | |
| local economies and uses of adjacent or nearby non-Federal lands. The | |
| proposed rule would expand the consideration of impacts to include, | |
| ``resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions | |
| at appropriate scales.'' One could agree with the expanded array of | |
| impacts to consider; however, the analysis of impacts of a RMP must | |
| focus primarily on local impacts. | |
| Local communities, economies, customs, and culture are most | |
| impacted by changes in Federal land management. While impacts at the | |
| regional or national scale are important, they must not be the focus of | |
| an impacts analysis. Westerners are opposed to the proposed language | |
| that makes the scale of analysis a subjective determination which could | |
| lead to masking of local impacts. Assessing impacts at the local level | |
| is necessary, appropriate, and should be required. | |
| Sec. 1610.1-1 Guidance and general requirements. (Emphasis added) | |
| The description of guidance in the proposed regulation is similar | |
| to existing regulation. However, existing regulations at | |
| Sec. 1610.1(a)(3) require that state level guidance be developed, ``. . | |
| . with necessary and appropriate governmental coordination . . .'' This | |
| is a significant and unjustified change from current regulation. | |
| Coordination and consistency with state, local, and tribal plans and | |
| policies are paramount to successful planning efforts and required by | |
| FLPMA. Policies, analysis requirements, planning procedures, and other | |
| instructions have a major effect on the outcome of land management | |
| planning. The existing coordination and consistency requirements for | |
| guidance should be included in the proposed regulation. | |
| Existing Sec. 1610.1(b) would be removed because proposed | |
| Sec. 1601.0-4 provides the direction for determining future planning | |
| areas. As stated above, expansion of planning areas to achieve national | |
| objectives could lead to local impacts being ignored. One can | |
| understand the need to have flexibility in determining planning areas; | |
| however, matters of importance to local communities must not be | |
| disregarded. | |
| The proposed Sec. 1610.1-1(c) would stipulate that BLM will use | |
| high quality information to inform land management planning. The | |
| definition of high quality information at proposed Sec. 1601.0-5 | |
| contains no direction regarding the use of up-to-date information. In | |
| situations where the best available scientific information is outdated, | |
| its use could lead to misinformed decisions. | |
| Sec. 1610.1-2 Plan components. (Emphasis added) | |
| The proposed Sec. 1610.1-2(a) describes the required goals and | |
| objectives that would provide desired outcomes and resource conditions | |
| that all other plan components must support. Goals are described as | |
| desired outcomes that address resource, environmental, ecological, | |
| social, or economic characteristics toward which management should be | |
| directed, and objectives are desired resource conditions developed to | |
| guide progress toward goals. | |
| All other plan components must be designed to achieve the goals and | |
| objectives. This hierarchy creates a situation where all plan | |
| components are subordinate to goals. Section 102(a)(7) of FLPMA states, | |
| ``goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for public | |
| land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use | |
| and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law.'' To comply with | |
| FLPMA, the proposed regulation should require that RMPs include | |
| multiple use and sustained yield goals. | |
| The existing regulation at Sec. 1601.0-5(n)(2) requires that RMPs | |
| include, ``Allowable resource uses . . . and related levels of | |
| production or use to be maintained.'' This, or similar, language should | |
| be carried forward as a required goal in the proposed planning rule. | |
| FLPMA, at Section 103(l), defines the principal or major uses of | |
| Federal land. These uses should have specific requirements as plan | |
| components in the proposed rule. | |
| Sec. 1610.1-3 Implementation Strategies. (Emphasis added) | |
| The proposed rule would make inclusion of implementation strategies | |
| in a RMP discretionary. Implementation strategies are described as | |
| management measures, monitoring procedures, or other strategies that | |
| assist in implementing future actions on Federal land. Implementation | |
| strategies would not be a plan component, and thus, changes to | |
| implementation strategies would not require a plan amendment or formal | |
| public involvement and interagency coordination. | |
| BLM's need to be able to update implementation strategies in a | |
| timely manner as new information or techniques become available is | |
| understandable. However, this should not be done behind closed doors. | |
| Public input as well as the coordination and consistency requirements | |
| with state, local, and tribal governments should apply to development | |
| and update of implementation strategies. Local input is vital to | |
| ensuring the most suitable implementation strategies are used. State, | |
| local, and tribal governments have expertise germane to the development | |
| of implementation strategies and must be involved beyond the proposed | |
| 30 day review period prior to implementation. | |
| FLPMA at Section 202(c)(9) requires BLM to, ``. . . coordinate the | |
| land use inventory, planning, and management activities . . .'' with | |
| state and local governments. Implementation strategies are described in | |
| the proposed regulation and the preamble as management measures, | |
| practices, and actions BLM may take to implement an RMP. The proposed | |
| regulations violate FLPMA in stating that implementation strategies are | |
| not subject to coordination and consistency requirements with state, | |
| local, and tribal governments. | |
| Sec. 1610.2 Public Involvement. | |
| The proposed rule distinguishes between opportunities for public | |
| review and formal comment. Public review, while providing a certain | |
| level of transparency, does not constitute meaningful involvement. | |
| Existing regulations require BLM to accept formal comment for | |
| proposed planning criteria, draft RMP and environmental impact | |
| statement (EIS), and significant changes made to a proposed plan prior | |
| to approval. The proposed regulations would only provide opportunity | |
| for formal comment for the draft RMP and EIS and any significant | |
| changes made to a proposed plan prior to approval. There are many new | |
| opportunities for public review, but this places no requirement on the | |
| BLM for considering outside input. | |
| The proposed Sec. 1610.2-2 would reduce the minimum comment period | |
| of 90 days for RMPs and EIS level amendments to 60 and 45 days | |
| respectively. EISs are large and complex documents that must be | |
| analyzed in detail in order to provide substantive comments. By its | |
| very nature, any EIS level analysis represents a major Federal action | |
| with significant impacts. Westerners suggest that the minimum 90 day | |
| comment period for any EIS level analysis be carried forward in the | |
| proposed regulations. | |
| Sec. 1610.3-1(d)(1), (2), (3) Coordination with other Federal agencies, | |
| state and local governments, and Indian tribes. (Emphasis | |
| added) | |
| In contrast, the draft Planning 2.0 regulations would eliminate any | |
| consistency review for local land use ``policies, programs and | |
| processes'' and only consider inconsistencies with ``an officially | |
| adopted land use plan.'' This change would require a local government | |
| to have a ``land use plan,'' and not just a land use policy or program | |
| for consistency review. This type of language will limit many local | |
| governments' ability to take advantage of the consistency review | |
| requirements if they do not have an ``officially approved or adopted | |
| land use plan.'' | |
| Proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(a) would prescribe that coordination be | |
| accomplished, ``. . . to the extent consistent with Federal laws and | |
| regulations applicable to public lands, and the purposes, policies and | |
| programs of such laws and regulations.'' Coordination should be | |
| conducted in manner consistent with Federal law; however, coordination | |
| is not subordinate to regulations, purposes, policies, and programs of | |
| such laws. In fact, these regulations, purposes, policies, and programs | |
| should be developed in coordination with state, local, and tribal | |
| governments to meet the intent of FLPMA. | |
| We support the expanded involvement of cooperating agencies under | |
| proposed Sec. 1610.3-1(b). Our experiences as a cooperating agency in | |
| the past have been somewhat disappointing due to the lack of meaningful | |
| involvement in the planning process. It is imperative that BLM provide | |
| cooperating agencies with ample opportunity to provide input and ensure | |
| that input is incorporated into planning efforts. | |
| The preamble requests comment regarding engagement of eligible | |
| governmental entities during the proposed assessment step which would | |
| be prior to formalizing a cooperating agency agreement. Coordination | |
| should be a continual dialogue between BLM and engaged state, local, | |
| and tribal governments. BLM should take steps to encourage this | |
| dialogue with all governmental entities with interests germane to the | |
| development of Federal land management plans. If coordination is | |
| occurring, involvement prior to a formal cooperating agency agreement | |
| should already be taking place. | |
| b. The draft Planning 2.0 regulations eliminates this | |
| entire section from the existing regulations: | |
| (d) In developing guidance to Field Manager, in | |
| compliance with section 1611 of this title, the State | |
| Director shall: | |
| (1) Ensure that it is as consistent as possible | |
| with existing officially adopted and approved resource | |
| related plans, policies or programs of other Federal | |
| agencies, state agencies, Indian tribes and local | |
| governments that may be affected, as prescribed by | |
| Sec. 1610.3-2 of this title; | |
| (2) Identify areas where the proposed guidance is | |
| inconsistent with such policies, plans or programs and | |
| provide reasons why the inconsistencies exist and | |
| cannot be remedied; and | |
| (3) Notify the other Federal agencies, state | |
| agencies, Indian tribes or local governments with whom | |
| consistency is not achieved and indicate any | |
| appropriate methods, procedures, actions and/or | |
| programs which the State Director believes may lead to | |
| resolution of such inconsistencies. | |
| Sec. 1610.3-1(d). | |
| In other words, local government involvement would be limited to | |
| ONLY BLM land use plans and not the guidance provided from the BLM | |
| State Director to develop such land use plans. | |
| c. BLM is also proposing to weaken its consistency review | |
| requirements by adding that consistency with local land use | |
| plan will only be ``to the maximum extent the BLM finds | |
| practical and consistent with the purposes of FLPMA and other | |
| Federal law and regulations applicable to public lands, and the | |
| purposes policies and programs of such laws and regulations.'' | |
| In contrast, the existing regulations require that: | |
| (a) Guidance and resource management plans and | |
| amendments to management framework plans shall be | |
| consistent with officially approved or adopted resource | |
| related plans, and the policies and programs contained | |
| therein, of other Federal agencies, state and local | |
| governments and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance | |
| and resource management plans are also consistent with | |
| the purposes, policies and programs of Federal laws and | |
| regulations applicable to public lands, including | |
| Federal and state pollution control laws as implemented | |
| by applicable Federal and state air, water, noise, and | |
| other pollution standards or implementation plans. | |
| (b) In the absence of officially approved or | |
| adopted resource-related plans of other Federal | |
| agencies, state and local governments and Indian | |
| tribes, guidance and resource management plans shall, | |
| to the maximum extent practical, be consistent with | |
| officially approved and adopted resource related | |
| policies and programs of other Federal agencies, state | |
| and local governments and Indian tribes. Such | |
| consistency will be accomplished so long as the | |
| guidance and resource management plans are consistent | |
| with the policies, programs and provisions of Federal | |
| laws and regulations applicable to public lands, | |
| including, but not limited to, Federal and state | |
| pollution control laws as implemented by applicable | |
| Federal and state air, water, noise and other pollution | |
| standards or implementation plans. | |
| Sec. 1610.3-2(a), (b). | |
| In other words, under the existing regulations, so long as a local | |
| land use plan, policy or program was consistent with Federal statute, | |
| the local land use plan, policy or program would be included in the | |
| consistency review analysis by the BLM. Under draft Planning 2.0, the | |
| local land use plan is required to be (at least in the opinion of the | |
| BLM) consistent with Federal law, and ``the purposes, policies and | |
| programs of such laws and regulations.'' Requiring that local land use | |
| plans be consistent with BLM policies and programs significantly | |
| diminishes the ability of local governments to influence these same BLM | |
| policies and programs. For example, FLPMA mandates ``multiple use and | |
| sustained yield.'' Describing the policy for how such multiple use is | |
| to be achieved is exactly the type of information that can and should | |
| be included in a local land use plan. Under the draft Planning 2.0 | |
| regulations, however, the local government would be prohibited from | |
| including a policy to achieve multiple use in a local land use plan | |
| that is different from the BLM's policy for achieving multiple use. | |
| This draft rule significantly limits the scope of what can be included | |
| in a local land use plan. | |
| d. There is also a shift in the burden of showing that an | |
| inconsistency exists from the BLM to the local governments. | |
| Specifically, under the draft 2.0 Planning regulations, the BLM | |
| will only consider inconsistencies with a local land use plan | |
| if the BLM is specifically notified, in writing, about a | |
| specific inconsistency. | |
| e. The BLM is proposing to change the phrase ``assist in | |
| resolving, to the extent practical and consistent with Federal | |
| law, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government | |
| plans.'' (Emphasis added). The original word used on this | |
| section was ``practicable'' rather than ``practical.'' Although | |
| the BLM claims that the change in wording is simply for | |
| readability, these two words have different meanings. | |
| Practicable is a more narrowly defined term meaning ``capable | |
| of being put into practice.'' In contrast, ``practical,'' in | |
| this context, means capable of being put to use.'' To | |
| understand the distinction, synonyms of ``practicable'' are | |
| possible, doable, and feasible; a synonym of ``practical'' is | |
| useful or sensible. In terms of the consistency review, the BLM | |
| then would propose to change the meaning of the requirements | |
| from, the agency must assist in resolving inconsistencies to | |
| the extent possible (practicable) to resolving inconsistencies | |
| to the extent sensible or useful (practical). | |
| 2. Local Governments as Cooperating Agencies | |
| a. Although the BLM claims it is only trying to be | |
| consistent with existing practices and current BLM terminology, | |
| the BLM is eliminating the term ``cooperating agency'' as used | |
| in NEPA and replacing it with the term ``eligible governmental | |
| entity'' as described in the Department of the Interior | |
| regulations at 43 C.F.R. Sec. 46.225(a). According to the BLM | |
| regulations, an ``eligible governmental entity'' can be | |
| considered as a ``cooperating agency.'' Although it appears | |
| that the definition of an ``eligible governmental entity'' is | |
| similar to a ``cooperating agency,'' I think this change in | |
| language is going to cause great confusion and may certainly | |
| exclude some local government participation if the local | |
| government does not understand that an ``eligible governmental | |
| entity'' is the same as the more familiar ``cooperating | |
| agency.'' | |
| b. Of greater concern is the BLM's addition of the term | |
| ``as feasible and appropriate'' given the eligible governmental | |
| entities' ``scope of their expertise.'' Although BLM states | |
| that it intends no change from current practice or policy, this | |
| language could certainly be used by the BLM to strictly define | |
| a local government's special expertise or to determine that | |
| local government participation is not ``feasible or | |
| appropriate'' if adopted by the draft Planning 2.0 regulations. | |
| c. Additionally, the BLM authorized officer would no longer | |
