Wild Horse (and Burro) Warriors Take Credit for Rustling Cattle Out of Wild Horse (and Burro) Country

Pictured below, a ripped-off rancher talks to the small town sheriff; "The NERVE of them Wild Horse Advocate / Domestic Terrorist types, coming right in to our own backyards and stealing our cows! By gosh those people are crazy nuts capable of anything. Whats next, a home invasion? What are you gonna do to protect us from that possibility?"


Words has it but authorities wont confirm, that in the area where the rustlers were spotted there was a message drawn in the sand that said,..."Wild Horse Warriors were Here" and "No Cows in Wild Horse Country Please." Isnt it nice of them to be so polite? I wonder what they did with them cows....put them in a farm sanctuary somewhere I suppose, anywhere safe but...out of wild horse country at last. Geeze we hope this dont start a welfare-rancher domestic cattle-rustling trend!

Click title above for full story.

An Interesting Case of Neglect & BLM Held Blameless

(Soverign Immunity in Discretionary Matters)

Pearson v. United States Department of Interior


United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
UNPUBLISHED, 1993 WL 438760
October 28, 1993



Summary of Opinion
The plaintiffs were injured by horses or burros wandering onto an unfenced highway and colliding with the plaintiffs' cars. The land was federal land, managed jointly by the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Army. The trial court granted summary judgment to the United States government and the plaintiffs appeal.

The Court of Appeals held that the conduct of the United States government came within the discretionary function exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity in the Tort Claims Act. A person cannot sue a sovereign (a state or the United States) without the sovereign's permission and except in accordance with the waiver of immunity by the sovereign. In the case of the United States, the waiver of sovereign immunity appears in the federal Tort Claims Act. Excepted from the waiver are discretionary governmental functions.

The Court of Appeals held that the decision not to fence off the highway was discretionary, that the decision to provide food and water for the horses near the highway was also discretionary, and, finally, the United States government was exercising a discretionary function when it delegated responsibilities for warning motorists of the presence of the horses and burros to the State of Arizona. Since all of these functions were discretionary, the United States was not liable for the injuries to the plaintiffs.

Text of Opinion
Gilbert and Phyliss Pearson, Darren, Carla and Ashley Ford, and Tonia and Korrina Bovee ("the plaintiffs") appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States, in their consolidated actions under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained when vehicles they or their relatives were traveling in collided with horses or burros, managed by the federal government, on an Arizona state highway.

This case involves three consolidated actions against the United States under the FTCA. The claims arose from two separate accidents in which cars collided with wild horses or burros on U.S. 95. One accident occurred near milepost 56.8 and the other near milepost 55.5 of U.S. 95, an unfenced Arizona state highway which runs through the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Grounds.

The Yuma Proving Grounds is part of the Cibola-Trigo Herd Management Area, an area established by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the maintenance of wild free-roaming horses and burros. Management of wild horses and burros that inhabit the Yuma Proving Grounds is jointly administered by the Army and the BLM, with the BLM taking the "lead role."

The plaintiffs allege that the United States government was negligent in (1) failing to prevent wild horses and burros from crossing U.S. 95; (2) providing food and water sources for the animals near U.S. 95; and (3) failing to warn motorists on U.S. 95 of the presence of the animals.

The government moved for summary judgment. It argued that the federal government, as a possessor of land abutting a state highway, owed no duty under Arizona law to motorists traveling on the highway and that any duty under Arizona law which would require the United States to prevent wild horses and burros from roaming onto a public highway was preempted by the Wild Free- Roaming Horses and Burros Act.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government on all of the plaintiffs' claims, holding that the Burros Act created no independent duty on the part of the federal government to prevent wild animals from straying onto the highway and that the Burros Act "preempts any potential, state-imposed duty on landowners to prevent livestock or other animals from roaming onto public roadways."

We review de novo the district court's determination of subject matter jurisdiction. It is "well-established law that ... jurisdictional defenses," such as the discretionary function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity, "cannot be waived by the parties and may be raised for the first time on appeal or even raised by a court sua sponte."

The FTCA authorizes suits against the United States for damages for personal injuries when a private person would be liable under the law of the place where the act or omission causing the injury occurred. Such a suit is not available, however, when the act or omission complained of is "based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the [g]overnment." The government has the burden of proving the discretionary function exception to the FTCA's general waiver of immunity. In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988), we use a two-step test to determine whether the discretionary function exception applies. First, we consider "whether the challenged action is a matter of choice for the acting employees: '[T]he discretionary function exception will not apply when a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow' " and the employee fails to follow that course of action. Second, if the challenged conduct does involve an element of judgment, we must determine whether that judgment "is of a kind that the discretionary function was designed to shield." The discretionary function was designed to protect from review decisions "susceptible to policy analysis."

IS THE GOVERNMENT LIABLE FOR FAILING TO FENCE? The United States government is protected by the discretionary function exception for the BLM's decision not to fence the land adjacent to U.S. 95 or otherwise prevent wild horses and burros from crossing the highway, notwithstanding the BLM's knowledge of accidents involving such animals on U.S. 95. First, no federal statute, regulation, or policy requires the BLM to fence federal grazing land adjacent to highways. Furthermore, we have previously determined that the Burros Act, though creating a duty on the part of the BLM to remove wild horses and burros that stray onto private land upon request," does not require the BLM to prevent straying in the first instance."

