[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:
Has not provided sufficient time for counties to fully
digest and offer comment on the proposed rule change;
Has proposed changes that will reduce requirements to
ensure Federal consistency with local policies; and
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]