| be required to notify the BLM State Director if a request for | |
| ``cooperating agency'' is denied. Under the existing | |
| regulations, if a BLM authorized officer denies a request for | |
| cooperating agency, he shall notify the State Director who | |
| shall conduct an independent review to determine if the denial | |
| was appropriate. That State Director's review would be | |
| eliminated under the draft planning 2.0 regulations. | |
| 3. Coordination | |
| FLPMA requires that the BLM ``coordinate'' its plans and programs | |
| with those of state and local governments, although the statute is | |
| silent on how such ``coordination'' is to occur. Under any definition | |
| however, ``coordination'' implies some measure of input and trying to | |
| work together. In contrast, under the draft Planning 2.0 regulations, | |
| ``coordination'' would only include the BLM providing to local | |
| governments ``the opportunity for review, advice and suggestions on | |
| issues and topics which may affect or influence other agency or | |
| governmental programs.'' Additionally, while currently ``coordination'' | |
| is to occur ``consistent with Federal laws,'' the draft Planning 2.0 | |
| regulations would also add that ``Coordination'' would occur consistent | |
| with ``the purposes, policies and programs of use [Federal] laws and | |
| regulations.'' The policies under the Federal statutes can change with | |
| the President, Secretary of the Interior and BLM Director in control at | |
| the time. That may limit the ability of local governments to coordinate | |
| in some circumstances. | |
| 4. Governor's Consistency Review | |
| The new draft Planning 2.0 rules place more work on the Governor | |
| during the ``Governor's Consistency Review.'' | |
| a. The Governor is required to identify inconsistencies | |
| between state and local government plans to bring to the | |
| attention of the Director of the BLM. The BLM will only | |
| consider ``identified'' inconsistencies between state and local | |
| plans and the proposed resource management plan if such | |
| inconsistencies are noted by the Governor. | |
| b. BLM will only accept the Governor's recommendation if | |
| the BLM Director determines that the Governor's recommendations | |
| ``provide for a reasonable balance between the national | |
| interest and the state's interest.'' | |
| Proposed Sec. 1610.4(a)(2) requires the responsible official to | |
| identify relevant national, regional, or local policies, guidance, | |
| strategies, or plans to inform the assessment. It is paramount that the | |
| deciding official coordinate with state, local, and tribal governments | |
| when making the relevance determination for their plans, policies, and | |
| programs. BLM is required by FLPMA to keep apprised of and seek | |
| consistency with state, local, and tribal plans. Westerners suggest | |
| that language from existing Sec. 1610.4-4(e), ``Specific requirements | |
| and constraints to achieve consistency with policies, plans, and | |
| programs . . .'' of state, local, and tribal governments, be | |
| incorporated as a requirement for the assessment. Identification of | |
| potential issues at the earliest possible stage of planning should make | |
| RMP development more efficient. | |
| Proposed Sec. 1610.4(c)(5) list 10 separate types of areas of | |
| importance to be include in the assessment. Why are these 10 types of | |
| resources singled out from the inventory of all public lands and their | |
| resource and other values required by Section 201 of FLPMA? Under what | |
| authority does BLM place a greater degree of importance on the listed | |
| resources over other resources on Federal land? | |
| This effectively creates new types of administrative special | |
| designations. The only administrative special designation authorized by | |
| FLPMA is an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC). ACECs must | |
| meet relevance and importance criteria in addition to requiring special | |
| management attention. The existing and proposed regulations include | |
| identification of potential ACECs. Are these areas of importance going | |
| to be subject to the requirements for ACEC designation? If not, where | |
| does BLM get the authority to create these new special designations? | |
| Proposed Sec. 1610.4(c)(5) requires the assessment to consider, | |
| ``The various goods and services, including ecological services, that | |
| people obtain from the planning area . . .'' Why are ecological | |
| services singled out from the suite of goods and services that people | |
| obtain from Federal lands? Section 103(l) of FLPMA states, ``The term | |
| ``principal or major uses'' includes and is limited to, domestic | |
| livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development and utilization, | |
| mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, | |
| and timber production.'' Through FLPMA, it is clear that Congress | |
| intended that BLM planning place priority on the principle or major | |
| use. The proposed regulations should specifically require that | |
| sustained levels of the principal or major uses be addressed in the | |
| assessment and throughout the planning process. | |
| The assessment report provides the foundation from which a RMP is | |
| developed. Proposed Sec. 1610.4(d) provides that the planning | |
| assessment report will be made available for public review. We request | |
| that BLM include a formal comment period with the release of the | |
| planning assessment report. | |
| Sec. 1610.5 Preparation of a resource management plan. | |
| Proposed Sec. 1610.5-1(a) requires the preparation of a preliminary | |
| statement of purpose and need for the RMP. The preamble states that | |
| this statement informs the development of all subsequent steps in the | |
| preparation of a RMP. Given that this statement of purpose and need | |
| provides the foundation for development of a RMP, why is it only | |
| available for public review and not formal comment? This central part | |
| of the planning process must be subject to formal public comment as | |
| well as coordination and consistency requirements with state, local, | |
| and tribal governments. | |
| Proposed Sec. 1610.5-2 describes how preliminary alternatives and | |
| the preliminary rationale for alternatives would be developed and made | |
| available for public review. This part includes that BLM may change the | |
| preliminary alternatives or rationale based on public suggestions or | |
| other information received. If BLM anticipates receiving unsolicited | |
| information that merits change to the alternatives, would it not be | |
| prudent to have a formal comment period for preliminary alternatives? | |
| The basis for analysis of alternatives is described at proposed | |
| Sec. 1610.5-3. The estimated effects of alternatives provide | |
| justification for alternative selection, a record of decision, and RMP | |
| implementation. Procedures, assumptions, and indicators used to analyze | |
| alternatives must be valid, and formal involvement, beyond public | |
| review, is essential at this important step. | |
| The preamble for proposed Sec. 1610.5-4 requests comment regarding | |
| whether BLM should have the option to select one, multiple, or no | |
| preferred alternatives in draft RMPs. Implementation of a RMP or | |
| amendment can take many years due to a variety of factors including | |
| litigation. Consistent access to resources on BLM lands is foundational | |
| to many economies. A single preferred alternative provides some measure | |
| of what to expect for businesses that rely on access to BLM lands for | |
| their operations. We request that BLM continue to select a preferred | |
| alternative for RMPs and amendments and provide a robust explanation of | |
| the reasoning behind selection of the alternative. | |
| Proposed Sec. 1610.5-5 provides for preparation of the proposed | |
| RMP, final EIS, and implementation strategies. For reasons stated | |
| above, we are opposed to implementation strategies being developed | |
| without formal public input and the coordination and consistency | |
| requirements with plans, policies, and programs of state, local, and | |
| tribal governments. | |
| Sec. 1610.6 Resource management plan approval, implementation and | |
| modification. | |
| Proposed Sec. 1610.6-2(a) describes who may protest a RMP and what | |
| issues may be protested. Existing regulations at Sec. 1610.5-2(a) | |
| provide that issues submitted for the record during the planning | |
| process may be protested. The proposed Sec. 1610.6-2(a) limits protests | |
| to issues submitted for the record during preparation of the RMP or | |
| plan amendment. As stated in proposed Sec. 1610.4, the BLM must | |
| complete a planning assessment before initiating the preparation of a | |
| RMP. Thus, issues associated with the assessment report are not subject | |
| to protest. As stated above, the assessment report is a foundational | |
| document for a RMP and should be open to official comment and protest. | |
| Proposed Sec. 1610.6-2(a)(3) describes the content requirements for | |
| a protest. Protests would have to include a concise statement of why a | |
| plan component is inconsistent with Federal laws or regulations | |
| applicable to Federal lands, or the purposes, policies, and programs of | |
| such laws and regulations along with how the issue was raised during | |
| preparation of the RMP. Existing regulations at Sec. 1610.5-2(a)(2)(v) | |
| allow for a protest to be based on, ``A concise statement explaining | |
| why the . . . decision is believed to be wrong.'' The proposed | |
| regulation may result in dismissal of valid protests. | |
| A significant amount of discretion is afforded to the responsible | |
| official in developing a RMP or amendment. This discretion applies to | |
| high quality information, assumptions, methodologies, interpretations, | |
| and procedures used in the analysis to justify decisions. A valid | |
| disagreement regarding any of these discretionary planning tools may | |
| not directly conflict with Federal law but should be considered a valid | |
| protest. The proposed regulations should be revised to ensure that | |
| protests of this nature are not dismissed. | |
| Existing regulations for monitoring and evaluation of RMPs at | |
| Sec. 1610.4-9 include the requirement for BLM to determine, ``. . . | |
| whether there has been significant change in the related plans of other | |
| Federal agencies, state or local governments, or Indian tribes . . .'' | |
| to warrant amendment or revision of a plan. This is an important part | |
| of BLM's responsibility to keep apprised of state, local, and tribal | |
| land use plans as mandated by Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA. The proposed | |
| Sec. 1610.6-4 should include this important component of monitoring and | |
| evaluation. | |
| Sec. 1610.8-2 Designation of areas of critical environmental concern. | |
| ACEC designation is an important part of BLM planning. The special | |
| management attention required by designated ACECs can have a | |
| significant impact on resource use and management. Under existing and | |
| proposed regulations, both the relevance and importance criteria must | |
| be met in order for an ACEC to be designated. These criteria are | |
| entirely subjective. Existing Sec. 1610.7-2 includes, ``. . . requires | |
| qualities of more than local significance . . .'' with the importance | |
| criteria. Proposed Sec. 1610.8-2 would remove this requirement. While | |
| this is also a subjective term, it does construe that some level of | |
| importance beyond the local level is needed to designate an ACEC. The | |
| preamble states this is vague and unnecessary, and many examples exist | |
| where local significance has been determined to meet the importance | |
| criteria. These ACECs did not meet the current regulatory requirements | |
| of an ACEC and should not have been designated. | |
| Existing regulations recognize the importance of resource use | |
| limitations or special management attention that is required for ACECs. | |
| This is the reason for the required Federal Register notice | |
| specifically identifying proposed ACECs along with their use | |
| restrictions and the 60-day formal comment period. NMDA requests that | |
| his formal notice and comment period be retained in the proposed | |
| regulations. | |
| In summary, these draft Planning 2.0 regulations detrimentally | |
| deprive local governments of the ability to influence BLM land use | |
| plans. By placing such significant constraints on local governments, | |
| the entire premise behind the ``government-to-government'' interaction | |
| is weakened. | |
| ______ | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Thank you very much, Ms. Cowan. | |
| At this time, the Chair will recognize Mr. Fisher for 5 | |
| minutes. You may proceed. | |
| STATEMENT OF COREY FISHER, SENIOR POLICY DIRECTOR, SPORTSMEN'S | |
| CONSERVATION PROJECT, TROUT UNLIMITED, MISSOULA, MONTANA | |
| Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, | |
| thank you for the opportunity to testify on the proposed rule | |
| for the Bureau of Land Management's Planning 2.0 initiative. | |
| My name is Corey Fisher, and I am the Senior Policy | |
| Director for Trout Unlimited's Sportsmen's Conservation | |
| Project. Trout Unlimited is a national nonprofit organization | |
| with a mission to conserve, protect, and restore America's cold | |
| water fisheries and their watersheds. I am here to share the | |
| perspective of an important public land user group--that is | |
| hunters and anglers. | |
| I live in western Montana with ready access to lands | |
| managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land | |
| Management. These are the places that I hunt and fish. It is | |
| from these lands that I feed my family with deer and elk that I | |
| hunt. And I am not alone. According to the U.S. Fish and | |
| Wildlife Service, one out of every three hunters in America | |
| hunts on public lands. In Montana, the number is 80 percent. | |
| Public lands are central to America's hunting and fishing | |
| heritage. For that to continue, our lands, and the fish and | |
| wildlife habitat they support, need to be well managed, and | |
| that starts with sound management plans. | |
| Through my work with Trout Unlimited, I have been involved | |
| in public land planning efforts throughout the West; and I have | |
| found that a plan is only as good as the process used to | |
| develop it. In my experience, a sound process includes four | |
| components: early-and-often stakeholder involvement, | |
| collaboration, a transparent process, and responsiveness to | |
| issues on the ground. | |
| At times, BLM planning efforts have resulted in | |
| disenfranchised stakeholders due to a lack of meaningful | |
| involvement. Resource management plans need to be a | |
| partnership, and a partnership means more than a handful of | |
| cursory comment periods. Changes proposed by Planning 2.0 will | |
| provide a continuum of engagement that I believe will result in | |
| more durable plans that meet the needs of fish and wildlife | |
| managers, sportsmen, local government, and stakeholders. A lot | |
| of people like to talk about collaboration, but for Trout | |
| Unlimited, this is not a buzz word. Our organization is built | |
| on partnerships, and we take collaboration seriously. We know | |
| that when people sit down and find shared values, solutions are | |
| not far behind. That does not mean that collaboration is easy; | |
| it is not, but the kind of early-and-often involvement | |
| envisioned by Planning 2.0 will help foster collaboration and | |
| implement solutions built from the ground up. | |
| Transparency needs to be at the center of any effective | |
| planning process. Without transparency, there is no trust; and | |
| without trust, there is no collaboration. The proposed rule | |
| improves transparency in several ways, such as making | |
| preliminary alternatives available to the public and providing | |
| the rationale for these alternatives. Resource management | |
| planning needs to be more than a perfunctory exercise. It needs | |
| to craft real solutions to address challenges on the ground. | |
| The proposed assessment phase will engage stakeholders to help | |
| identify these issues from the very beginning of the planning | |
| process. | |
| Additionally, Planning 2.0 recognizes that land management | |
| issues do not follow administrative boundaries. Now, that does | |
| not mean that planning should encompass vast landscapes without | |
| cause; but if a big game migration corridor or a Blue Ribbon | |
| trout steam happens to extend across field office boundaries or | |
| state office boundaries, this is an on-the-ground issue that | |
| needs to be addressed holistically and with consistency. | |
| Local government stakeholders have raised concerns with | |
| certain aspects of the proposed rule, and these concerns need | |
| to be meaningfully addressed. I believe that the proposed rule | |
| is a good start. Planning 2.0 will improve transparency, | |
| provide a continuum of public involvement, engage citizens | |
| early and often, better address on-the-ground issues, and make | |
| for a more nimble agency that is responsive to change. | |
| Our hunting and fishing traditions face many challenges; | |
| but one of them should not be a cumbersome, outdated, and | |