Second, the BLM's decision to leave the land adjacent to U.S. 95 unfenced and not prevent wild horses and burros from straying onto the highway is susceptible to the type of policy considerations protected by the discretionary function exception. The BLM has discretion to balance the safety gains to be achieved by fencing the highway, against the congressional directives to: (1) consider the wild horses and burros in the area where they are presently found as an "integral part of the natural system of the public lands," (2) manage the "wild free-roaming horses and burros in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands," (3) keep management activities "at the minimum feasible level" to avoid " 'zoolike' developments," and (4) manage the wild horses and burros "with the goal of maintaining free-roaming behavior," while considering the other uses of the public and adjacent private land. The BLM's decision to leave U.S. 95 unfenced and allow wild horses and burros to cross the highway is readily distinguishable from cases where an agency is alleged to have ignored an established safety policy rather than to have balanced competing considerations. Compare Richardson v. United States, 943 F.2d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.1991) (agency decision to install overhead ground wires at certain places and not others was not made in disregard of safety considerations), with Summers, 905 F.2d at 1215-16 (agency failure to identify and warn of danger of hot coals on park beaches was not a balanced policy decision, but rather a departure from established safety policy); ARA Leisure Services Inc. v. United States, 831 F.2d 193, 195-96 (9th Cir.1987) (agency decision to design and construct road without guardrails was grounded in social and political policy, but agency failure to maintain road in safe condition was not grounded in policy). The BLM's discretionary decision not to prevent wild horses and burros from crossing U.S. 95 is not subject to "judicial second-guessing."

The United States is also protected by the discretionary function exception for the Army's decision not to fence the land adjacent to U.S. 95 or otherwise prevent wild horses and burros from crossing the highway. No federal statute, regulation, or policy requires the Army to fence federal land adjacent to highways Rather, the Army has discretion to enter into cooperative agreements with the BLM and allow the BLM to take the lead role in management of the Yuma Proving Grounds.

The Army's agreement with the BLM, which provides that the BLM will take the lead in management of the Yuma Proving Grounds, is broad enough to confer management responsibility upon the BLM to decide whether to prevent wild horses and burros from crossing U.S. 95. This decision is susceptible to policy considerations of efficiency, effectiveness, and cooperation with federal agencies that share mutual interests. We will not second-guess this decision.

IS THE GOVERNMENT LIABLE FOR PROVIDING FOOD AND WATER NEAR THE HIGHWAY? The United States is also protected by the discretionary function exception for the BLM's decision to provide food along Highway 95 for wild horses and burros. This decision is susceptible to the type of policy considerations protected by the discretionary function exception. Policy considerations implicated in the BLM's decision of food placement, in addition to the safety of passing motorists, include the feasibility, expense, and safety of workers and animals if food were provided further from the highway and deeper within the national defense lands used for weapon and equipment testing. The United States is also protected by the discretionary function exception for the BLM's decision to place water along the highway. While the BLM may develop "new sources of water" for the wild horses and burros to mitigate loss of access to water along the Colorado River, the BLM may not allow water developments for horses and burros "that would expand their present herd areas." "Herd area" means "the geographic area identified as having been used by a herd as its habitat in 1971." Program Guidance provides information for calculating the 1971 herd areas. It states:

Because the exact boundaries of herd areas may never be known in some cases, and because disagreement and confusion on the subject can be expected until firm herd area delineations are made, each district must seek to resolve the question in an objective manner. An intensive effort should be made to seek documentation that would support a delineation of herd area boundaries, and to incorporate these herd areas into the land use plan....

In cases where no objective determination about herd areas can be made by analyzing the information available, the authorized officer may elect to address the question of 1971 herd areas by planning area. The Management Plan does not explicitly delineate the boundaries of the 1971 herd areas. The Management Plan states The wild horse and burro populations within the Cibola-Trigo Herd Management Area (C-T HMA) roam freely on lands with different administrative responsibilities. These animals roam off and on lands administered by the Yuma BLM District, Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, Imperial National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, and the State of Arizona ....

The key to managing the Cibola-Trigo Herd Management Area is to manage the critical area. The critical area is an area radiating out from the Colorado River in which large populations of burros concentrate around permanent water sources during the hot or dry seasons. The critical area consists of approximately 253,000 acres....

The BLM's placement of water along the highway did not expand 1971 herd areas, regardless of whether the water placement encouraged animals to cross U.S. 95 and regardless of whether the Management Plan is interpreted to define herd areas by herd habitat or planning area. The Management Plan indicates that the herds roam off and on lands administered by the State of Arizona, such as U.S. 95. The Management Plan also indicates that the planning area includes the Yuma Proving Grounds, which lies on both sides of U.S. 95. As long as herd areas were not expanded by the location of new water sources, which they were not, the water placement decision was discretionary. The BLM's decision to place water sources along the highway is susceptible to the same policy considerations implicated in its decision to place food sources along the highway. Accordingly, judicial review of the BLM's decision is inappropriate.

