NEWS RELEASE Sept 28, 2009
Special Designation within the National System of Public Lands
September 21, 2009 the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. issued the following Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-215.
Purpose: This Instruction Memorandum (IM) serves two purposes: (1) it clarifies planning and management guidance for special designations within the National System of Public Lands created by presidential proclamations or acts of Congress, (the WFHBA of 1971 was created by Act of Congress) and (2) it revises the Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1610-1), Appendix C: Program/Resource-Specific Guidance, III. Special Designations, A. Congressional Designations, Land Use Plan Decisions.
Policy/Action: A presidential proclamation or act of Congress that designates an area within the National System of Public Lands supersedes conflicting direction by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). These designations include, but are not limited to, National Monuments, National Conservation Areas (NCAs), Wilderness Areas, National Scenic or Historic Trails, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Cooperative Management and Protection Areas, Outstanding Natural Areas, National Recreation Areas, Forest Reserves or any other lands described in Public Law 111-11 Sec. 2002(b). Specifically, the land use plan and management direction for such a designation must comply with the purposes and objectives of the proclamation or act of Congress regardless of any conflicts with the FLPMA’s multiple-use mandate.
This IM also revises the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) planning requirements for areas designated by a presidential proclamation or act of Congress within the National System of Public Lands. Existing policy requires the BLM to develop a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for each specially designated area (e.g. National Monuments, and NCAs, and similar designations).
This IM changes the current policy to provide more flexibility and efficiency in meeting the planning requirements for these specially designated areas. The BLM may meet the planning requirements for such designations through one of the following planning initiatives:
Through the development of a land use plan for the special designation; Through an amendment of an existing land use plan; or
By integrating the planning process for the designation with the planning process for a new or revised land use plan.
There are several factors to consider in determining which type of plan is most appropriate for a specially designated area. These include, but are not limited to, direction provided in the establishing proclamation or act of Congress, stakeholder and public interest, date of current plan or proposed revision/new start, cost, schedule, size of the planning area, and/or level of change from existing management. Decisions regarding the planning approach for designations made by a presidential proclamation or an act of Congress should be made in consultation with the BLM’s Office of National Landscape Conservation System and Community Programs.
All land use plan amendments must be developed consistent with the guidance in Section VII, Amending and Revision Decisions, of the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook and must be accompanied by either an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement as appropriate (BLM NEPA Handbook Chapter 7). When integrating planning for a special designation created by presidential proclamation or act of Congress with a general RMP planning process, the Field Office should ensure that the RMP identifies the objects or resources for which the area was designated and illustrates how those objects or resources are protected by the plan. The RMP must also clearly distinguish between the planning area for the RMP and the planning area for the special designation. The existence of multiple decision areas necessitates a plain distinction between the decision and analysis for each area. Additionally, an integrated planning process should conclude with an independent Record of Decision for both the RMP planning area and the special designation planning area.
Time frame: Immediately.
Budget Impact: There is the potential for cost savings associated with the various options for combining planning processes by taking advantage of economies of scale on existing planning units that include areas designated by presidential proclamation or act of Congress.
Background: Recent litigation and the designation of new National Monuments and NCAs have highlighted the need for clarification regarding the relationship between the law creating these special designations and FLPMA’s multiple-use mandate.
According to Section 302(a) of FLPMA, the National System of Public Lands is to be managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield “except that where a tract of such public land has been dedicated to specific uses according to any other provisions of law it shall be managed in accordance with such law.” This section of FLPMA directs that when an area of public land is set aside by a presidential proclamation issued under the Antiquities Act of 1906 or an act of Congress, the designating language is the controlling law. Therefore, as a general rule, if the management direction of the proclamation or act of Congress conflicts with FLPMA’s multiple use mandate, the designating language supersedes that section of the FLPMA. The particular management direction contained in the designating law (proclamation or act of Congress) should be carefully reviewed to determine whether conflicts with the FLPMA exist. Field Offices are encouraged to explore innovative ways to ensure compliance with both the designation and the FLPMA, if appropriate.
Resource Management Plans for units designated by a presidential proclamation or an act of Congress are designed to provide guidance for future management actions and the development of subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. The BLM has determined that the planning requirements for these areas can be met through a stand-alone RMP/EIS, through the amendment of an existing land use plan, or as part of a new/revised land use plan to account for the particular characteristics of the specially designated area. Each Field Office should determine which of these options will most effectively achieve the intended goals for specially designated areas.
Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1610-1), Appendix C: Program/Resource-Specific Guidance, III. Special Designations, A. Congressional Designations, Land Use Plan Decisions.
Coordination: This IM was coordinated with the Offices of Decision Support, Planning and NEPA (WO-210), National Landscape Conservation Systems (WO-170), and the Office of the Solicitor.
Contact: If you have any questions, please contact Marci Todd, Division Chief, Division of Decision Support, Planning and NEPA at 202-912-7292 or Jeff Jarvis, Division Chief, National Landscape Conservation Systems at 202-912-7170.
Signed by: Authenticated by:
Richard C. Hanes Robert M. Williams
Acting, Assistant Director Division of IRM Governance,WO-560
Renewable Resources and Planning
ERXAMPLE CASE: (Request for a New Designation of Land as "Special Place")
Management Issues and Threats to Your National Monument
The Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument needs commitment by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to manage this landscape as a special place. The monument contains a 149-mile Wild and Scenic River, it is the most remote stretch of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, the Nez Perce National Historic Trail passes through the monument, there are 6 Wilderness Study Areas and one Area of Critical Environmental Concern which contain some of the best preserved expanses of a prairie ecosystem. The area has been described as the "best of the best" remaining habitat for the threatened sage grouse. Restoring and conserving this unique expanse of Central Montana is paramount.
All Americans expect this landscape to have a high level of stewardship that restores and preserves the fragile environment of the Missouri Breaks. But there are abuses that threaten the vegetation, wildlife, soil, and water quality. Listed below are various issues and threats to the monument that are of concern to the Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument.:
Cattle Grazing
The resource management plan itself does not address livestock grazing. Presently there are thousands of cattle grazing the monument. Upland grasses must be shared with native wildlife. Cattle are allocated 40% and wildlife and the watershed 60% of the vegetation. . Fragile riverbank vegetation communities (riparian areas) do not contain the healthy cottonwood galleries with understory subspecies (woody shrub species that sustain wildlife, such as chokecherry and red-osier dogwood common to a working riparian system). It is estimated that today's aging cottonwood groves amount to only fifty-percent of what Lewis and Clark saw. The BLM states that within the next couple of decades, "... paddlers on the river will need to carry artificial shade with them. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) contains no plan to restore natural vegetative communities to this fragile and important ecosystem, although the associated watershed plans do. Learn More ...
Airstrips
Six airstrips are not an appropriate feature in a National Monument. They have the potential to disturb wildlife, can be used by hunters to gain a technological advantage that is a deviation from the hunter's "fair chase" ethic, and detract from the "remoteness and solitude" for which the Monument was designated. Within all the other BLM national monuments put together, there is only one other airstrip.
The BLM plan authorizes six primitive, backcountry airstrips within the monument. The BLM expects that these "airstrips" will be used by fixed wing aircraft, hot airballoons, helicopters and ultra light aircraft. The rationale for having "airstrips" in the Monument is to provide "diverse recreational opportunities." Although the BLM asserted that authorizing six airstrips is a reduction from the ten strips in the Monument, the fact is, that none of the airstrips should have been considered as compatible with the preservation and protection of the wild breaks country.
The Friends raised serious concerns about the appropriateness of authorizing any aircraft landings in the Monument. Six "airstrips" is more than has been authorized in all the other BLM monuments combined (only one other monument has an airstrip, and it is on the monument boundary near a town). Most of the newly authorized "airstrips" are in the heart of the Bullwhacker area, which the Proclamation describes as containing "some of the wildest country on all the Great Plains". Allowing low level flights from aircraft hopping from one strip to another does not preserve this wild character.
The Friends repeatedly pointed out that the existence of these airstrips was never brought to the attention of the Resource Advisory Council by BLM or the public in the 5 months that the RAC wrestled with making recommendations to the Secretary on whether or not there should be a special designation for this area. In addition, the BLM never apprised the Secretary of their existence all during the year that he deliberated on whether or not to recommend this area to the President for special designation as a Monument. There is a reason for that. Even though the BLM had been managing this area for decades, almost no one in BLM knew these "airstrips" existed. This speaks to the level of use they were getting prior to designation.