| ineffective planning process for America's public lands. We can | |
| do better, and I believe that Planning 2.0 will provide a path | |
| forward. | |
| Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy | |
| to answer any questions. | |
| [The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:] | |
| Prepared Statement of Corey Fisher, Senior Policy Director, Trout | |
| Unlimited's Sportsmen's Conservation Project | |
| Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue | |
| before the House Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on | |
| Oversight and Investigations. | |
| My name is Corey Fisher and I am the Senior Policy Director for | |
| Trout Unlimited, a national non-profit conservation organization with | |
| more than 150,000 members organized into about 400 chapters from Maine | |
| to Alaska. Our mission is to conserve, protect and restore North | |
| America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds. Trout Unlimited | |
| chapters invest thousands of volunteer hours on their local streams and | |
| rivers to restore habitat for trout and salmon fisheries, and they | |
| invest considerable time in conducting youth conservation and fly | |
| fishing camps, veterans service programs, community events and taking | |
| kids fishing. | |
| Trout Unlimited's conservation work on public lands focuses on | |
| engaging with local, state and Federal partners to find solutions that | |
| balance multiple interests and uses. This work is multi-faceted, but | |
| whether promoting responsible energy development, engaging in travel | |
| management planning, cleaning up pollution from abandoned mines, or | |
| restoring trout streams, all of this work begins with sound resource | |
| management planning. | |
| My work with Trout Unlimited is to ensure that public land | |
| management in the West is guided by policies that conserve fish and | |
| wildlife habitat. This work is more than a vocation for me--America's | |
| public lands are part of who I am. Dinner for my family usually | |
| features meat from deer and elk that were hunted on public lands. When | |
| I go hunting and fishing, more often than not, public lands are the | |
| places I go. Vacations don't include resorts and spas, they feature | |
| backpacking and river trips in the backcountry. I am fortunate to live | |
| in the midst of both Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) | |
| lands, and I cannot imagine life without well-managed public lands and | |
| the outdoor traditions that they sustain. | |
| The BLM manages about 247 million acres of America's public land, | |
| much of it offering excellent hunting, fishing and recreational access. | |
| For many sportsmen in the West, when they talk about hunting and | |
| fishing, they are talking about BLM managed public lands. Some of my | |
| best memories in the outdoors have occurred on BLM lands, including | |
| canoeing and fishing the Missouri River Breaks, my first antelope hunt | |
| in Montana's Centennial Valley, and elk hunting in a couple of spots | |
| that will remain nameless. | |
| So it is both a professional and a personal interest through which | |
| I approach resource management planning and the BLM's Planning 2.0 | |
| initiative. | |
| resource management planning challenges | |
| Throughout the past decade I have been engaged with numerous land | |
| use planning efforts in Montana, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico and | |
| Colorado. While each of these planning processes and locations have had | |
| their own unique aspects, they all featured one commonality: the need | |
| for early, frequent and meaningful public engagement. Unfortunately, | |
| that hasn't always happened. | |
| All too often, it seemed that the BLM would announce that they were | |
| going to develop a new resource management plan and take public scoping | |
| comments. Then they would disappear, often for years, only to release a | |
| draft plan that may or may not have dealt with the issues initially | |
| raised by the public. Following another public comment period, the | |
| Agency would disappear again, and after another wait measured in years, | |
| a final plan would eventually be released, which may or may not have | |
| reflected the public comment received at the draft stage. Then an | |
| aggrieved group would sue the Agency, further bogging down the process. | |
| While this illustration may be a bit oversimplified, it is not far | |
| from the reality of how the BLM has typically developed resource | |
| management plans in past years. In addition to being an inefficient and | |
| ineffective process, it has led to disenfranchised public land | |
| stakeholders who at times view the BLM as an unresponsive, closed off | |
| agency. This is a problem that the BLM's Planning 2.0 initiative | |
| strives to fix. | |
| planning 2.0 seeks to improve the resource management planning process | |
| Two years ago, the BLM announced that it was launching Planning | |
| 2.0. with a stated objective to improve ``our land use planning process | |
| so that we can more effectively plan across landscapes at multiple | |
| scales and be more responsive to environmental and social change.'' | |
| From the beginning of Planning 2.0, Trout Unlimited and other | |
| sportsmen groups participated in the BLM's process, including providing | |
| the Agency with public comments and participating in public listening | |
| sessions. Trout Unlimited's experience with resource management | |
| planning over the past decade has provided us with a perspective that | |
| we think will help result in a better end product for Planning 2.0, | |
| including what we hope will be a more transparent, inclusive process | |
| that provides meaningful collaboration among public land stakeholders. | |
| Now that a proposed rule has been released for public review and | |
| comment, I believe that Planning 2.0 is on the right track. | |
| As stated in the proposed rule, Planning 2.0 has three primary | |
| goals: | |
| 1. Improve the BLM's ability to respond to social and environmental | |
| change in a timely manner. | |
| 2. Provide meaningful opportunities for other Federal agencies, | |
| state and local governments, Indian tribes, and the public | |
| to be involved in the development of BLM resource | |
| management plans. | |
| 3. Improve the BLM's ability to address landscape-scale resource | |
| issues and to apply landscape-scale management approaches. | |
| I will address each of these goals. | |
| Being more responsive to social and environmental change is critical to | |
| ensure healthy populations of fish and wildlife. | |
| Sound land management must adapt to the most current science and | |
| trends in fish and wildlife populations; a static resource management | |
| plan will quickly become obsolete. Current procedures for amending and | |
| updating resource management plans are time consuming and burdensome | |
| for both the agency and the public. Because of the difficulty of | |
| revising resource management plans, the documents often do not reflect | |
| changing conditions on the ground and fail to incorporate better data | |
| and science as they become available. | |
| For instance, throughout the West, the BLM is party to conservation | |
| agreements and MOUs with state agencies to recover sensitive native | |
| trout species, many of which have been reduced to a fraction of their | |
| historical range. While recent resource management plans have relied on | |
| the best available science to ensure that future opportunities to | |
| restore populations of native trout are not hindered by land use | |
| activities, older resource management plans either ignore the issue | |
| altogether, or allow development without necessary precautions to | |
| protect water quality in streams that are suitable for restoring trout | |
| populations. | |
| An example of responding to changing realities for fish and | |
| wildlife management comes from the BLM's recently approved Tres Rios | |
| Resource Management Plan, in which the agency recognized the need to | |
| conserve not only streams currently occupied by Colorado River | |
| cutthroat trout, but also streams that have been identified as | |
| reintroduction sites for these sensitive native fish. The Tres Rios is | |
| one of only a handful of resource management plans to include this kind | |
| of foresight. Not only will this help the BLM fulfill commitments in | |
| the conservation agreement for Colorado River cutthroat trout, it will | |
| help to ensure a bright future for these trout and the anglers who like | |
| to fish for them. | |
| A more responsive and efficient resource management planning | |
| process will allow the BLM to ensure that its planning documents remain | |
| current and reflect the present-day science of fish and wildlife | |
| management. By integrating monitoring strategies as a plan component, a | |
| feedback loop will inform the BLM and the public when relevant changes | |
| in circumstances necessitate a shift in management direction. | |
| Meaningful public involvement will increase transparency and help to | |
| put the public back in public land management. | |
| The proposed rule will add two additional opportunities for public | |
| involvement. First, a planning assessment phase would include an | |
| opportunity for the public (along with local, state and Federal | |
| agencies) to suggest issues and opportunities that a resource | |
| management plan revision should address and to help establish a current | |
| baseline of conditions on the ground. | |
| Second, the proposed rule would create the opportunity for the | |
| public to review and comment on preliminary management plan | |
| alternatives, allowing stakeholders to raise issues before the BLM | |
| begins developing the impact analysis, a critical juncture in the | |
| planning process. | |
| Taken together, these two new public involvement steps will ensure | |
| that the BLM starts resource management plans off on the right foot, | |
| and is still on the right track at the halfway point. This kind of | |
| early-and-often collaboration with the public will help to make for a | |
| more responsive, transparent agency. | |
| Instead of only two isolated comment periods, the proposed rule | |
| would create a continuum of collaboration with public land stakeholders | |
| that builds trust, fosters communication, increases efficiency and | |
| creates management plans that are responsive to on the ground issues | |
| that are important to public land users. | |
| Landscape-scale planning will improve the management of fish and | |
| wildlife habitat and create certainty across administrative | |
| boundaries. | |
| Habitat requirements for fish and wildlife don't change due to | |
| arbitrary lines on maps. However, all too often land uses and fish and | |
| wildlife habitat are managed inconsistently across administrative | |
| boundaries. For instance, when Montana BLM's Butte Field Office adopted | |
| its resource management plan in 2009, resource professionals determined | |
| that a one-half mile development buffer was necessary to balance energy | |
| development with the conservation of native trout populations and | |
| rivers that have been awarded Blue Ribbon status, including the | |
| Yellowstone River. Yet, as the Yellowstone River flowed east into the | |
| Billings Field Office, no such stipulation was present, only a general | |
| restriction prohibiting development within riparian areas and the 100 | |
| year flood plain. Indeed, it was not until September of last year that | |
| the Billings Field Office completed its revised resource management | |
| plan and put in place a development buffer of one-half mile for the | |
| Yellowstone River. In other words, for 6 years a trout could literally | |
| swim between two field offices in which the measures in place for its | |
| protection varied greatly. | |
| This kind of inconsistent management isn't only bad for trout; it | |
| is bad for anyone who values predictability for how our public lands | |
| will be managed. Those who make their living through resource | |
| extraction need certainty for how their activities will be managed, and | |
| sportsmen and women need certainty that America's public lands will | |
| remain a great place to hunt and fish. Development and conservation | |
| need not be mutually exclusive and landscape-scale planning will help | |
| to strike that balance, even if those landscapes happen to cross field | |
| office or state office boundaries. | |
| solutions require collaboration and communication | |
| While Planning 2.0 policies are not yet finalized, the BLM has been | |
| working with local stakeholders and county officials to apply some of | |
| the principles of Planning 2.0 in places like Park County, Colorado. | |
| Park County is home to South Park, which includes the headwaters of | |
| the South Platte River, one of just a handful of gold medal trout | |
| streams and a world-renown angling destination. In addition, the South | |
| Platte River is particularly important as the water supply for the | |
| majority of Coloradans, and the area supports robust herds of big game | |
| that provide some of the best hunting in the West. | |
| Given these attributes and an increased interest in oil and gas | |
| leasing, stakeholders proposed the area for a Master Leasing Plan as | |
| part of the upcoming resource management plan revision for the Royal | |
| Gorge Field Office. However, in 2012 the BLM denied the application, | |
| citing that although there was interest in leasing, because there were | |
| no producing oil and gas wells in the area, there was no reason to | |
| develop a Master Leasing Plan. | |
| Then something changed; the BLM listened. As the agency prepared to | |
| initiate a resource management plan revision, they heard from | |
| conservationists, sportsmen and the Park County Board of County | |
| Commissioners, all of whom advocated a forward-thinking plan for future | |
| energy development that would ensure impacts would be comprehensively | |
| addressed and mitigated. Today, the BLM has committed to developing a | |
| Master Leasing Plan for South Park and proposals submitted by the | |
| public and Board of County Commissioners are under consideration as the | |
| BLM develops draft alternatives for the revised resource management | |
| plan. | |
| Instead of plowing ahead and developing a plan that didn't meet the | |
| needs of local communities and public land users, the BLM heard from | |
| these stakeholders and changed course. It is this kind of collaboration | |
| and responsiveness that Planning 2.0 is all about--stakeholders working | |
| together to create a shared vision for managing our public lands. | |
| I know that there are concerns from some local and state | |
| stakeholders that their roles will be diminished by aspects of the | |
| Planning 2.0 proposal. TU always advocates for meaningful local and | |
| state stakeholder input opportunities into Federal land management | |
| decisions of all types. Our partnerships with the city of Durango in | |
| Colorado to pass the Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Act, with the | |
| Sweetwater Board of County Commissioners to craft a responsible energy | |
| development plan for Little Mountain in southwest Wyoming, and with the | |
| state of Montana to restore trout populations on public lands, show | |
| that we care deeply about effective local and state involvement. We | |
| urge those with concerns to work with BLM throughout the comment period | |
| to ensure that their concerns are meaningfully addressed. | |
| conclusion | |
| In closing, the status quo for how the BLM develops resource | |
| management plans is not acceptable. Resource management plans are not | |
| the BLM's plan, they are the public's plan for the management of our | |
| American lands, and the public needs to be engaged earlier and more | |
| frequently throughout the planning process. | |
| Planning 2.0 will improve transparency, provide a continuum of | |
| involvement throughout the planning process, engage citizens more | |
| meaningfully, and make for a more nimble agency that is responsive to | |
| change. These are outcomes that should be appreciated and supported by | |
| everyone who values meaningful public engagement in land use planning. | |
| Planning is the foundation of public land management and healthy | |
| populations of fish and wildlife on public land start with sound | |
| resource management plans. Our hunting and fishing traditions face many | |
| challenges, but one of them should not be a cumbersome, outdated and | |
| ineffective process for developing plans that will manage fish and | |
| wildlife habitat. | |
| The proposed rule is a good start, but it is just a start and it is | |
| important for the BLM to see this effort through and implement changes | |
| that work for local communities, America's public land users, and the | |
| agency itself. | |
| Thank you for the opportunity to testify. | |
| ______ | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Thank you very much. | |
| At this point, Mr. Obermueller, you are recognized for 5 | |
| minutes. You may proceed. | |
| STATEMENT OF PETE OBERMUELLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WYOMING | |
| COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION, CHEYENNE, WYOMING | |
| Mr. Obermueller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member | |