The United States is also shielded by the discretionary function exception for the Army's decision to provide food and water along the highway. No mandatory federal statute, regulation, or policy clearly dictates a particular course of conduct for the Army to follow on the subject of feeding or watering wild horses and burros, jointly administered by the Army and the BLM, found on the Yuma Proving Ground.

The Army has discretion in carrying out its managerial responsibilities of the wild horses and burros. In providing food and water near the highway for the wild horses and burros, the Army had to consider the multiple uses of the land, the safety of animals and federal employees if food and water were provided further within the defense lands, and the expense. Again, Congress has directed that decisions susceptible to policy analysis are not subject to judicial review.

FAILING TO WARN MOTORISTS OF THE HORSE HAZARD: Failing to warn motorists on U.S. 95 of the possible presence of wild horses and burros The United States is protected by the discretionary function exception for the BLM's decision not to post warning signs on U.S. 95. While no federal statute, regulation, or policy requires the BLM itself to post warning signs on U.S. 95, the Management Plan does require the BLM to initiate a program with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to alleviate auto-horse and auto-burro collisions. Specifically, the Management Plan provides:

This action consists of initiating a program with Arizona Department of Transportation to place highway warning signs on horse and burro crossings. The warning signs should be erected near the known crossing points as follows:

1. Highway 95 in vicinity of Laguna Road;
2. Highway 95 in vicinity of mile post 49.5;
3. Highway 95 in vicinity of mile post 58;
4. Martinez Lake Road 1/2 mile from Highway 95, at pipeline crossing."




The plaintiffs do not allege that the BLM failed to fulfill its nondiscretionary duty to initiate a program with ADOT to post the highway warning signs. In fact, a report prepared by the plaintiffs' expert indicates there are seven animal warning signs posted by the State of Arizona on southbound U.S. 95 between mileposts 50.0 and 75.8, and six animal warning signs posted northbound U.S. 95, between mileposts 42.3 and 71.7.

The BLM's reliance on Arizona to fulfill the signing program is a discretionary decision, grounded in policy implications and concerns of federalism, and is shielded from review. The qualified immunity exception also immunizes the United States from any liability stemming from the Army's decision not to post warning signs on U.S. 95. No federal statute, regulation, or policy requires the Army to post warning signs on U.S. 95. See 1978 Memorandum of Agreement; 1989 Cooperative Agreement. Rather, the Army has discretion to enter into cooperative agreements with the BLM and allow the BLM to take the lead role in management of the Yuma Proving Grounds. The Army's agreement with the BLM is broad enough to confer the BLM with the management responsibility of deciding whether to post warning signs along U.S. 95.

Because the discretionary function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity shields review of all of the alleged acts of negligence by United States' employees, we need not decide whether federal law preempts any potential state imposed duty on landowners to prevent wild horses and burros from roaming onto public roadways.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Poll on Round Up Moratorium

Click on title above to vote in the poll and make your voice count for the wild ones! But hurry, dont wait, poll ends Dec 16th, 2009

Salazar, Reid, Abbey Approve $135 Million for Nevada and Lake Tahoe Projects

What R Feinds 4?

LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, NV -- Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey today approved more than $135 million for a variety of restoration and improvement projects throughout Nevada and Lake Tahoe under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act

“I am pleased to commit more than $135 million for federal improvement projects throughout Nevada at Lake Tahoe,” Salazar said. “The Department of the Interior remains committed to working closely with our local, state and federal partners to protect and enhance these specials areas for the benefit of all who live in and visit Nevada.”

“I thank Secretary Salazar and BLM director Abbey for coming to Searchlight to announce the approval of 135 million dollars for vital projects all around Nevada,” Reid said. “Today’s announcement is a great example of our efforts to strengthen and diversify Nevada's economy.”

"Thanks to these funds, NV's lands and special areas will continue to be accessible to the public and be healthier for years to come," said Abbey.

The Round 10 expenditures under the Act include more than $79.9 million for a variety of restoration and improvement projects throughout Nevada in the following categories:

Parks, Trails & Natural Areas - $10,239,022
Capital Improvements - $8,246,129
Conservation Initiatives - $7,655,107
Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisitions - $13,066,000
Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention - $10,963,140
Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project - $1,931,721
Lake Tahoe Restoration Projects - $27,891,285
The package also includes a $30 million set-aside for future Lake Tahoe projects, $10 million in a special account reserve for emergency or unexpected project expenditures, and more than $15.8 million for the previously approved Wetlands Park project in Clark County.

The expenditures are authorized through the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) of 1998 (as amended), which generates revenue from the sale of public lands identified for disposal in the Las Vegas valley. The funds facilitate a broad array of restoration and improvement projects at Lake Tahoe, in Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties, and to a limited extent Washoe County and Carson City.




— DOI —

Comments on Bob Abbey

Displaying all 3 posts.
Post #1John wroteon June 14, 2009 at 1:35am
Trawled from the web ...
Blog comment
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/really-important-post-filled-blm-director-to-be-bob-abbey/
"Bob Abbey will at least know, and have some twinges of conscience, about the consequences of the decisions he makes. Like how destructive the solar plants will really be if they come to fruition.

