Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976, ALL Lands, regardless as to whether or not they were previously designated for a certain pupose, are required to HAVE FOR THEIR OWN, a Land Use Management Plan. I do not believe that after the passage of the FLPMA in 1976, that the BLM EVER developed any land use plans for the lands occupied by the wild equines. Of course the law goes on to say that these land use plans, "WHERE APPROPRIATE," can be revised, but I submit that you cannot revise something that does or did not exist. There is NO original land use plans for wild equine lands that recognizes the wild equines as a resource in and of itself, or that dont call for their removal.....so you can see the Land Use Plans the BLM is using to remove the wild equines is a revision of NOTHING! The BLM NEVER did, (to the best of my knowledge) "develop" or maintain any land use plan for ONLY wild horse management, but instead incorporated their management into other land use plans as a means to remove them from those lands. BLM failed to comply with the provisions of this chapter in that they never did develop any land use plans for the sole purpose of managing wild equines on their traditional lands. If anybody knows of one, I would be glad to see it.
Furthermore, since FLPMA provides an exemption from multi-use requirements for lands previously designated for a certain purpose, there should be NO wild equines removed from their traditional lands, short of emergency. Because of FLPMAs exemption clause, none of the sections below paragraph (a) would apply to wild equines grazing upon their traditional lands "as found" in 1971.
TITLE 43 > CHAPTER 35 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 1712
FLPMA § 1712. Land use plans
(a) Development, maintenance, and revision by Secretary
The Secretary shall, with public involvement and consistent with the terms and conditions of this Act, develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands. Land use plans shall be developed for the public lands regardless of whether such lands previously have been classified, withdrawn, set aside, or otherwise designated for one or more uses.
(b) Coordination of plans for National Forest System lands with Indian land use planning and management programs for purposes of development and revision
In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate land use plans for lands in the National Forest System with the land use planning and management programs of and for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved tribal land resource management programs.
(c) Criteria for development and revision
In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall—
(1) use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield set forth in this and other applicable law;
(2) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences;
(3) give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern;
(4) rely, to the extent it is available, on the inventory of the public lands, their resources, and other values;
(5) consider present and potential uses of the public lands;
(6) consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alternative means (including recycling) and sites for realization of those values;
(7) weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits;
(8) provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans; and
(9) to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, 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, but not limited to, the statewide outdoor recreation plans developed under the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 897), as amended [16 U.S.C. 460l–4 et seq.], and of or for Indian tribes by, 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. Such officials in each State are authorized to furnish advice to the Secretary with respect to the development and revision of land use plans, land use guidelines, land use rules, and land use regulations for the public lands within such State and with respect to such other land use matters as may be referred to them by him. Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.
(d) Review and inclusion of classified public lands; review of existing land use plans; modification and termination of classifications
Any classification of public lands or any land use plan in effect on October 21, 1976, is subject to review in the land use planning process conducted under this section, and all public lands, regardless of classification, are subject to inclusion in any land use plan developed pursuant to this section. The Secretary may modify or terminate any such classification consistent with such land use plans.
(e) Management decisions for implementation of developed or revised plans
The Secretary may issue management decisions to implement land use plans developed or revised under this section in accordance with the following:
(1) Such decisions, including but not limited to exclusions (that is, total elimination) of one or more of the principal or major uses made by a management decision shall remain subject to reconsideration, modification, and termination through revision by the Secretary or his delegate, under the provisions of this section, of the land use plan involved.