| Dingell, Representative Lummis, and members of the | |
| subcommittee. | |
| Let me just start out by acknowledging the fact that this | |
| is a very boring policy topic. Mention agency planning, and | |
| eyes glaze over all across America. That is simply a fact. It | |
| does not have the buzz, like fracking, endangered species | |
| conservation, or any of that. But make no mistake, that no | |
| matter what you or your constituency values with respect to | |
| Federal lands management, it is in these planning processes | |
| where those topics are first filtered. That is why they are so | |
| important. That is why they should not be overlooked, and why I | |
| thank you for taking the time to spend on this particular | |
| topic. | |
| We, in Wyoming, have spent a great deal of time in the | |
| counties building and maintaining a strong working relationship | |
| with the BLM at every level. That is why we take them at their | |
| word that their goal in Planning 2.0 is to provide a more | |
| nimble, responsive planning process that has meaningful local | |
| government involvement. We think there are steps that need to | |
| happen in order to actually realize that goal. | |
| Let me start by what the BLM gets right. The BLM starts out | |
| listing the five policy objectives for coordination with local | |
| government. I will summarize them: that the Agency will be | |
| mindful of local land use plans, will try to be consistent with | |
| those when they can, and will provide for meaningful public | |
| involvement and local government participation. We strongly | |
| support these, but recognize that these are the minimum | |
| requirements already required of the Agency under FLPMA. | |
| Congress got it right in FLPMA when it established local | |
| governments as the conduit for messaging what local communities | |
| need and desire in the public lands that they live near. | |
| Congress knew, and we strongly believe, that coordination with | |
| local governments is the single most important effort Federal | |
| agencies can undertake to build local buy-in, to diffuse | |
| tensions in the West, and to realize success on management | |
| objectives. Getting it right at this level means we will get it | |
| right at the project level. | |
| We fear that, as currently written, the rule takes steps | |
| away from FLPMA's coordination requirements, diminishes the | |
| role of cooperating agencies, and combines a move to centralize | |
| decisionmaking with the diffusion of local interests. In our | |
| official comments we will explain this in greater detail, but | |
| for now, let me focus on coordination and cooperating agencies. | |
| The BLM's current regulations allow the Agency to analyze | |
| local government policies and programs in the absence of an | |
| official land use plan. That is right. FLPMA is explicit in | |
| giving that authority. But the proposed rule indicates that | |
| they will only accept official land use plans. Other data | |
| generated by local governments will be accessible in the newly | |
| developed plan assessment phase, where all data will be given | |
| equal weight and attention. Apart from the departure from the | |
| plain language of FLPMA, there are two additional problems with | |
| that. | |
| Number one, putting local data on par with single-issue | |
| special interest groups diminishes the clear added | |
| authoritative weight that Congress gave local governments in | |
| FLPMA. | |
| And, number two, accepting only officially adopted land use | |
| plans is culturally insensitive to counties in the West that | |
| often do not have official land use plans, and likely never | |
| will have them absent significant electoral upheaval. | |
| Now, shift with me for a second to cooperating agencies. | |
| Think about cooperating agencies as the mechanics of how | |
| coordination works. When it is working, counties that are | |
| actively involved as a cooperating agency enjoy an added level | |
| of responsiveness from the agencies that is not available to | |
| the general public, as has been pointed out. But this is as it | |
| should be, because county commissioners are often the only | |
| people in the room on the day-to-day planning process who have | |
| both a broad policy perspective and are directly accountable to | |
| the public. | |
| We appreciate that the BLM actually mirrors a significant | |
| amount of CEQ's cooperating agency guidelines in this rule, but | |
| they have some caveats that cause concern. One is that they | |
| indicate that counties will participate in this process, ``as | |
| feasible and appropriate, given the scope of their expertise | |
| and the constraints of their resources.'' We appreciate their | |
| recognition of limited local government resources; but quite | |
| frankly, the counties in Wyoming have been proactive and | |
| intentional about making sure we are invited to the table, | |
| about developing MOUs with the BLM, and going above and beyond | |
| to work with the BLM in order to realize the success of these | |
| plans. We believe that the scope of county participation can be | |
| developed jointly in that MOU rather than dictated by the BLM | |
| as this language seems to imply. | |
| Mr. Chairman, there is a lot to talk about on this issue. | |
| Let me just end by saying that counties in Wyoming are | |
| committed to being engaged with the BLM in a meaningful way; | |
| and we would urge the BLM to show an equal level of commitment | |
| to being engaged with us. | |
| Thank you, Mr. Chairman. | |
| [The prepared statement of Mr. Obermueller follows:] | |
| Prepared Statement of Pete Obermueller, Executive Director, Wyoming | |
| County Commissioners Association | |
| Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Dingell, and members of the | |
| Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, thank you for the | |
| opportunity to testify today on the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) | |
| Planning 2.0 proposed rule. | |
| My name is Pete Obermueller. As the Executive Director of the | |
| Wyoming County Commissioners Association, I represent the Boards of | |
| County Commissioners in all 23 of Wyoming's counties. | |
| In Wyoming, the BLM manages approximately 18 million surface acres, | |
| and over 40 million subsurface acres in 22 of the state's 23 counties. | |
| By necessity, elected County Commissioners all across the state are | |
| actively engaged in Federal resource management plan revisions or | |
| amendments in various stages, NEPA analyses, Resource Advisory | |
| Committees, informal working groups, regional and national task forces | |
| on Federal land issues, as well as their own locally derived land use | |
| plans and management programs. | |
| In each of Wyoming's counties and within our Association, we pride | |
| ourselves on our constructive efforts to engage with Federal partners | |
| in meaningful ways that helps produce defensible results. The rights | |
| granted to counties under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act | |
| (FLPMA) is the statutory avenue for local involvement in Federal land | |
| use planning. Wyoming's counties take that duty very seriously, and | |
| thank this committee for its oversight on this rule proposal. | |
| The BLM's stated purpose of Planning 2.0 is to ``promote the | |
| principles of multiple use and sustained yield on public lands . . . | |
| [and] ensure participation by the public, state and local governments, | |
| Indian tribes and Federal agencies . . .'' Further, the agency proposes | |
| five objectives of coordination. They are: | |
| 1. Keep apprised of non-BLM plans; | |
| 2. Assure that the BLM considers those plans that are germane in the | |
| development of resource management plans for public lands; | |
| 3. Assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies | |
| between Federal and non-Federal Government plans; | |
| 4. Provide for meaningful public involvement of other Federal | |
| agencies, state and local government officials, both | |
| elected and appointed, and Indian tribes, in the | |
| development of resource management plans, including early | |
| notice of final decisions that may have a significant | |
| impact on non-Federal lands; and | |
| 5. Where possible and appropriate, develop resource management plans | |
| collaboratively with cooperating agencies. | |
| We support these objectives, caveated though they are, as they | |
| closely mirror the BLM's obligations under FLPMA. We applaud the BLM | |
| for bringing them to the forefront in this proposed rule as we have | |
| long held that coordination with local governments and local land use | |
| plans is the single most important effort the Federal Government can | |
| pursue to ensure local buy-in, diffuse tensions in the West, and | |
| realize ultimate success of land use plans or project specific | |
| environmental analyses. | |
| Wyoming's Commissioners have greatly appreciated the input we have | |
| been afforded by the BLM on the development of this rule over the past | |
| 2 years. We have worked hard to develop a good working relationship | |
| with the BLM at all levels, and value our partnership with our Federal | |
| partners. That is why we were hopeful that the BLM would use this | |
| opportunity to enhance the local government role and identify new | |
| opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation. Unfortunately that is | |
| not the outcome of this proposed rule, at least not yet. | |
| Because of our fruitful engagement with the BLM, we take them at | |
| their word regarding their intentions to more closely coordinate with | |
| local governments under Planning 2.0. However, we remain concerned that | |
| the proposed rule as currently written takes steps away from the | |
| requirements placed upon the BLM for coordination in FLPMA, diminishes | |
| the role of cooperating agencies, and combines a move to centralize | |
| decisionmaking with a diffusion of local interests in ways that could | |
| lead to further marginalization of local governments and the | |
| communities they represent. | |
| coordination and the role of cooperating agencies | |
| It is important to recognize that while FLPMA provides the agency | |
| some implementation latitude, the initial obligation of coordination | |
| with counties is not discretionary. Section 202 of FLPMA requires the | |
| Secretary to, at a bare minimum, attempt consistency with local land | |
| use plans and provide for meaningful involvement of local officials. | |
| Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA reads, in part: | |
| ``To the extent consistent with the laws governing the | |
| administration of the public lands, [the BLM shall] coordinate | |
| the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of | |
| or for such lands with the land use planning and management | |
| programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the | |
| States and local governments within which the lands are | |
| located, including, . . . among other things, considering the | |
| policies of approved State and tribal land resource management | |
| programs. | |
| In implementing this directive, the Secretary shall, to the | |
| extent he finds practical, keep apprised of State, local, and | |
| tribal land use plans; assure that consideration is given to | |
| those State, local, and tribal plans that are germane in the | |
| development of land use plans for public lands; assist in | |
| resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between | |
| Federal and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for | |
| meaningful public involvement of State and local government | |
| officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of | |
| land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions | |
| for public lands, including early public notice of proposed | |
| decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal | |
| lands.'' (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) | |
| Any evaluation of the BLM's existing or proposed planning rules | |
| must begin with its adherence to the directives of its organic act. | |
| Here, Congress rightly identified local government as the appropriate | |
| conduit for the needs and desires of the public near Federal lands in | |
| the planning process. Counties fulfill that obligation in many ways, | |
| but not in identical ways. In Wyoming we continually stress the | |
| importance of being prepared to offer empirical data to back policy | |
| suggestions, but that effort can take many forms. | |
| Unfortunately the proposed rule goes beyond what is allowed under | |
| FLPMA by removing the current language that resource management plans | |
| be consistent with local ``policies and programs.'' The proposed rule | |
| limits the input of counties during the official planning process to | |
| only so-called ``official land use plans.'' Other data, no matter the | |
| quality or manner in which it was collected, will only be accepted in | |
| the newly conceived ``planning assessment'' phase. This is in direct | |
| contradiction to the plain language of FLPMA that requires an attempt | |
| at consistency with local ``management programs.'' | |
| To be clear, we do not oppose the concept of the planning | |
| assessment. Early engagement with stakeholders is important. Rather, by | |
| placing data generated by local governments on par with other data | |
| submitted by single-focus special interest groups is a diminishment of | |
| the added authoritative weight Congress clearly intended local | |
| governments to possess. Additionally, it demonstrates a lack of | |
| sensitivity to the cultural norms of counties that for various reasons | |
| do not have official land use plans, and would be unable to produce one | |
| without significant electoral upheaval. | |
| As FLPMA provides the statutory requirement of coordination, it is | |
| Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations promulgated under | |
| the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that provides for the | |
| specific mechanism for county involvement as a so-called ``Cooperating | |
| Agency.'' When it is working correctly, counties that participate in | |
| planning as a cooperating agency enjoy a level of engagement from the | |
| lead Federal agency not afforded to the general public. This is as it | |
| should be because often Commissioners are the only people involved in | |
| the day-to-day planning process with both a broad view of the benefits | |
| and impacts of management decisions, and who are directly accountable | |
| to the public. At a minimum, any planning rule advanced by the BLM | |
| should not substitute narrow special interests for broad policy views. | |
| To that end, we appreciate the proposed rule's attempt to mirror | |
| much of the CEQ Cooperating Agency process used in NEPA analyses. The | |
| proposed rule maintains the requirement of Federal agencies to invite | |
| cooperators to the table and solidifies the points at which cooperators | |
| will be consulted. The proposed rule adds an additional level of | |
| coordination with cooperating agencies at the ``planning assessment'' | |
| level. All of these are positive steps, but there are a few troubling | |
| limitations on cooperating agencies that must be addressed. | |
| First, in defining a cooperating agency, the proposed rule inserts | |
| this new caveat: | |
| ``Cooperating agencies will participate in the various steps of | |
| the BLM's planning process as feasible and appropriate, given | |
| the scope of their expertise and constraints of their | |
| resources.'' (Proposed Rule at 9725) | |
| Recognition of the limited resources of local governments is | |
| appreciated. However, we do not believe it wise for the BLM to appoint | |
| itself as the arbiter of what is ``feasible and appropriate'' for | |
| cooperating agency participation. In many instances Wyoming's counties | |
| have gone well beyond expectations to provide not only meaningful | |
| comments, but additional resources to ensure that planning is as | |
| successful for their communities as possible. Because agencies only | |
| sometimes follow the requirement to coordinate, counties in Wyoming are | |
| proactive in seeking agency invitations and developing MOU's with our | |
| Federal partners. The scope of county participation can and should be | |
| determined in the MOU process and jointly agreed upon, not dictated by | |
| the BLM. | |
| Second, the proposed rule establishes a new, two-part process for | |
| resource management planning that includes ``plan components,'' or the | |
| high level strategic planning of a certain plan area; and | |
| ``implementation strategies,'' or the actual boots-on-the ground | |
| efforts to implement the plan components. Cooperating agencies are | |
| included during the preparation of both, but excluded if the BLM | |
| desires to revise the implementation strategies. This exclusion during | |
| potential revisions jeopardizes successful implementation. Time and | |
| again we have found in Wyoming that the most successful plans and | |
| strategies are ones that have the support of local government. Without | |
| it the agency stands alone. | |
| local decisions vs. centralized authority | |
| The BLM's proposed rule goes to great length to describe the | |
| importance of shifting away from political boundaries and toward | |
| landscape-scale decisionmaking. It is certainly the case that some | |