My fear is WHAT did Harry Reid order that Abbey will do as Director? Reid views the nation’s pubic lands as a way for his sons and lobbyist friends to rake in the bucks.

I think Abbey will be as good a Director as we could expect from the Obama Admin. He was not afraid to actually go out onto BLM and look at damage done by grazing and other things when he was Director.

Abbey did veer to the dark side in his post-NV Director doings – for example with the Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition – which claims to be doing “restoration” but instead seems largely a front for the same old expsneive taxpayer-funded destruction of native plant communities to promote livestock forage (and in the backwards view of the “range” types – increase water yield – in this case for export to Las Vegas). You see, those trees transpire, suck up water so all we can do is KILL them and call it restoration. And of course, the ENLC’s other function is also to suck in big wads of federal tax dollars to fund a private local non-profit of sorts to do what the BLM should be doing in the first place … Take over the function of gov’t … Abbey was on the Board, but he may not have been involved much in what was going on there. Wjo knows? Could be a lot worse."

Statement from National Trust President Richard Moe on Appointment of Bob Abbey to Head Bureau of Land Management
http://press.nationaltrust.org/index2.php option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=411

"We are very pleased with the selection of Bob Abbey for Director of the Bureau of Land Management," said Richard Moe president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. "As a former BLM State Director and through his recent service on the National Conservation System Foundation Board of Directors, he has demonstrated an outstanding record of preserving historic and cultural resources on public lands. If confirmed, he will also be the first Director to lead the BLM with America's newest congressionally codified
conservation system-the National Landscape Conservation System."

Property Owners, Feds Face Off
http://www.activedayton.com/shared/news/ap/ap_story.html/National/AP.V8799.AP-Western-Wars.html

Bob Abbey, the BLM's director for Nevada, said the focus of the land debate should be on preserving the diverse resources of the state.

He also warns the activists are ``jeopardizing the future of grazing on public lands'' given the growing pressure from environmental groups to halt federal grazing entirely.

Post #2John wroteon June 15, 2009 at 6:54am
The Earle Dixon firing certainly has a "unpleasant bouqet" to it ...see
http://votegibbonsout.blogs.com/votegibbonsout/earle_dixon/

http://www.hcn.org/issues/289/15192

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=438

http://ehstoday.com/news/ehs_imp_38443/
Post #3John wroteon June 18, 2009 at 11:59pm
Obama nominates Nevadan Abbey as U.S. BLM director
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72068?oid=84892&sn=Detail

Monday , 15 Jun 2009

RENO, NV -

Long-time Nevada State BLM Director Bob Abbey has been nominated by President Obama to be the new director of the Bureau of Land Management.

Abbey, who has often worked with the Nevada hardrock mining industry, has been endorsed for the director's post by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, the Public Lands Council, and 15 state and national livestock associations.

In a recent statement, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar-who sources say asked Abbey to come out of retirement and take the director's job-said, "Through his decades of public service, Bob Abbey has shown again and again that he is the consumate professional natural resources amanger. His dedication to our country's National System of Public Lands and his commitment to building partnerships make him an ideal choice to lead one of the most complex federal land managing agencies."

The BLM manages more land-256 million acres-than any other federal agency. The lands are primarily located in 12 western states. The Bureau administers 700 million acres of subsurface mineral rights throughout the nation.

Reid said, "I can't think of a more qualified person to head the BLM than Bob Abbey. With his extensive experience in Nevada, a state where nearly 90 percent of the land is federally managed, our state will have a friend at the BLM who understands the challenges we face in managing and preserving Nevada's great outdoors and its immense renewable energy resources."

Abbey was involved in public service for more than 32 years before retiring from the federal government in 2005. He served eight years as the Nevada BLM state director.
Facebook © 2009English (US)AboutAdvertisingDevelopersCareersTermsBlogWidgets■Find FriendsPrivacyMobileHelp

Reid Statement on Nomination of Bob Abbey as BLM Director

June 9, 2009


Washington, D.C.— Nevada Senator Harry Reid released the following statement after President Obama nominated Bob Abbey as the Director of the Bureau of Land Management at the personal recommendation of Sen. Reid to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar:

“I can’t think of a more qualified person to head the BLM than Bob Abbey. With his extensive experience in Nevada, a state where nearly 90 percent of the land is federally managed, our state will have a friend at the BLM who understands the challenges we face in managing and preserving Nevada’s great outdoors and its immense renewable energy resources. I congratulate Bob and look forward to working with him in his new position.”

STATEMENT OF ROBERT ABBEY /07

TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
FIELD HEARING: H.R. 2262, HARDROCK MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT
ELKO, NEVADA
AUGUST 21, 2007

My name is Bob Abbey and I appear before you today as a member of the public. I am not an expert in mining nor do I sit here today pretending to have answers to all the questions that should be addressed as part of any review of the General Mining Law of 1872. However, I do bring to this hearing 32 years of experience in public land management including eight years as the Bureau of Land Management’s Nevada State Director, a role that I held with great pride prior to retiring from that agency in 2005.

Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, like many others, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing to offer comments pertaining to proposed changes to the General Mining Law. I compliment the members of this subcommittee and others within the Congress for your willingness to review an existing law which in this case, is 135 years old. I commend your efforts to amend this law in such a manner as to better reflect today’s social, environmental, and economic realities.
As the BLM’s Nevada State Director, I had the responsibility for providing direct oversight of the largest mining program administered by the BLM. Nevada’s gold production by itself makes it the fourth largest producer of gold in the world. The BLM’s Nevada State Office records almost half, if not more, of all the mining claims filed on public lands in the United States. While these are impressive statistics, I note that Nevada also leads the west in abandoned mine lands requiring remediation. With an estimated 300,000 abandoned mine lands features, of which 50,000 pose risks to human safety, regulatory agencies at both the state and federal levels have significant challenges in trying to mitigate such hazards. Through partnerships with the State of Nevada, the mining industry, and with a number of citizen volunteers, progress is being made in mitigating some of these risks.

Abandoned mine clean up and the mitigation of related public land hazards is a national issue however, and some have estimated that the cost to clean up these sites range from a low of $12 billion to as high as $72 billion. Regardless of the costs, much remains to be done to address abandoned mine sites and I am happy to read that you are proposing language in the draft legislation that will provide funding for clean up activities. Consistent with your goal of mitigating known hazards, I strongly recommend that this subcommittee entertain the possibility, if you haven’t already done so, of including a “Good Samaritan” provision. Decreasing financial risks and liability for industry participants who volunteer their assistance in mitigating hazards associated with abandoned mines is needed and long overdue. I believe such a provision, if approved by the Congress, can easily be managed to maintain the integrity and goals of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, better known as CERCLA.

The General Mining Law of 1872 that was passed by the Congress reflected the priorities of the nation at that time. Much has changed since the late 1872 and for that matter, since the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976. Today, America’s public lands are valued for much more than just commodity production and I feel it is beneficial to all for Congress to routinely review public land laws to determine their current relevance in addressing our national interests, public demands, and expectations.

I have gone on record many times stating that I am an advocate for responsible mining just as I am an advocate for responsible use by all public land stakeholders. I am a firm believer in BLM’s multiple use mandate and I believe that appropriate public lands, not all public lands, should continue to be accessible for mineral extraction. The current law needs to be changed so that all resource values are given the same consideration when land management agencies are making resource allocations through their land use planning processes. Under the auspices of the General Mining Law of 1872, this has not been the case.

Existing mining laws and related regulations have been reviewed numerous times. Modifications have been made, primarily through regulatory reform, to address complex issues associated with implementing the General Mining Law. The last major effort which I am familiar with occurred in the late 1990s. At the request of Congress to the National Research Council an assessment was made regarding the adequacy of the regulatory framework for hardrock mining on federal lands. To conduct this study, the National Research Council appointed the Committee on Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands in January, 1999. A study was completed and the designated committee provided a summary of its findings and recommendations to the Congress and to the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. If the members of this subcommittee do not have a copy of this report, I suggest that your staff obtain one and become thoroughly familiar with its contents. While the report provided recommendations for regulatory changes, the Committee on Hardrock Mining also provided a good overview of the mining industry and the challenges faced by all as it relates to mining on public lands. I believe you will find that some of the proposed changes in that report might be better addressed through a change in law rather than through regulatory reform. The Good Samaritan clause which I noted above is just one example of a recommendation found in that report.

Some proposals for changing the current law will be easier to reach consensus on than others. But as a person with over 32 years of experience in public land management, I have found that there is much more commonality in our population’s basic desires than differences. Most of us, including those who work in extraction industries, want clean water and air, and a healthy environment for plants, animals, and humans. We want productive and sustainable ecosystems. We want opportunities to use public lands for recreational pursuits and we want these lands managed in a manner that will help sustain our communities and local economies. In other words, amending any law affecting public land management.
I will quickly highlight some of these areas where I believe you will find general support for change anwe want our public lands to be managed for multiple uses, recognizing that today these assets are valued as much for wilderness as they are for commodity production. This is the basic foundation that your subcommittee should build on when reviewing d and then use my remaining time to identify other issues which I hope you will take into consideration in future discussions.

While the specific amount of any royalty assessed for the production of mineral materials from our nation’s public land will be subject to further debate, there is little doubt in my mind that most people and interest groups support the principle of collecting a fair and equitable royalty for the privilege of extracting minerals from the public’s land. There is a general acceptance and strong public demand for holding companies doing business on public lands accountable for complying with specified environmental and health standards and for holding these same companies liable for short or long term damages which might occur from their commercial operations. Most people I have encountered feel that conveyance of public land tracts under the provision of any mining law should be at fair market value and not based on historic patent fees. Unlike some who might oppose mining under any circumstance, most Americans understand the benefits we derive from mining and these same people believe that with adequate safeguards, mining is a legitimate use on our public lands. People, especially those in the rural West, know the economic benefits that can be derive from mining operations and many support a strong and viable mining industry.