None of the airstrips are legally registered with the Federal Aviation Administration, as required by FAA rules, and they do not appear on FAA maps. Most of these airstrips were put in by the BLM decades ago for administrative purposes, fell into disuse, and were all but forgotten. Some were developed by trespassers and illegally maintained when overgrown by sagebrush. The BLM long ago stopped using them and still has no need for any of them. They have no value for fire suppression, and they have no value for emergency rescue (if aviation can be used to evacuate someone from the monument in an emergency, it will be a helicopter). Finally, the BLM has undertaken no studies about the impact from the noise of multiple types of aircraft on wildlife and on the public which seeks a primitive, quiet experience in the breaks.
Roads
The Monument contains a multitude of roads that were never constructed nor authorized. Some came into being as a result of traffic driving cross country to an overview, checking for livestock, game or just to observe the scenery. Some were shortcuts. Some roads were authorized for a specific purpose, for example, to access a mineral prospect, and should now be closed if the activity for which they were originally authorized is no longer occurring. Far too many of these roads appear to have remained open.
Wilderness Areas
There are substantial areas of public land within the Monument which have wilderness values and potential. These include sixWilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and the rugged expanse of the Bullwhacker, said to have "some of the wildest country on all the Great Plains." Strong protection for these core lands is needed. The BLM should manage them in a manner that protects their natural values. Building roads, reservoirs, and pipelines in and near a WSA, diminishes wilderness qualities. To read the BLM's description of these areas, and their explanation for not protecting them click here.
Mineral Exploration
There can be no additional leases within the Monument. However, the leases which are valid grant the right to drill. Gas development brings seismic work, thumper trucks, compressors, roads, well pads, pools of water (some toxic to animals) and water trucks driving frequently between the wells and the disposal sites. These are not small impacts. All phases of development must be inspected, monitored and regulated. A major increase in development is expected immediately outside the Monument. Impacts on mule deer, pronghorn, sage grouse and other species caused by this expanding footprint of gas drilling are significant, and will affect the Monument.
River Use
With 149 miles of a Wild and Scenic River as the core of the Monument, at least one ection without motors would be expected. But there is only designation of a short section for a few days a week during the summer. For hunters who want the opportunity to experience a motorless pursuit, for summer floaters who want the opportunity to experience some of our country's last areas of real solitude and remoteness, and for a primitive excursion into another era, this is it, a very brief section for a very brief period of time.
The Monument Boundary
Have you ever heard of an agency map depicting a national monument that did not show the boundary of the monument? That is what we have here in central Montana. After the breaks monument was designated in 2001, some people protested that the official p of the Monument included private land within the boundary of the monument. The private land was still private and not part of the land managed by the BLM. It is not uncommon for private land to be included within a boundary just like all land designations are included within a state boundary, but some people complained to Gayle Norton, former Secretary of the Interior, and it came to pass that the BLM erased the boundary from all its maps. The only "official" map with a boundary is the one attached to the original Proclamation.
The Friends has repeatedly protested the deletion of the boundary. The Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument Proclamation states that the designation applies to "All Federal lands and interests in lands within the boundaries of this monument," and not to private land. The elimination of the boundary was a silly gesture and a futile act that accomplished nothing positive. The failure to keep the boundary and show, rather, a "planning area," detracts from the purpose of designating this rugged landscape as a monument. Without a boundary on the maps, the public does not realize that there are additional private lands within the monument boundary which could become part of the monument if the government purchased or traded the land after negotiating with a willing seller.
The Friends has produced a map Friends Map, and it has a real boundary.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
FLMPA: Public Lands Management a Balancing Act (Except for those lands previously designed for a specific use)
Prior to the 1976 passage of the Federal Lands Management and Policy Act,...there was passed the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 which bestowed a statutory right for the equines to remain on their historic rangelands. It is stipulated that said lands be "principally" dedicated for their use. The word "principally" inserted into this law implies that other uses of the land may be permissible but also implies that these "other uses" are secondary to wild horse and burro use. In other words, there are no restrictions on any other use of wild horse and burro land as long as those uses do not cause detriment to the herds. Under the provisions of this law,...the wild horses and burros are the first resources to be considered in any land use plan upon THEIR LAND, and if a conflict of resources does occur,...it is to be resolved in the equines favor,...always. As statutorily mandated by the WFH&B Act of 1971.