| resource management plans encompass landscapes and wildlife habitat | |
| that cross county and state lines. Attempting to plan at a larger, | |
| regional level is not in itself a bad thing. In fact, doing so could | |
| help to rationalize some planning efforts that are difficult to solve | |
| in separate, smaller areas. | |
| However, in an effort to facilitate regional planning the BLM | |
| proposes to remove Field Managers and State Directors as the official | |
| with direct responsibility for drafting and approving resource | |
| management plans when those plans cross political boundaries. By | |
| substituting ``responsible'' and ``deciding officials'' appointed by | |
| BLM that may or may not be the regional manager or State Director, the | |
| agency runs the risk of setting itself up for failure by imposing a | |
| decisionmaker on a community with which he has no established | |
| relationship and no working knowledge of the custom and culture of the | |
| areas he now oversees. | |
| It might be tempting to view this concern as seeing boogey-men | |
| where none exist. Indeed we are more concerned with how the BLM plans | |
| to engage with local governments than who is specifically placed in | |
| charge. However, we simply cannot ignore this risk of separation from | |
| local officials when it is combined with proposals in the rule to | |
| significantly broaden the scope of the BLM's analysis beyond ``local | |
| economies'' toward enormous and nebulous analysis on ``environmental, | |
| ecological, and social conditions,'' and ``regional, national, and | |
| international'' dependence upon BLM resources. The BLM has a difficult | |
| enough time completing local analysis in a timely fashion without | |
| introducing topics that are likely well beyond their expertise and | |
| resource availability. | |
| We urge the agency to maintain its efforts to keep land use | |
| planning as local as possible, in terms of the people who write and | |
| approve the plans, the issues and areas for analysis, and in the | |
| process for developing and implementing them. | |
| Establishing a successful and defensible planning process is not an | |
| exciting policy topic. It does not carry Hollywood buzz like fracking, | |
| or command attention like endangered species. But make no mistake, | |
| every single agency action--whether issue-based like fracking or single | |
| species conservation, or place-based like Areas of Critical | |
| Environmental Concern--is first viewed through this over-arching | |
| planning lens. It is here, in the governing planning document where the | |
| filters are set for information gathering, where the scales can be | |
| tipped toward one interest group or another, and where the BLM | |
| establishes for itself guidelines that can either promote sound | |
| decisionmaking or incentivize protests and litigation. | |
| We appreciate that this committee has taken the time to explore | |
| this issue that is so fundamental to local participation in land use | |
| planning. | |
| ______ | |
| Mr. Gohmert. I thank the gentleman. | |
| At this time, we will proceed with Members' 5 minutes of | |
| questioning. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. | |
| Mr. Obermueller, you were saying that this may not be the | |
| most fun topic to be taking up, but I was surprised. We have | |
| had substantially more response from people around the country | |
| on this issue of this specific rule change than most any of the | |
| more glamorous issues we have taken up. People are very upset | |
| and very concerned, as they have a right to be. | |
| Mr. French, you had mentioned that 90 percent of your | |
| county is owned by the Federal Government. Is that correct? | |
| Mr. French. Yes, Mr. Chairman. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. And I know in Oregon, where there have been so | |
| many problems, we have seen--when you look at the map with the | |
| overlays of all the different Federal land that is owned or | |
| managed by the Federal Government, you end up seeing layer | |
| after layer added, where somebody starts out with a big ranch | |
| or a big piece of land, then one government entity gets land | |
| near them, and then before long they are surrounded. They start | |
| having problems with being denied access to their land and it | |
| creates hard feelings. I am curious. Do you know approximately | |
| when--I mean, was this 90 percent acquired by the Federal | |
| Government all at once, or was this over a period of time? | |
| Mr. French. This has been at one time. Ultimately, the | |
| Federal lands ownership in Nevada occurred right after the | |
| Civil War, when Nevada became a state. There were some state | |
| select lands that were offered to the state that are in private | |
| ownership now. Then, of course, the corridor for the Union | |
| Pacific Railroad has alternate sections that are privately held | |
| 20 miles either side of that corridor. | |
| Most of Humboldt County is administered under Bureau of | |
| Land Management, but we also have, as you pointed out, Mr. | |
| Chairman, other Federal agencies. We have national conservation | |
| areas, wilderness areas, a national forest, and a Federal | |
| refuge. So, add it all together, and we are at about 90 | |
| percent--88.8 percent, I believe. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. The proposed rule says ``cooperating agencies | |
| will participate in the various steps of the BLM's planning | |
| process as feasible and appropriate given the scope of their | |
| expertise and constraints of their resources.'' | |
| I would like to ask each of you, what do you think that is | |
| going to mean to your county, your area, your association, if | |
| that change becomes effective? | |
| Mr. French, I will start with you. | |
| Mr. French. I believe that, unfortunately, most of the | |
| folks--this is a complex enough issue that most of the folks | |
| don't know what questions to ask. In many cases in Nevada, in | |
| many of the counties, 2.0 really passed over the top of their | |
| head. They did not realize what the implications of this could | |
| be to their counties. Many of the counties have to hire | |
| additional consulting staff in order to review this material; | |
| and then, the 90 days that the BLM gave them will pass before | |
| they have a chance to actually approve it. | |
| So, we have an issue relative to involvement. And, the | |
| county commissioners themselves mostly are not full-time | |
| commissioners. Most of them are lay people who do not have the | |
| background to actually have meaningful input to something as | |
| wide scope as a 2.0 policy change. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Let me hear from Ms. Cowan. What do you think | |
| that change would mean? | |
| Ms. Cowan. I think it will shut down county participation, | |
| because the counties in New Mexico are lay people who make very | |
| little being county commissioners. They are responsible for | |
| managing entire counties. Often when these rulemakings come up | |
| and we contact these folks to see if they even had notice, a | |
| secretary will say, ``You know, I did see something like that, | |
| but it wasn't important, and I threw it away.'' So, I think it | |
| will just cut out county participation largely. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Fisher? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, speaking from the perspective of | |
| hunters and anglers, I think that one of the roles of | |
| organizations, like Trout Unlimited, is to help decipher some | |
| of that information. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Well, you will need to be doing a lot more. | |
| Mr. Obermueller. | |
| Mr. Obermueller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the | |
| BLM was trying to give some deference to counties about our | |
| limited constraints. I think that the words on the paper did | |
| not quite capture what they were after. To Mrs. Dingell's | |
| point, I think that there is room here for the BLM to | |
| acknowledge our limitations and yet work with us to determine | |
| what our scope is jointly. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. It definitely gives them more | |
| authority to cut you out. | |
| My time has expired. I recognize the Ranking Member for 5 | |
| minutes. Mrs. Dingell. | |
| Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to | |
| agree with the Chairman that I think there may be more interest | |
| in this subject than you realize. I am probably the only Member | |
| on either side that gets grilled on this subject by her spouse | |
| on a regular basis. | |
| But, Mr. Fisher, I would like to ask you some questions, | |
| because I want to pursue this public involvement issue. I am | |
| trying to understand the assertion that more opportunities for | |
| public input are not necessary simply because elected officials | |
| are at the table. I agree that elected officials have a duty to | |
| be a voice for the public, but aren't there times when it is | |
| important for the public to be able to speak in their own voice | |
| as well? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Representative Dingell, I would agree with | |
| that. I think that the counties do have a very important role | |
| to play. I think the hunters and anglers are, oftentimes, the | |
| folks that are out in the field. We know these lands better | |
| than a lot of folks and a lot of public land users, so I think | |
| that our voice is very important and needs to be meaningfully | |
| heard at the table. | |
| Mrs. Dingell. I think it is true that elected officials | |
| have unique knowledge about the local community. It is critical | |
| to include them in the resource planning, and I really respect | |
| their role; but I suspect that it is also true of their | |
| constituents. Do you and other hunters, anglers, and sportsmen, | |
| bring a unique perspective to the process? And what would be | |
| the disadvantage of not including the perspective of groups | |
| like this in your process? | |
| Mr. Fisher. I think that we absolutely do bring a unique | |
| perspective. Again, throughout the year out there, we see the | |
| conditions on the ground. I think that one of the disadvantages | |
| to not having that meaningful engagement is by not having that | |
| buy-in from all stakeholders in these plans. I think that it is | |
| very important for these plans to work to be a partnership, and | |
| that includes everybody. | |
| Mrs. Dingell. By the way, I am married to someone who | |
| really thinks that, as you could probably guess. You all don't | |
| know him, some of them here do. He is more conservative on some | |
| of these issues than anybody at this dais. | |
| Some local and state officials seem concerned that adding | |
| opportunities for public involvement in the resource planning | |
| process makes their involvement less important. What are your | |
| thoughts on this? Will local and state officials still have a | |
| substantial say in the resource planning process? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Representative Dingell, I believe so. In my | |
| review of the proposed rule, there remains to be that | |
| cooperating agency status. I kind of look at it as a three- | |
| legged stool. You have the local governments, the public land | |
| stakeholders, and the agency. If one of those important | |
| stakeholder groups really is not at the table, the whole thing | |
| falls apart; so I think it really takes all three groups to | |
| make this thing work. | |
| Mrs. Dingell. Everybody is important to the process, and | |
| not trying to exclude local, which I agree. | |
| I have just received a letter from the Park County Board of | |
| Commissioners expressing support for proposed improvements to | |
| public participation. You mentioned Park County in your | |
| testimony, Mr. Fisher. Can you explain what is happening there | |
| as it pertains to planning? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Yes, Representative Dingell. Currently, in Park | |
| County, the Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan is taking | |
| a look at--it is called a master leasing plan which is going to | |
| determine where and how oil and gas leasing and then future | |
| development will occur. That process has been one of these | |
| really stakeholder collaboratives between hunters and anglers, | |
| communities, Denver Water, and the county commission, as you | |
| mentioned. | |
| I think that it really incorporates a lot of the kind of | |
| core values that BLM is trying to do with Planning 2.0, which | |
| is to bring people together early in the process, develop | |
| collaborative solutions, and then implement them through their | |
| resource management plan revision. So, I am very pleased to | |
| hear that Park County has taken that position. | |
| Mrs. Dingell. I am going to try to get one more in fast on | |
| landscape-scale planning. | |
| We know that resources like wildlife, rivers, and people do | |
| not politely coincide with state and field office boundaries, | |
| but they migrate and move across boundaries. It seems as though | |
| managing resources according to these boundaries creates | |
| unnecessary fragmentation and inefficiencies in the planning | |
| process. | |
| In your testimony, you gave the example of the Yellowstone | |
| River, which had different protections depending on the county | |
| you were standing in. Are there other disadvantages to managing | |
| resources at the field office level or other examples you can | |
| share in 2 seconds. | |
| Mr. Fisher. Two seconds. Yes, it comes down to consistency, | |
| and that is not just for fish and wildlife management, but I | |
| think it is important for all uses--oil and gas development, | |
| timber. Everybody needs to know consistently across field | |
| office boundaries what constraints they will be operating | |
| under. | |
| Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Fisher. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. At this time, the Chair will | |
| recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5 | |
| minutes. | |
| Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fact sheet for | |
| this proposed rule lists economic change alongside social and | |
| environmental as key items requiring an improved response from | |
| BLM. But in the actual rule, economic is completely eliminated, | |
| leaving only social and environmental change. Considering the | |
| reduced opportunity for substantive state and local government | |
| involvement in this proposed process, I am concerned about | |
| BLM's ability to monitor and respond to adverse impacts to | |
| rural economies resulting from these decisions. | |
| Commissioner French, your county is heavily dependent on | |
| economic activities on public lands. Does this proposed rule | |
| give adequate consideration for the economic impacts on | |
| counties? | |
| Mr. French. After reviewing 2.0, I believe that the | |
| consideration for economics and the impacts to county | |
| governments have not been adequately weighed in the sense that | |
| the planning that occurs, including master plans and such, are | |
| dynamic. They are a moving target. | |
| If we are subjected to cooperative agency status on one | |
| occasion and are allowed to input into an RMP revision down the | |
| road as transportation plans, development plans, water | |
| management plans, and various plans evolve in our counties, the | |
| BLM is not involved at that stage. I believe under 2.0 that | |
| needs to be something that is modified and shored up at this | |
| point. | |
| Mr. Labrador. OK. Thank you. Mr. Obermueller, same | |
| question. Do county commissioners in Wyoming believe that this | |
| rule gives adequate consideration to the economic impacts on | |
| counties? | |
| Mr. Obermueller. Thank you, Representative Labrador, and it | |
| is a very important question that I am going to answer in a | |
| second, but I also wanted to clarify for Representative Dingell | |
| that as it relates to county commissioners in Wyoming and the | |
| state and local officials that I deal with, we are not seeking | |
| an exclusion of any group. | |
| In fact, the BLM Planning 2.0 rule provides a new system, a | |
| plan assessment phase, where groups like Trout Unlimited, Stock | |
| Growers, and others can be involved. We support that. It says | |
| so in our written testimony, that we want that involvement. | |
| Early-and-often stakeholder involvement is exactly right, as | |
| Mr. Fisher pointed out. The issue is, the law provides local | |
| governments with an added authoritative weight, and that is | |
| what we see diminished. | |
| So, Representative Labrador, to your point, this is what I | |
| alluded to about a diffusion of local interests in a sense that | |
| the rule changes wording and language away from local economies | |
| and local dependence on Federal lands for the very survival of | |
| the county toward broader, nebulous goals that we are concerned | |
| that BLM does not have the expertise or the ability to even | |
| assess. We have worked very hard with the BLM at improving | |
| their analysis of socio-economic data in the counties precisely | |
| for that reason, and moving away from that troubles us. | |
| Mr. Labrador. Commissioner French, I have been contacted by | |
| several stakeholders in Idaho who have raised concerns about | |