I recommend that the subcommittee evaluate the feasibility of using the Forest Service and BLM’s land use planning processes as the mechanism for identifying the appropriateness of making available specific tracts of public lands for mining. Both agencies’ planning processes are open to public scrutiny and input and include opportunities for state and local governments to participate as cooperating agencies. Mining claims could then be staked and development proposed on any public land deemed appropriate for such use as determined through a land use plan decision. Whether a mine would ever be built depends on a number of factors including having a sufficient mineral deposit that is economically feasible to mine. The agencies’ final decision would be based on site specific analysis, much like is done today. Under this scenario the agency, with industry and public input, would have the opportunity to review any mining proposal as part of its overall multiple use mandates. The final decision would be based on science and other contributing factors but not on requirements found in an antiquated law.

The amount of land needed for mill sites and or other administrative support functions should be determined through the site specific analysis and not be subject to an arbitrary or self imposed requirement as now proposed in the draft language. The life of the mining plan and reclamation requirements should also be addressed as part of the initial analysis and I would hope that Congress would not place any requirements for subsequent reviews unless there is a proposed modification to the mining plan or significant new information is obtained from monitoring. The exception to my recommendation would be the need to routinely review and update bonds to ensure full coverage for reclamation requirements. Consistent with BLM and Forest Service planning regulations, mining proponents or members of the public will have the opportunity to protest or appeal any agency decision which an individual or the industry proponent believe is flawed.

As part of your review, I also recommend that Congress entertain language to address the manner in which we manage for common versus uncommon variety of minerals. To the degree possible, I would propose that Congress insist that clays, sands, and/or other aggregate materials be made available as appropriate under a competitive sale procedure. Determining whether these materials are of common variety or not is a time consuming and workload intensive process. Incorporating a provision authorizing the affected land management agencies to sell these materials versus dealing with them in the same manner as precious metals would be an improvement over existing law.

As a former agency administrator, I hope that any change to the current law will provide some form of financial assistance or encouragement for prosecuting individuals engaged in mining fraud or scam operations. Given the demands placed on the Justice Department, prosecuting people engaged in mining scams is given little priority. As a result, innocent people are being taken advantage of by scam artists who are, in some cases, making substantial sums of money. If a source of funding were made available to the U.S. Attorney’s office for investigations and prosecutions, then the number of scams might be substantially reduced and innocent people, many of whom are elderly, might be better protected.

Finally, whether you amend the General Mining Law or not, I believe there needs to be greater Congressional attention given to staffing the agencies with sufficient numbers of personnel as well as with the expertise needed to ensure appropriate reviews of mining proposals and the monitoring that is often required for approved operations. The agencies have been operating at an extreme disadvantage for quite some time when responding to their “on the ground” and administrative responsibilities. In many cases, agencies have relied quite heavily on contracted expertise for assistance. While using contractors to perform some of the mandatory reviews is not all bad, it is still important for BLM and Forest Service offices to have some of their own expertise when carrying out their public land and environmental compliance responsibilities. The subcommittee’s intention to offset the cost of administering mining related programs through fees and/or cost recovery is commendable. However, the challenges of recruiting for quality personnel and scarce skills increase considerably when there is an uncertainty of reliable funding sources from year to year.

It is common for BLM offices to use mining engineers or geologists to respond to mining notices, review mining plans and prepare the related NEPA documents, respond to public comments, conduct inspections, take enforcement action on noncompliance, help in the writing of records of decisions, calculate appropriate bond amounts for approved operation, and assist the Office of the Solicitor and the U.S. Attorney’s office in the defense of matters which are litigated. These same employees are likely to be part of interdisciplinary planning teams as well as perform work in other programs, like oil, gas, or geothermal leasing and production. The reality is that most BLM field offices in Nevada and elsewhere in the rural West have only one mining engineer or geologist to do all of the above. The exception is those offices with heavy oil and gas workloads which usually have access to a number of mineral specialists. While the agency has generally done well in staffing up for its heavy oil and gas work, the same cannot be said for its hardrock mining program.
Mr. Chairman, this is the end of my prepared remarks and I would be happy to respond to any questions you or members of your subcommittee might have.

Salazar Happy with Reids Pick for Head of BLM

Secretary Salazar Lauds President's Intention to Nominate Bob Abbey for Director of the Bureau of Land Management


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today praised President Obama’s announcement that he intends to nominate Bob Abbey, a veteran public land policy leader and chief architect of the Great Basin Restoration Initiative, as Director of the Bureau of Land Management.

"Through his decades of public service, Bob Abbey has shown again and again that he is the consummate professional natural resource manager," Secretary Salazar said. "His dedication to our country’s National System of Public Lands and his commitment to building partnerships make him an ideal choice to lead one of the most complex federal land managing agencies."

Abbey has more than 32 years in public service, working with state and federal land management agencies before retiring from the federal government in July 2005.

He served eight years as the Nevada State Director for the U. S. Bureau of Land Management, providing direction and oversight for 48 million acres of public land managed by the bureau in the state. He oversaw a staff of 700 employees in eight field offices and the state office and managed an annual operating budget of $51 million.

From 1999 through 2005, Abbey was the chairman of the Executive Committee for the implementation of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act and oversaw the allocation of more than $1.5 billion in funds for resource management and environmental projects within the state.

During his federal career, Abbey was the principal Bureau of Land Management proponent for the Great Basin Restoration Initiative, testifying before congressional committees and working with both the BLM director and the Secretary of the Interior to elevate the status and funding levels for restoration activities in the Great Basin.