(2) Any management decision or action pursuant to a management decision that excludes (that is, totally eliminates) one or more of the principal or major uses for two or more years with respect to a tract of land of one hundred thousand acres or more shall be reported by the Secretary to the House of Representatives and the Senate. If within ninety days from the giving of such notice (exclusive of days on which either House has adjourned for more than three consecutive days), the Congress adopts a concurrent resolution of nonapproval of the management decision or action, then the management decision or action shall be promptly terminated by the Secretary. If the committee to which a resolution has been referred during the said ninety day period, has not reported it at the end of thirty calendar days after its referral, it shall be in order to either discharge the committee from further consideration of such resolution or to discharge the committee from consideration of any other resolution with respect to the management decision or action. A motion to discharge may be made only by an individual favoring the resolution, shall be highly privileged (except that it may not be made after the committee has reported such a resolution), and debate thereon shall be limited to not more than one hour, to be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. An amendment to the motion shall not be in order, and it shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to or disagreed to. If the motion to discharge is agreed to or disagreed to, the motion may not be made with respect to any other resolution with respect to the same management decision or action. When the committee has reprinted, or has been discharged from further consideration of a resolution, it shall at any time thereafter be in order (even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution. The motion shall be highly privileged and shall not be debatable. An amendment to the motion shall not be in order, and it shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to or disagreed to.
(3) Withdrawals made pursuant to section 1714 of this title may be used in carrying out management decisions, but public lands shall be removed from or restored to the operation of the Mining Law of 1872, as amended (R.S. 2318–2352; 30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.) or transferred to another department, bureau, or agency only by withdrawal action pursuant to section 1714 of this title or other action pursuant to applicable law: Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent a wholly owned Government corporation from acquiring and holding rights as a citizen under the Mining Law of 1872.
(f) Procedures applicable to formulation of plans and programs for public land management
The Secretary shall allow an opportunity for public involvement and by regulation shall establish procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, 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. Law without the media filter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Who can show me an "early day" (post 1976) Land Use Plan that was developed (persuant to the FLPMA provisions) for the singular purpose of laying out Wild Horse and Burro Lands Management?"
Seems to be there should have been ONE MASTER Land Use Plan that would recognize them as a resource and act as a general guide to managing them as a National Herd. I am thinking that this was never done, either as a general guide or on a herd by herd area basis. Just another violation of law the BLM is guilty of.
Hiya;
Lets talk about the Sheldon Refuge management. Our families mine the Nevada State gemstone; Black Fire Opal and guide tours for miners to photographers.
There's no crippling visual blight here, let alone any chemicals. We can't own it. The BLM estimate to just apply for a title to a claim is over $60,000 dollars of fees and costs plus the current land value not for $2.50 an ac.
We are not big environmental hazards here and don't fence off our land from the animals or tourists. We only mine like nature naturally eroded here in this active volcanic fault zone above a coming volcano and we improve the environment for the animals, not degrade it. They just don't want us or the horses here at all, for we are a "management cost" problem to them.
They have already reduced this mining district by half a million acres in repeated land withdrawals. The Nature Conservancy has bought hundreds of acres (spelled the water)and given it to NWR to manage. They want permission to make up rules when to bulldoze our cabins or bury active mines regardless of how we work casually mining.
The NWR themselves don't do needed maintenance to the swimming pond as it is right now washing out. They could save the pool now, but for over a year they just come and look behind me like I was vandalizing it instead of clearing the grate like they didn't. I also had to breach the beaver dams that flooded McKee handicapped fishing pool twice into the campground. Now this new creek, is making potholes and a swamp by the info sign as it runs across the campground entrance instead of crossing to the bobcat grove. Now those trees might die due to negligence. How is this good management??? We were told our families could mine here and our grandfathered/granted rights were secure. Now they want to rewrite all the rules over with new unproven agenda.
The government can mine?
e 3) So the government can seize mineral rights, like they closed all of northwestern Nevada to prospecting and claiming, but THEN Mine with a government company in direct competition.
Ask the Indians how that worked out. Please tell The Dept of the Interior multiple use means the PUBLIC GETS TO USE IT.
Thanks for considering my position on this.
The problem is that the BLM NEVER recognized (and never will) the wild equines as resouces. A BLM big-whig told me himself....said that they considered their managment a "sub-activity" of the BLM......
...And John you are exactly right on that "privitization of public lands" thing,....and we are not alone in that thinking; http://www.thestatecolumn.com/state_politics/idaho/sen-mike-crapo-wild-lands-order-circumvents-public-congress/
Got to keep the pressure up for REAL change!
Post a Comment