| the process that the BLM has used on this proposed rule. | |
| Specifically, they are concerned about the lack of public | |
| outreach, the very limited number of public meetings that have | |
| been held, and the timing of the meetings that have been held. | |
| For example, the hearings have been held on Wednesday | |
| afternoons when most individuals are at work. How would you | |
| describe BLM's outreach efforts in Nevada? | |
| Mr. French. Very similar to what has been experienced in | |
| Idaho. We have had a revolving door in the Winnemucca District, | |
| in Humboldt County, of personnel, and there really has not been | |
| a very consistent voice in terms of being able to discuss even | |
| from a county perspective. But from a public comment period | |
| perspective, there was one opportunity that I am aware of that | |
| occurred on a Thursday afternoon, and it was at a | |
| telecommunications type meeting. | |
| Mr. Labrador. OK. Mr. Fisher, real quick, the BLM is | |
| seeking to accept citizen science--that is what they are | |
| calling it--in planning without identifying how that relates to | |
| the best available science. | |
| In the Denver public meeting, BLM's representatives | |
| repeatedly stated that expanded incorporation of citizen | |
| science in planning would be a benefit of the new planning | |
| process. Do you know what citizen science is? And if you do, | |
| who gets to decide whose citizen science is going to be | |
| accepted? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Representative Labrador, I am familiar with | |
| citizen science. Trout Unlimited, as a resource organization, | |
| tries to incorporate and facilitate some citizen science | |
| through our membership. There have to be quality control | |
| measures in place, a quality assurance plan; and I think that, | |
| ultimately, it does come down to the resource professionals | |
| with the BLM to determine if citizen science is science that is | |
| the best available and whether it should be interpreted. | |
| Mr. Labrador. So, resource professionals are going to | |
| determine what science is accepted, instead of being objective, | |
| so I am very concerned about that. | |
| Thank you. I yield back. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. I thank the gentleman. By the way, the Ranking | |
| Member commented about her husband. I am not surprised at all | |
| by the gentlelady's comments. I have great admiration and | |
| respect for your husband. He is a man of honor and integrity, | |
| and represented himself and his constituents well. | |
| At this time, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Polis, is | |
| recognized for 5 minutes. | |
| Mr. Polis. Thank you. I come from a western state that has | |
| a wide variety of public lands; and after speaking with | |
| constituents across my district, revision of this plan is long | |
| overdue. There are few plans, or rules, that can stay relevant | |
| for four decades, two generations of my constituents; and BLM's | |
| planning truly is outdated. | |
| Local control and constituent input are really my top | |
| priorities in the inherent values of those of us who live in | |
| and around our public lands. It makes sense that many counties | |
| in Colorado worked with local BLM offices on this type of plan, | |
| and that was even before the BLM completed this rule. As part | |
| of revising the Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan, the | |
| Royal Gorge Field Office in Colorado has already embraced and | |
| implemented some of the ideas from Planning 2.0, including | |
| recent envisioning sessions that involve a wide range of | |
| stakeholders. In addition, responding to a proposal from Park | |
| County, the BLM has agreed to evaluate a master leasing plan. I | |
| have a letter from the Park County Board of Commissioners that | |
| I would like to submit for the record. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Without objection, so ordered. | |
| [The information follows:] | |
| Park County--Board of County Commissioners, | |
| Fairplay, Colorado | |
| May 12, 2016 | |
| Neil Kornze, Director, | |
| Bureau of Land Management, | |
| 1849 C Street N.W., | |
| Washington, DC 20240. | |
| Re: The Bureau of Land Management's Proposed Resource Management | |
| Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg. 8674 (February 25, 2016) | |
| Dear Director Kornze: | |
| The undersigned representatives of local government are writing to | |
| share their support for provisions of the Bureau of Land Management's | |
| (BLM's) Proposed Resource Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg. 8674 | |
| (Feb. 25, 2016) (the Proposed Rules). In particular, we support the | |
| provisions of the Proposed Rules that provide additional opportunities | |
| for public involvement earlier in the planning process, including the | |
| chance to review preliminary resource management alternatives and | |
| preliminary rationales for those alternatives. | |
| Each of undersigned representatives come from local jurisdictions | |
| whose land bases include substantial amounts of public lands managed by | |
| BLM. The management of these public lands is vitally important to the | |
| citizens we represent. Our citizens and local economies depend on these | |
| lands for sustainable multiple uses, from outdoor recreation to | |
| livestock grazing to mineral exploration and development. | |
| The current BLM planning methodology lacks adequate opportunities | |
| for public involvement, particularly early in the process. It also | |
| lacks transparency. It often results in a range of alternatives that | |
| fails to address the concerns of all stakeholders. The proposed changes | |
| would provide the public with an opportunity to raise concerns and | |
| review potential management alternatives before these alternatives | |
| become solidified in a draft Resource Management Plan (RMP). This early | |
| public involvement will hopefully help resolve conflicts and produce | |
| RMPs that better reflect the needs of our citizens as well as others | |
| who use the public lands and have a stake in their future. | |
| In addition, we note that the Proposed Rules also expand | |
| opportunities for states and local governments to have meaningful | |
| involvement in the development of BLM's land use decisions. The | |
| Proposed Rules continue to provide for coordination with state and | |
| local representatives in order to ensure, to the extent available under | |
| federal law, that RMPs are consistent with state and local land use | |
| plans, as provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of | |
| 1976. | |
| Sincerely, | |
| Mike Brazell, | |
| Chairman. | |
| ______ | |
| Mr. Polis. The letter says, in part, that they share their | |
| support for provisions of the Bureau of Land Management's | |
| proposed resource management planning rules in large part | |
| because of the people that live in and around the public lands, | |
| and that management of these public lands is vitally important | |
| to the citizens we represent from Park County, Colorado. | |
| Mr. Fisher, planning for public lands can be complex and | |
| involve lengthy documents that are sometimes difficult to | |
| understand. The BLM is now proposing a more collaborative, | |
| transparent, multi-stakeholder process to help navigate | |
| planning. How, in your experience, will more up-front | |
| engagement with communities improve the planning process? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Representative Polis, I think that that early- | |
| and-often engagement that we have talked about with those local | |
| communities is going to create, like I mentioned, more durable | |
| plans. People are going to have buy-in; they are going to have | |
| ownership over those plans. I think through the assessment | |
| phase that Mr. Obermueller mentioned, it is going to help | |
| identify those local issues. My hope is that that will form the | |
| foundation of how these plans are developed and what issues are | |
| meaningfully addressed. | |
| Mr. Polis. In your testimony, you referenced the evaluation | |
| of a master leasing plan. How does that relate to the Planning | |
| 2.0 rule process, and how can we have local government | |
| representatives and residents engaged in that process? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Representative Polis, the master leasing plans | |
| are not explicitly mentioned in the proposed planning rule. But | |
| I believe that that master leasing plan process really | |
| emphasizes building solutions from the ground up, taking a look | |
| at a landscape, and deciding collaboratively what makes sense | |
| for management of this landscape. That is really at the core of | |
| master leasing plans, and I think that you see that also in | |
| this proposed rule. | |
| Mr. Polis. Can you speak to not only the importance of | |
| stakeholder involvement, which you alluded to in getting buy-in | |
| to the plan, but how important is what my constituents and | |
| residents of nearby communities think in determining and | |
| providing input into actual plans of usage, and how will Rule | |
| 2.0 enhance the way that our local input counts in these | |
| decisions? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Representative Polis, you know that early | |
| assessment phase is one. The other opportunity is through a new | |
| public comment engagement period between the initial scoping | |
| and before the draft alternatives are put out for review. There | |
| will be an intermediary step with preliminary alternatives that | |
| will allow the public to consider what the BLM is thinking, to | |
| look at the rationale for that, and to provide input to make | |
| sure that they are on the right track. | |
| Mr. Polis. Finally, we know that wildlife, rivers, and | |
| people do not stop at arbitrary state boundaries or field | |
| office boundaries. Wildlife migrates and rivers move across | |
| political boundaries; so I applaud the BLM on thinking about | |
| common-sense ways to plan for use and conservation on our | |
| public lands rather than rely on political boundaries. How will | |
| these kinds of changes affect wildlife and the sportsman | |
| community around breaking down political boundaries? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Representative Polis, I believe that that kind | |
| of big picture thinking will create better habitat; and better | |
| habitat is better for wildlife, and healthier, more robust fish | |
| and wildlife populations mean better hunting and fishing. | |
| Mr. Polis. Thank you. I yield back. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the | |
| Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, | |
| for 5 minutes. | |
| Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Obermueller, | |
| the BLM's proposed planning rule is lifted almost entirely from | |
| the Forest Service's planning rules adopted in 2012. It is | |
| almost uncanny how similar they are. Whole concepts and ideas | |
| are taken straight from it, including this new planning | |
| assessment phase at the very beginning where the Agency asks | |
| all stakeholders for information and ideas on the scope of the | |
| management plan. | |
| My district contains well over 2 million acres of National | |
| Forest Service land, but no BLM land; so I want to know, how | |
| has the Forest Service implemented the 2012 planning rule, and | |
| do you believe it should serve as a model for the BLM or the | |
| Department of the Interior as a whole? | |
| Mr. Obermueller. Congressman Westerman, thank you for that | |
| question. It is very insightful about the Forest Service | |
| planning rule that has been in effect since 2012, and you are | |
| exactly right. The BLM, in many ways, did not reinvent the | |
| wheel. They looked to the Forest Service planning rule in a lot | |
| of ways, including the planning assessment which you have heard | |
| a lot about. | |
| I want to make clear that we support the planning | |
| assessment phase, and we support any of the groups being able | |
| to provide data during that time. Our issue is that when local | |
| governments, by their own action, create data via impact | |
| memos--in one case in Campbell County, Wyoming, they convened a | |
| scientific symposium on raptors after the process had already | |
| begun. Under the proposed rule, the local government data | |
| generated at that point would not necessarily be admissible | |
| anymore, into the planning process. | |
| The Forest Service has its planning assessment phase as | |
| well. They have used it, we have supported it, and we | |
| appreciate the way the Forest Service has tried to engage local | |
| governments and be nimble. Here is the challenge--and I would | |
| be interested to hear how your constituents feel about it in | |
| your forests--the challenge is the Forest Service under their | |
| Act, NFMA, does not have the same statutory requirements that | |
| the BLM does. The BLM, under FLPMA, has the statutory | |
| requirement of coordination with local governments. The Forest | |
| Service does it out of the goodness of their hearts. | |
| The trouble with the Forest Service in that case is that | |
| they do not have the anchor of Federal law from Congress to | |
| come back to about the direction they are supposed to take, so | |
| sometimes they flounder about how to engage any stakeholder, | |
| including local government. | |
| So, while we appreciate the Forest Service's nimbleness, we | |
| keep coming back to what is directed to the BLM under FLPMA. | |
| Mr. Westerman. Thank you for that. Mr. Fisher, you talked | |
| in the first part of your testimony about being an outdoorsman, | |
| hunting and fishing. It sounds very similar to where I grew up | |
| and what I still try to do. My son and I actually caught some | |
| fish Saturday and cooked them up for supper, and there is | |
| nothing better than fresh fish for dinner. It is making me | |
| ready to get back to Arkansas. | |
| I am not sure of all of your background, but I know you | |
| work for Trout Unlimited, so you are very concerned about the | |
| protection of streams and water quality. | |
| Can you describe what happens to a stream if you were to | |
| clearcut right down to the stream edge, remove the shade, and | |
| create soil erosion that would go into the stream? What does | |
| that do to trout fisheries? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Representative Westerman, increased water | |
| temperature and turbidity make it more difficult for trout, for | |
| instance, to have successful spawning. At the end of the day, | |
| the fishing gets worse. | |
| Mr. Westerman. So, that is something we definitely do not | |
| want to see--the water warm up, more soil going into the stream | |
| and damaging the fishery. That also does not do good for the | |
| water. If we look at forestry management, what natural | |
| occurrence does a clearcut simulate? It is a forest fire, a | |
| stand replacement forest fire; so if you get one of these huge | |
| forest fires that burn right down to the stream edge, it is | |
| essentially like you went in and clearcut it. Now you have | |
| exposed the water to higher temperatures. You have not only | |
| soil runoff but ash runoff into the stream, which is not good | |
| at all for the fishery. | |
| One thing I am concerned about in the rule--and I think it | |
| is a good thing--it says ensure that the public lands be | |
| managed in a manner that will protect the quality of | |
| scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air | |
| and atmospheric, water resources, and archeological values, and | |
| it goes on and on. I am almost out of time, but it just says to | |
| recognize the need for domestic sources of minerals, food, | |
| timber, and fiber from the public lands. | |
| So, if we are only recognizing the need, and we are not | |
| actively managing the forest, I am worried we are going to | |
| destroy some of these other things that we say we are there to | |
| ensure. And if I wasn't out of time, I would go on, Mr. Chair. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. At this | |
| time, the Chair recognizes Mrs. Radewagen for 5 minutes. | |
| Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. French, you | |
| are a former land manager and now a county commissioner, so you | |
| have been on both sides of coordination and of the Federal Land | |
| Policy and Management Act. Based on your impressions, does the | |
| proposed Planning 2.0 rule, as it is currently presented, serve | |
| to strengthen the hand of local governments or of the Federal | |
| agencies; and if so, how? | |
| Mr. French. In my view, Congresswoman, I believe that the | |
| plan, as it is proposed at this time, will weaken the ability | |
| of the counties to not only weigh in relative to the | |
| development of RMPs; but as the circumstances change within the | |
| landscape of the resources in this county, the ability to pivot | |
| and actually change management based on real life conditions on | |
| the ground will be limited. | |
| I believe it also is going to limit our ability as county | |
| commissioners to weigh in with our constituents in the form of | |
| public hearings as this moves forward, because it limits our | |
| ability to be involved at the ground level, especially with | |
| regard to changes that will occur within the context of the | |