Most recently, Abbey was a partner in a private consultant firm called Abbey, Stubbs, & Ford, LLC with offices in Las Vegas and Reno Nevada. He also continued his advocacy within the private sector as a member of the University of Nevada College of Agriculture Dean’s Advisory Committee and as a board member on several statewide and national non-profit organizations.

Abbey earned numerous performance awards during his career, including the prestigious Secretary of the Interior’s Executive Leadership Award in 2004. That same year he was recognized by the U.S. Senate with a certificate of commendation for his work on behalf of the Great Basin.

Abbey is a graduate of the University of Southern Mississippi where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree. He and his wife Linda have been married for 32 years and currently reside in Reno, Nevada. They have one daughter, Leigh.


The BLM manages more land - 253 million acres - than any other Federal agency. This land, known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The Bureau, with a budget of about $1 billion, also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. The BLM's multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands.

The Reid / Abbey Connection

Who Is Bob Abbey?

Tuesday, December 01, 2009 Confirmed on August 6, 2009, President Obama's
Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is a twenty-five year veteran of
the agency who was put forward for the position by Democratic Senator Harry Reid
of Nevada, the powerful Senate Majority Leader. Although his nomination was
stalled by Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, who was pressuring the
administration to support a controversial copper mine proposed for a national
forest in his state, McCain eventually relented. Located within the US
Department of the Interior, BLM is responsible for managing the United States'
public lands. BLM oversees the use and conservation of 258 million acres, most
of which are located in the American West and Alaska. A key responsibility of
BLM is the issuance of leases to corporate interests to extract oil, natural gas
and minerals from beneath public lands. This natural resource development, in
effect since the 19th century, has left wide areas of American wilderness
damaged by the effects of drilling and mining and provoked protests from
environmental groups opposed to future oil, gas and mining activities in
sensitive areas.


Born circa 1951 in Clarksdale, Mississippi, Abbey is a 1969 graduate of
Clarksdale High School. He went on to earn a B.S. in Resource Management from
the University of Southern Mississippi in 1973.

Abbey spent more than 32 years in public service, working with state and federal
land management agencies before retiring from the federal government in July
2005. Straight out of college, Abbey took a job with the Mississippi State Park
system, where he worked for more than four years before accepting a position
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the Waterways Experiment Station in
Vicksburg, Mississippi. In that job, he first interacted with the BLM, to which
he soon applied for a job. Abbey was hired by BLM in 1980 for a position in its
Casper, Wyoming, field office. Between 1980 and 1992, Abbey worked there, moving
on to positions as assistant district manager in Yuma, Arizona and as budget
analyst in Washington, D.C. In 1992, Abbey was promoted to head of the Jackson,
Mississippi, field office, where he remained into 1995, when he was named acting
state BLM director in Colorado, where he served from 1995 through 1997. From
1997 to 2005, Abbey served as the Nevada State Director for BLM, providing
oversight for 48 million acres of public land managed by the bureau in the
state. He oversaw a staff of 750 employees and managed an annual budget of $51
million. While in Nevada, Abbey was the principal BLM proponent for the Great
Basin Restoration Initiative, a plan to restore North America's largest desert
to its original state by removing invasive plant species and making other
changes. One anti-environmental stain on Abbey's record, which no one raised
during his confirmation process, was a federal administrative law judge ruling
that Abbey had, in October 2004, illegally dismissed a manager overseeing the
cleanup of an abandoned copper mine for pursuing worker safety, radiation, and
air and water pollution violations. The decision was affirmed on appeal.

Abbey retired in July 2005, after which he became a partner in a private
consulting firm called Abbey, Stubbs, & Ford, LLC, which had offices in Las
Vegas and Reno, Nevada. He also served as a member of the University of Nevada
College of Agriculture Dean's Advisory Committee and as a board member on
several statewide and national non-profit organizations, including Friends of
Nevada Wilderness. Further, Abbey joined and became active in several
environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility and Rangers for Responsible
Recreation. His post-retirement criticism of the environmental damage caused by
off-road vehicles stirred the ire of some who advocate such activities on public
land.

Abbey and his wife Linda have been married for 32 years and currently reside in
Reno, Nevada. They have one daughter, Leigh.
- Matt Bewig

Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Off-Highway Vehicle Group Expresses Concern Over Obama BLM Pick
Statement of Robert Abbey to House Committee on Natural Resources (PDF)
Dixon v. BLM, Recommended Decision and Order (PDF)
Nothing Positive in Mining Bill (op-ed by Bob Abbey)
Nevada BLM Cleans Out Cleanup Project Manager (by Laura Paskus, High Country
News)
Bureau of Land Management (AllGov)



http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Director_of_the_Bu

Feds to END "Welfare Camping"

Will "Welfare Ranching" be next? We hope so!

Fee shock for cabin owners

Forest Service permit skyrocketing in price due to new appraisals
129 commentsby Dennis Wagner - Nov. 30, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

More than 40 years ago, David Allen's parents bought a tiny log cabin on a piney
slope in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, overlooking the Little Colorado
River.

Under a U.S. Forest Service permit program, the Allens initially paid about $130
per year to have their summer home on public land near Greer.