| plan. | |
| Mrs. Radewagen. How could Planning 2.0 be improved to | |
| better allow for greater local involvement in BLM planning? | |
| Mr. French. Thank you for that question. One of the major | |
| things that came to my mind, as I went through this plan the | |
| first time, is that if it isn't broke, don't fix it. | |
| I agree with some of the comments that have been made here | |
| today that the plan that has been recognized under FLPMA for | |
| years could use some updating with regard to the public's | |
| involvement. But that should not be at the expense of the | |
| stakeholder relationships with the public land managers, | |
| because those stakeholders, including the state and local | |
| governments, are the subject matter experts and the people that | |
| are on the ground on a day-to-day basis who will be able to | |
| recognize and make meaningful suggestions and contributions to | |
| plans being developed, as well as plans being modified in the | |
| future. | |
| Mrs. Radewagen. Mr. Obermueller, what can BLM do to improve | |
| this rule from your perspective? | |
| Mr. Obermueller. Thank you for the question. I probably | |
| can't answer that in 2 minutes. Our official comments will be | |
| rather lengthy, but I think there are a couple of things. Maybe | |
| most importantly, the Agency could clarify their intentions | |
| with regard to the opportunities and ability for local | |
| governments to be involved as cooperating agencies moving | |
| forward. | |
| The cooperating agency process that I alluded to in my | |
| testimony under CEQ regs is not perfect, but it is the process | |
| that we have; and in Wyoming, county commissioners in Wyoming, | |
| across the state, are actively involved in that process. It is | |
| not easy. It is a tough slog to wade through all of these rules | |
| and be involved in that way, and it is difficult to convince | |
| elected officials, as Commissioner French pointed out, who are | |
| often part-time and do not have staff or resources, to stay | |
| engaged if they do not see a result at the end, or do not feel | |
| that the agency is giving them the time and attention they | |
| deserve, rather than simply checking the box. Clarifying our | |
| role as a cooperating agency would be primary. | |
| Mrs. Radewagen. Anything you would like to add, Ms. Cowan? | |
| Ms. Cowan. I think that it is interesting that we are | |
| talking about a planning rule that needs to include the public | |
| in the planning, but the planning rule did not include the | |
| public in the planning. | |
| So, stepping back and taking a look at this and working | |
| with the interested people, we have identified several areas of | |
| common ground here this afternoon. But this just seems to be a | |
| heavy-handed attempt to take local control, which is working | |
| very well in New Mexico at this point in time, and bring it to | |
| Washington, DC. And, when you take something that far away from | |
| the impacts, we have never had a good outcome. | |
| Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. The gentlelady yields back. At this time, the | |
| Chair yields to Mr. Clay for 5 minutes. | |
| Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me start with Mr. | |
| Fisher. Do you think the landscape-scale approach will improve | |
| management of public lands overall? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Representative Clay, I do believe that it will. | |
| I would like to address that landscape-scale planning a little | |
| bit. I think that what the BLM is really trying to get at, at | |
| least I hope so, for hunters and anglers, it is more of a | |
| scalable, so we are not just necessarily going and planning for | |
| a large landscape, but we are taking a look at conditions of | |
| the ground and planning for the issues that need to be | |
| addressed; and that could scale up, or it could scale down. But | |
| I think that having that flexibility will help with the | |
| management of our public lands. | |
| Mr. Clay. The other witnesses have expressed concern that | |
| the landscape approach encourages a one-size-fits-all approach | |
| to resource planning by moving planning to the regional level. | |
| It seems as though planning at the landscape level would make | |
| the plans more tailored to the unique needs of the individual | |
| landscape. What are your thoughts about that? | |
| Mr. Fisher. I think that how that planning area is defined | |
| really needs to be informed with that assessment at that | |
| assessment phase; and that when it does, whether it is a | |
| regional plan or if it is scaled down to a smaller plan, that | |
| it is really going to help address the issues on the ground and | |
| find ways to do so from the ground up through collaborative | |
| processes. | |
| Mr. Clay. Does landscape planning make plans more generic | |
| or more tailored to the resource needs? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Representative Clay, I think when done well, | |
| they would be more tailored to the resource needs and the needs | |
| of America's public land users. | |
| Mr. Clay. All right. As I understand it, one problem with | |
| the current planning process is that alternatives are evaluated | |
| without public input. So, when the public is finally involved, | |
| which may be months or years down the road, someone can sue | |
| because, for example, the selection of the alternatives was not | |
| complete. What is the effect on lawsuits that this rule is | |
| likely to have? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Representative Clay, I believe that that early- | |
| and-often collaboration, which will help achieve buy-in and | |
| create ownership from the public over these plans, would result | |
| in a reduction in litigation. I think when people view these | |
| plans as their own, they are less likely to litigate them. | |
| Mr. Clay. That sounds like something my friends here would | |
| be in favor of, less litigation by trial attorneys. I am sure | |
| the Chairman would pretty much agree with that. Isn't that | |
| right, Mr. Chair? | |
| Mr. Gohmert. In the appropriate circumstances. | |
| Mr. Clay. In the appropriate circumstances. Let me yield | |
| back the balance of my time. Thank you for your response. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Clay. At this time, the Chair | |
| recognizes Mr. Hice for 5 minutes. | |
| Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Obermueller, let me | |
| begin with you. Under the current regulations, if you asked to | |
| be a cooperating agency and the authorized officer denies the | |
| request, does it go automatically to the State Director for | |
| review at that point? | |
| Mr. Obermueller. Representative, actually I am not quite | |
| sure of the mechanics at that point. They do have the | |
| authority, with respect to the cooperating agency regulations, | |
| of who to accept or not. | |
| In Wyoming, we are proactive in making sure that not only | |
| do we point out that they are instantly required to coordinate, | |
| but we work hard at making them want us to be involved; so we | |
| have not had a denial like that to work on. | |
| Mr. Hice. How does the new proposed rule work? | |
| Mr. Obermueller. With respect to cooperating agencies, | |
| Representative? | |
| Mr. Hice. Right. | |
| Mr. Obermueller. As I mentioned in my testimony, it | |
| actually closely mirrors the CEQ guidelines. Technically, under | |
| the CEQ guidelines, the agency is supposed to reach out to | |
| local governments and invite them to the table. We have learned | |
| the hard way, in Wyoming and in the counties across the West, | |
| that we cannot rely on the agency to follow that, to actually | |
| do the invitation. So, we invite ourselves, quite frankly; and | |
| we are proactive about that. | |
| Mr. Hice. All right. From this perspective, if for some | |
| reason you are denied, BLM says you are not allowed to | |
| participate. Is there any way to have that decision reviewed? | |
| Mr. Obermueller. Representative, not that I am aware of. | |
| Mr. Hice. So, that is the final say? If they say you are | |
| not allowed to participate, that is the end of discussion? | |
| Mr. Obermueller. I believe that is correct, Representative. | |
| Mr. Hice. Mr. French, would you like to tap in on that? | |
| Mr. French. Under current FLPMA law, if you are denied | |
| cooperating agency status, you can appeal that to the State | |
| Director's office. Under 2.0, it is not clear if it would | |
| stop---- | |
| Mr. Hice. Is that a change that you think serves counties | |
| well? | |
| Mr. French. To be able to appeal that to the State | |
| Director? | |
| Mr. Hice. You said they are not able to under the new rule. | |
| Is that good for counties or bad? | |
| Mr. French. Not at all. | |
| Mr. Hice. Right. Why not? Expound on that. | |
| Mr. French. I believe that, especially, if the decision to | |
| not admit an entity under cooperating agency status is made by | |
| a regulatory authority that might be in Washington, DC, or in a | |
| regional office at best, they may not understand the full | |
| dynamics of why that group, including a county, would want to | |
| be involved in that; and the county or a group that has | |
| petitioned for that should have the opportunity to make that | |
| case in front of a state director. | |
| Mr. Hice. OK. So, should there be some sort of back drop, | |
| do you think, to at least provide good reason for excluding | |
| counties if they have been denied the right to participate? | |
| Mr. French. I am not sure I understand what the rationale | |
| could be for that. We talked a few moments ago about limiting | |
| litigation. I think the probability for increasing litigation | |
| is probably a very real problem under 2.0, if the appeals | |
| process is short-circuited. From a transparency standpoint, the | |
| more you can have your stakeholders make their case publicly | |
| for their involvement in a process, the better. | |
| Mr. Hice. OK. Ms. Cowan, you look like you are wanting to | |
| pipe in? | |
| Ms. Cowan. Yes, if I could weigh in on that a little bit. | |
| One of the things that is most startling as you go through 2.0, | |
| is that throughout the document, they removed the word | |
| ``shall'' in their regulations and replaced it with ``will.'' | |
| When you talk about words mattering as legislators, the | |
| difference between ``shall'' and ``will'' are vastly different; | |
| and that is a huge concern. | |
| Mr. Hice. Explain what that means practically for local | |
| governments? | |
| Ms. Cowan. To me, it means that BLM can do whatever they | |
| want. They will do something, but they are not held to that | |
| standard in any way. If they decide to change something, | |
| ``shall'' does not hold their feet to the fire. | |
| Mr. Hice. OK. So they can do what they want. Would you | |
| consider this an over-reach? | |
| Ms. Cowan. Absolutely. Without a doubt. We talked about | |
| litigation, and we talked some about the landscape. I guess it | |
| would be my contention that landscape planning is going on | |
| already, because we have organizations like Mr. Obermueller's | |
| where county commissions get together. They work on these | |
| things together; and things do not just stop at one county line | |
| and move on to the next. In this over-reach, you are taking | |
| local government out. So, the economics of what happens in each | |
| county becomes a factor that is not considered all. There are | |
| some things that may need to be changed in this, but there are | |
| a lot of things that work; and we need to work through and save | |
| those things. | |
| Mr. Hice. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. | |
| Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. At this time, the Chair recognizes | |
| the gentlelady from Wyoming, Mrs. Lummis, for 5 minutes. | |
| Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To follow on the last | |
| line of questioning about centralization of decisionmaking--Mr. | |
| Obermueller, if field managers and state directors are removed | |
| from the rule as the specific go-to people with direct | |
| responsibility for drafting and approving resource management | |
| plans, who then becomes responsible? | |
| Mr. Obermueller. Thank you, Representative Lummis. This is | |
| a very good question. The proposed rule, in an effort to do | |
| these landscape-scale analyses, which I will get to in a | |
| moment, does remove the State Director and the field manager as | |
| the officials specifically designated to draft or approve these | |
| plans, replacing it with a deciding official, an approving | |
| official, or something like that. | |
| The county commissioners in Wyoming do not want to | |
| necessarily be focused on who is doing this. We are much more | |
| interested in how. But this is a troubling trend in the sense | |
| that Mr. Fisher mentioned--if it is done right, then landscape | |
| planning will work. We are concerned it cannot be done right, | |
| if in a particular area, a person is air dropped in who does | |
| not have a cultural affinity, or a recognition or rapport, with | |
| the local stakeholders on the ground in any given county. | |
| So, I am not troubled by the notion of landscape-scale | |
| planning. You know this well, Representative Lummis, that in | |
| Wyoming we already do that. We plan large scale for sage | |
| grouse, for wildlife migration, for energy development; we plan | |
| large scale all the time. But, I am very troubled by this | |
| notion of diminishing the role of counties, that somehow county | |
| boundaries do not matter or somehow hinder landscape-scale | |
| planning. What are county commissioners for if not to represent | |
| the people in the county, every one of them, single issue | |
| interest or not? | |
| Mrs. Lummis. Are there examples of where Federal agencies | |
| have minimized the role of local governments already? | |
| Mr. Obermueller. Yes, there certainly are. I hate to focus | |
| on the negative, but one of the things that particularly | |
| troubles county commissioners, elected officials, is some | |
| Federal agency's tendency to want to go out and do what they | |
| call ``situational assessments'' or ``stakeholder analysis'' | |
| and that sort of thing. | |
| Again, it is the people of the county who elected the | |
| commissioners. If you want to do a situational assessment, ask | |
| the elected county officials, and you will get a situational | |
| assessment that is a broad view. They are accountable to the | |
| public. If the public thinks they are not giving the right | |
| assessment, they will be gone, and a new group will be back. | |
| Those are some examples, and that is why we are concerned | |
| in the Planning 2.0 rule, particularly with respect to when and | |
| how county-generated data can be inserted into the planning | |
| process, that that will marginalize local governments. | |
| Mrs. Lummis. I have been a little concerned about how | |
| multiple use is being interpreted. It seems like it has been | |
| morphing over the years to prioritize certain multiple uses and | |
| deprioritize others. What steps could Congress take when we are | |
| looking at FLPMA and the Wilderness Act, to ensure that | |
| multiple use is adhered to on Federal lands? And I would like | |
| to ask that question of each of our panelists, so please be as | |
| brief as you can with a broad question. Could we start with Mr. | |
| Obermueller? | |
| Mr. Obermueller. Yes. Thanks for that question. It is a | |
| very big question, and I think that I appreciated watching the | |
| testimony on the local Act introduced, or discussion draft, | |
| about ways to try to improve local coordination. | |
| One of the things that concerns us is that we have to be | |
| very careful with that, about making sure that the agencies are | |
| encouraged and incentivized to work with local governments as | |
| opposed to giving them just a checklist that, as soon as they | |
| check it, they are out the door. | |
| It would take a long time to get into the specifics of how | |
| to make that work; but, again, it goes back to their | |
| responsibility and our responsibility to not only know that you | |
| need to follow the law, but you have to be willing to do the | |
| work to be engaged in a meaningful way. | |
| Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Fisher, multiple use. How can we protect | |
| true multiple use? | |
| Mr. Fisher. Representative Lummis, that is a wonderful | |
| question. I think that Congress could really help to ensure | |
| that early-and-often public engagement, through collaborative | |
| processes to find that balance between resource development and | |
| conservation, and to make sure that all stakeholders' interests | |
| are represented. Then, when those collaborative processes | |
| result in a solution, to help implement that if a legislative | |
| mechanism is necessary. | |
| Mrs. Lummis. My time is expired, Mr. Chairman. Could you | |
| indulge the other two witnesses the opportunity to answer that | |
| question? | |
| Mr. Hice [presiding]. Yes. | |
| Mrs. Lummis. Thank you so much. Ms. Cowan, same question. | |
| How can we ensure true multiple use? | |
| Ms. Cowan. Mr. Chairman and Representative Lummis, I think | |
| that Mr. French and I were perhaps raised in different | |
| generations than the gentleman to my right. I was raised with | |