As decades elapsed, that price didn't go up much. By the 1990s, they were paying
just $300 annually for a half-acre of real estate. As recently as 2008, the fee
was $1,677.

Now, the cost of a permit is skyrocketing. Because a Forest Service appraisal
lists Allen's lot value at $200,000, he faces a yearly fee of $10,000.

"They've dealt with us very unjustly," says the 65-year-old Mesa retiree.

Cabin owners are issued multiyear permits and must pay annual fees set at 5
percent of each lot's fair-market value, not including structures, as part of
the recreational-residence program. The program dates to 1915, when the Forest
Service invited Americans to build summer homes on federal land in isolated
areas. The idea was to encourage public recreation and private investment.

But now, mountain real-estate values have caught up with the cabin owners.

Allen and his neighbors are among an estimated 14,000 Americans - 461 in Arizona
- bracing for dramatic increases in the fees they pay to have their recreational
cabins on national-forest land. Many say they'll have to sell or abandon their
properties.

"It's highway robbery," said Edmund "Ed" Loew, a retired minister in Globe who
says the fee for his cabin in the Pinal Mountains will quadruple over the next
few years.

In southeast Arizona, 82-year-old Madeline Doyle of Douglas says she's resigned
to losing a summer home built by her grandfather around 1930 in the Chiricahua
Mountains.

"The children, the grandchildren, we've all enjoyed it so much," Doyle said.
"But the charge has gone up and up. We're just not sure if we'll be able to keep
it anymore."

But Jay Butler, director of the Arizona Real Estate Center at ASU's W.P. Carey
School of Business, says there is another way to look at the issue: AFTER
GETTING BY ON THE CHEAP FOR DECADES, CABIN OWNERS ARE FINALLY BEING CHARGED
MARKET-VALUE LEASE RATES.

"It doesn't benefit me that you have this cabin, so why should the federal
government subsidize your recreation?" Butler asks.


Across Arizona

The summer homes range from primitive bungalows of just a few hundred square
feet to beautiful log cabins of several thousand square feet. Most are found in
small clusters, with lots of 1 acre or less. In Arizona, the Coronado National
Forest has the most (242), while the Kaibab National Forest above the Grand
Canyon has the fewest (three).

Owners are not allowed to live in the cabins full time or to rent them out.
Rangers enforce rules that dictate paint colors, prohibit fences and ban outdoor
improvements such as barbecue grills, gardens or yard furniture.

By the 1960s, America's forests no longer lacked for public use, so the
government stopped issuing permits. But the program continued as families handed
down or sold their cabins.

During the 1990s, new appraisals came in reflecting the dramatic surge in
mountain real-estate values. All across the West, cabin owners began to protest,
organize and pressure Congress.

A moratorium was placed on fee increases. In 2000, Congress adopted the Cabin
User Fee Fairness Act, or CUFFA, to establish an equitable system with gradual
payment increases. The fees remained modest until this year, when cabin owners
began getting bills based on new appraisals. Many owners are facing fee
increases of 400 percent or more.

"It's not working as a system," says Mary Clarke Ver Hoef, executive director of
National Forest Homeowners. "It's a nightmare."

Ver Hoef's group and other cabin-owner groups have formed Cabin Coalition 2, a
political organization that is fighting the fees. As an example of what they say
is an injustice, they point to David Allen and his 18 neighbors in the Little
Colorado summer-home tract. Once the fee increases are phased in over three
years, the owners will be paying 1,000 percent more a year than they're paying
now.

Judy Yondah, recreation and special-use manager for the Forest Service's
Southwest Region, says she sympathizes with those suffering from "fee shock,"
but her agency is carrying out a federal law established by Congress.

Cabin owners have exclusive lots in idyllic forest settings, and most have been
spared substantial fee increases for 26 years. If those sites had been leased
privately, ASU's Butler contends, there would have been routine rental hikes
reflecting rising land values.

Ver Hoef and Coalition 2 argue that such a comparison misses the point because
summer-home sites are not comparable to private lands. Many cabins have no
electricity or running water. Some are snowed in for much of the year. Owners
must allow public access to their lots. The Forest Service imposes strict rules.

"Nobody gets it because these are such a peculiar ownership," Ver Hoef said.
"Basically, the appraisers pick up resort properties and consider them
equivalent."

Ver Hoef says the fees are so high that middle-income owners can't pay the lease
or find buyers. Yet they can't afford to abandon their cabins because permits
require owners to restore the property to its natural state, a move that could
cost $70,000 or more.

Coalition 2 is pushing for an entirely new fee system that would appraise cabins
according to a five-tier system, with owners paying $500 to $4,000 per year.

Ver Hoef says that proposal has no congressional sponsor so far, and the Forest
Service is moving ahead with the increased fees.

Jay Jones, 79, of Douglas, who has summered in the Chiricahua Mountains for 35
years, says he hopes to hang on despite a tripling in fees and increasingly
strict regulations. The cabin, in Ponderosa pines with Cave Creek gurgling by,
is filled with memories.

"It's beautiful, just a magnificent place," Jones said wistfully. "My wife wants
to have her ashes scattered there, which the Forest Service won't allow."



http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/11/30/20091130cabins\
1130.html