| the idea that you had to be held accountable, and I don't often | |
| find that Congress is holding the agencies accountable to | |
| sticking to their missions. | |
| When you look at the resources, the financial and manpower | |
| resources, that went into this document, where did Congress | |
| authorize this kind of a process that sucks public | |
| participation and government participation out? So, if there | |
| are ways that Congress can hold agencies more accountable, via | |
| their budgets or other ways, you have to do your job first and | |
| then you look beyond at what you have the time and resources to | |
| do. | |
| Mrs. Lummis. Mr. French, same question. | |
| Mr. French. I will try to be brief, but I am going to date | |
| myself. I was an active wildlife biologist when FLPMA was | |
| actually adopted, and I recall the working relationships the | |
| state wildlife agency had prior. I worked with it for 34 years | |
| after, and I can tell you that that was one of the things that | |
| Congress had in mind when FLPMA was passed--we called it the | |
| sweet spot, that area that was not overly regulatory and did | |
| not provide for overutilization of public resources. | |
| But to answer your question, the interpretations of the law | |
| need to be tightened up. The devil is in the details, in terms | |
| of how one line manager interprets FLPMA and his involvement in | |
| creating a range of alternatives that involve an accurate | |
| depiction of what is needed for public land management in a | |
| particular location, because it is different in every location. | |
| So, I would say if we could tighten up the rule and tighten | |
| up the language which would make it consistent from one | |
| district to another, that would go a long way. | |
| Mrs. Lummis. I thank the witnesses, and I thank the | |
| Chairman also for your indulgence. I yield back. | |
| Mr. Hice. You are very welcome. I would like to thank each | |
| of the witnesses for your testimony and each of the Members for | |
| the questions today. | |
| I would also like to ask unanimous consent to enter into | |
| the record two letters regarding the Planning 2.0 rule. The | |
| first consists of comments from the American Motorcyclists | |
| Association, and the second a letter to BLM from the Utah | |
| Public Lands Coordination Office. Hearing no objections, so | |
| ordered. | |
| [The information follows:] | |
| American Motorcyclist Association, | |
| Washington, DC | |
| May 11, 2016 | |
| Hon. Louie Gohmert, Chairman, | |
| Hon. Debbie Dingell, Ranking Member, | |
| House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, | |
| Longworth House Office Building, | |
| Washington, DC 20515. | |
| Dear Chairman Gohmert and Ranking Member Dingell: | |
| The American Motorcyclist Association applauds the Subcommittee on | |
| Oversight and Investigations for holding the hearing titled, ``Local | |
| and State Perspectives on BLM's Draft Planning 2.0 Rule.'' The | |
| usurpation of local, state, stakeholders and Congress that underlies | |
| the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's proposed planning rule is very | |
| troubling to us. | |
| Founded in 1924, the AMA is the premier advocate of the | |
| motorcycling community. We represent the interests of millions of on- | |
| and off-highway motorcyclists in the United States. Our mission is to | |
| promote the motorcycle lifestyle and protect the future of | |
| motorcycling. | |
| The AMA recognizes the benefit of periodic reviews to ensure | |
| processes are relevant to current conditions and appreciate the | |
| opportunities--to date--that were provided for public input. | |
| However, we are concerned that the landscape-level focus of the | |
| Planning 2.0 proposal minimizes input from local and state governments, | |
| public officials, and private citizens; fails to address economic | |
| impacts and administrative costs of the proposed changes; and results | |
| in comprehensive changes which can be easily reversed under new | |
| secretarial leadership. | |
| Inconveniently scheduled public input opportunities, despite | |
| assurances of increased public involvement, have been insufficient and | |
| speak directly to the AMA's long term concerns about the proposed | |
| planning approach. The processes that spawned the Rapid Ecological | |
| Assessment and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives that are central to | |
| the proposed foundation of landscape planning provide a troubling | |
| example. The proposal's assurances of greater input from other federal | |
| agencies does not address that concern. | |
| Without any mention of the economic impacts of the proposed changes | |
| on affected communities and other stakeholders, the AMA is justifiably | |
| concerned that no consideration was given to the topic. Similarly, | |
| direct costs of the proposed changes were left unaddressed and should | |
| be a primary topic in this era of constrained budgets. | |
| Finally, the significance of the proposed changes being based on a | |
| Presidential Directive and four Secretarial Orders--all of which | |
| circumvent the U.S. Congress, states and a wide range of national, | |
| regional and local stakeholders--cannot be overstated. It is ironic | |
| that President Obama's 2009 Open Government Directive is cited as the | |
| basis for the proposed rules that minimize public involvement. Further, | |
| Secretarial orders 3289 on climate change, 3285 on renewable energy, | |
| 3330 on mitigation policies and 3336 on rangeland fire protection were | |
| created and used to justify the proposed rule, apparently without any | |
| public input. | |
| This process appears to be similar to the way the failed | |
| Washington, D.C.-led effort of the Wilds Lands (Sec. Order No. 3310) | |
| designation would essentially allow officials in the BLM to manage | |
| public land as if it had received a ``Wilderness'' land-use designation | |
| from Congress, but without requiring congressional approval or local | |
| and state input. | |
| In conclusion, while the AMA recognizes the need for periodic | |
| review of planning processes and acknowledges the limited opportunities | |
| that were provided for public input to date, we nevertheless believe | |
| the current process--which is based on presidential and secretarial | |
| proclamations and designed to favor input from other federal agencies | |
| over local and state stakeholders--has created an inherently flawed | |
| planning proposal. | |
| Again, thank you for holding this important hearing and supporting | |
| outdoor recreation and motorcyclists. The AMA looks forward to working | |
| with you on all motorcycle-related issues before Congress. | |
| Sincerely, | |
| Wayne Allard, | |
| Vice President, Government Relations. | |
| ______ | |
| Office of the Governor, | |
| Public Lands Policy Coordination Office, | |
| Salt Lake City, Utah | |
| May 10, 2016 | |
| Neil Kornze, Director, | |
| Bureau of Land Management, | |
| 1849 C Street N.W., | |
| Washington, DC 20240. | |
| Re: Resource Management Planning, Proposed Rule ``Planning 2.0''; 81 | |
| Fed. Reg. 9674 (February 25, 2016) | |
| Dear Mr. Kornze: | |
| The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) recently proposed planning | |
| rule,\1\ often referred to as ``BLM Planning 2.0,'' adds a new step to | |
| resource management planning called the ``planning assessment'' that | |
| would purportedly ``include new opportunities for public involvement.'' | |
| \2\ The State of Utah finds that the proposed planning assessment | |
| process fails to ``provide for meaningful public involvement of State | |
| and local government officials'' as required by the Federal Land Policy | |
| and Management Act (FLPMA).\3\ The State requests that the BLM amend | |
| the Proposed Rule to require BLM officials to formally coordinate the | |
| planning assessment with State and local governments, in accordance | |
| with FLPMA. | |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| \1\ 81 Fed. Reg. 9674 (February 26, 2016). | |
| \2\ 81 Fed. Reg. 9674, at 9705. | |
| \3\ The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Title II, | |
| Sec. 202(a)(9). [43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)]. | |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Under FLPMA, the BLM must ``coordinate the land use inventory, | |
| planning, and management activities . . . with State and local | |
| governments'' as well as ``provide for meaningful public involvement of | |
| State and local government officials.'' \4\ These requirements apply to | |
| all steps of resource management planning, including the proposed | |
| planning assessment. As currently written, the Proposed Rule would | |
| place non-governmental organizations and the general public at the same | |
| level as State and local governments in the planning assessment | |
| process,\5\ violating FLPMA. If the BLM adds planning assessment to its | |
| planning process, it must specifically and formally coordinate each | |
| planning assessment with State and local governments. That coordination | |
| must be distinct from any public outreach in order for the State and | |
| local governments' involvement to be ``meaningful'' under FLPMA.\6\ | |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| \4\ Id. | |
| \5\ 81 Fed. Reg. 9674, at 9729, 9730. | |
| \6\ 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9). | |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Democratically elected government officials represent the majority | |
| view of their constituents. The views of State and local government | |
| elected officials should receive particular consideration in the | |
| planning assessment process. Under FLPMA, the BLM may not formally | |
| coordinate with non-governmental organizations since such groups are | |
| not elected bodies and do not represent the views of the majority. The | |
| public is empowered to influence resource management planning through | |
| their elected officials, and to vote out of office those government | |
| officials who fail to represent public views during coordination with | |
| the BLM. Thus, coordination must include private meetings between the | |
| BLM and State and local governments where officials from both sides can | |
| openly share expertise, assess the resource, environmental, ecological, | |
| social, and economic conditions of the relevant planning area, and | |
| formulate the objectives of the planning assessment. Such meetings | |
| should include a discussion of State and local land management plans | |
| and explore how the relevant BLM plan can complement the objectives of | |
| State and local management plans. | |
| The planning assessment process should facilitate efficient | |
| resource management planning without circumventing the role of State | |
| and local governments in coordination. The State proposes the following | |
| amendments to Section 1610.4 \7\ of the Proposed Rule (suggested | |
| additions in italics, suggested deletions in underlines). | |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| \7\ 81 Fed. Reg. 9674, at 9729, 9730. | |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Sec. 1610.4 Planning assessment. | |
| Before initiating the preparation of a resource management plan | |
| the BLM will, consistent with the nature, scope, scale, and | |
| timing of the planning effort, complete a planning assessment. | |
| (a) Information gathering. The responsible official will: | |
| (1) Arrange for relevant resource, environmental, ecological, | |
| social, economic, and institutional data and information to be | |
| gathered, or assembled if already available, including the | |
| identification of potential ACECs (see Sec. 1610.8-2). | |
| Inventory data and information will be gathered in a manner | |
| that incorporates data from State and local governments, aids | |
| the planning process, and avoids unnecessary data-gathering; | |
| (2) Identify relevant national, regional, State, or local | |
| policies, guidance, strategies or plans for consideration in | |
| the planning assessment. These may include, but are not limited | |
| to, executive or Secretarial orders, Departmental or BLM | |
| policy, Director or deciding official guidance, mitigation | |
| strategies, interagency initiatives, and State, ormulti-state, | |
| and local resource plans and policies; | |
| (3) Identify State and local plans with which BLM plans must be | |
| consistent to the maximum extent consistent with FLPMA and | |
| Federal law, in accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9); | |
| (3)(4) Provide opportunities for other Federal agencies, State | |
| and local governments, Indian tribes, and the public to provide | |
| existing data and information or suggest other policies, | |
| guidance, strategies, or plans described under paragraph (a)(2) | |
| of this section, for the BLM's consideration in the planning | |
| assessment; and | |
| (5) Coordinate with State and local governments and Indian | |
| tribes to formulate BLM planning and management objectives in | |
| the planning area, in accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9); and | |
| (4)(6) Identify relevant public views concerning resource, | |
| environmental, ecological, social, or economic conditions of | |
| the planning area. | |
| The above amendments would fulfill the BLM's statutory mandate to | |
| ``coordinate land use inventory, planning, and management activities . | |
| . . with State and local governments'' and to ``provide for meaningful | |
| public involvement of State and local government officials.'' \8\ It | |
| would assure that State and local governments, as elected | |
| representatives of the public, have a specific, formal role in the | |
| planning assessment process. The proposed amendments would also fulfill | |
| FLPMA's requirement that ``Land use plans of the [BLM] under this | |
| section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum | |
| extent [the BLM] finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of | |
| [FLPMA].'' \9\ | |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| \8\ 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9). | |
| \9\ 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9). | |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| The State's proposed language would still allow the BLM to identify | |
| public views, consistent with FLPMA's requirements to develop, | |
| maintain, and revise land use plans ``with public involvement'' \10\ | |
| and to ``give Federal, State, and local governments and the public, | |
| adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the | |
| formulation of plans and programs relating to the management of the | |
| public lands.'' \11\ | |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| \10\ 43 U.S.C. 1712(a). | |
| \11\ 43 U.S.C. 1712(f). | |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| The BLM can greatly improve the Proposed Rule through regular | |
| consultation with State and local governments. This letter constitutes | |
| an attempt by the State to consult with the BLM, not as an opposing | |
| party but as a partner with the BLM seeking the best management of | |
| public lands. Greater consultation and coordination with State and | |
| local government is needed across all BLM planning, and adoption of the | |
| changes recommended in this letter would be a critical first step | |
| toward better coordination. The State strongly requests that the BLM | |
| amend the Proposed Rule according to this letter and looks forward to | |
| the response. Please feel free to contact Utah's Public Lands Policy | |
| Coordinating Office with any questions. | |
| Sincerely, | |
| Kathleen Clarke, | |
| Director. | |
| ______ | |
| Mr. Hice. The members of the committee may have some | |
| additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to | |
| respond to those in writing. Under Committee Rule 4(h), the | |
| hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these | |
| responses. | |
| If there is no further business, without objection, the | |
| committee stands adjourned. | |
| [Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] | |
| [LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S | |
| OFFICIAL FILES] | |
| -- Foundation for Integrated Preservation--Comments: Comments | |
| on BLM Resources Management Proposed Rule (Planning | |
| 2.0). Sent to the Committee in regards to the | |
| hearing (May 2016). | |
| -- Letter with Comments from the County of Otero, New Mexico, | |
| addressed to BLM Director Neil Kornze, Acting Asst. | |
| Director of Resource Planning, Mike Tupper, and | |
| Director (630) in regards to BLM's proposed | |
| Planning 2.0. | |
| -- Letter with Comments from the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage | |
| Conservation Council addressed to DOI Secretary | |
| Sally Jewell in regards to BLM's proposed Planning | |
| 2.0. | |
| -- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership--Brief: BLM | |
| Planning 2.0--A Needed Change (May 2016). | |
| -- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership--Editorial: | |
| BLM's Planning Rule for Public Lands Will Give | |
| Locals More of a Voice, Not Less (May 2016). | |
| -- Submitted Statement of Joel Webster, Director of Western | |
| Public Lands at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation | |
| Partnership to the Subcommittee in regards to the | |
| hearing (May 2016). | |
| [all] | |
| </pre></body></html> | |