Fast forward to 1976 and the passage of the Federal Lands Management and Policy Act which MANDATES a multiple use of the land with consideration of all resources "in balance" all with eachother, with Multi-use and "sustained yield" objectives to be the main considerations when making land use plans or decisions.
When objectives are not being met,..corrections will have to be made and plans altered, which usually results in the wild horses and burros getting the blame for a failure to meet land management standards or goals. It is this "multi-use" and "sustained yield" provision of FLMPA that the BLM relies on when determining a need" to remove wild equines from their historic ranges,....as we all know too well, in BLMs Land Use Managment Decisions, the wild equines are the first to get the shaft. Generally, they are THE ONLY ONES to get it.Every other use of the land seems to increase, including those damn cows!
However, Sec. 302(a) of FLMPA EXEMPTS lands previously designated for a certain use from the requirements of its own provisions. Under the exception clause in section 302(a) of FLMPA, there is no MANDATORY multi-use requirement nor "sustainabily of yield" factors to be considered when making land use decisions concerning wild horse and burro traditional lands,...as those lands are ALREADY designated as PRINCIPALLY for their use. As mentioned above, under the provisions of the WFH&B Act of 1971,...any and all other uses of the land COULD BE permiited but would be SECONDARY to the well-being and "principality interest" our wild equines have in remaining forever free and roaming upon their historic ranges. If other uses of the land are permitted, it is DISCRETIONARY and DAM WELL better NOT be detrimental to "the principal use of the land," which principality is, (how many times do I have to say it?) only guaranteed to them by the express provisions of the WFH&B Act of 1971 - the VERY SAME provision that the ROAM Act will take away!
What I find most incredible is that the BLM has been using FLMPA Requirements AS AN EXCUSE to remove our wild ones off of their traditional lands when IN REALITY the wild horses and burros roaming on their traditional rangelands are EXEMPT from those requirements!!! They are exempt from those requirements because of their previous entitlement to those lands pursuant to the WFH&B Act which statutorily MANDATES that those lands be set aside as principally for their use and I am pretty sure that the intent of that Act was to keep them there forever,...where they have always been, roaming wild and free on the rangelands of their ancestors.
In Conclusion: Wild Horses and Burros Roaming Upon Their Traditional Rangelands (as found or known in 1971) are EXEMPT from FLMPA requirements and persuant to the provisions of the WFH&B Act of 1971,..are (supposed to be)protected against any land use plan that would divest them from their principal use of the land.
Fast forward to 1976 and the passage of the Federal Lands Management and Policy Act which MANDATES a multiple use of the land with consideration of all resources "in balance" all with eachother, with Multi-use and "sustained yield" objectives to be the main considerations when making land use plans or decisions.
When objectives are not being met,..corrections will have to be made and plans altered, which usually results in the wild horses and burros getting the blame for a failure to meet land management standards or goals. It is this "multi-use" and "sustained yield" provision of FLMPA that the BLM relies on when determining a need" to remove wild equines from their historic ranges,....as we all know too well, in BLMs Land Use Managment Decisions, the wild equines are the first to get the shaft. Generally, they are THE ONLY ONES to get it.Every other use of the land seems to increase, including those damn cows!
However, Sec. 302(a) of FLMPA EXEMPTS lands previously designated for a certain use from the requirements of its own provisions. Under the exception clause in section 302(a) of FLMPA, there is no MANDATORY multi-use requirement nor "sustainabily of yield" factors to be considered when making land use decisions concerning wild horse and burro traditional lands,...as those lands are ALREADY designated as PRINCIPALLY for their use. As mentioned above, under the provisions of the WFH&B Act of 1971,...any and all other uses of the land COULD BE permiited but would be SECONDARY to the well-being and "principality interest" our wild equines have in remaining forever free and roaming upon their historic ranges. If other uses of the land are permitted, it is DISCRETIONARY and DAM WELL better NOT be detrimental to "the principal use of the land," which principality is, (how many times do I have to say it?) only guaranteed to them by the express provisions of the WFH&B Act of 1971 - the VERY SAME provision that the ROAM Act will take away!
What I find most incredible is that the BLM has been using FLMPA Requirements AS AN EXCUSE to remove our wild ones off of their traditional lands when IN REALITY the wild horses and burros roaming on their traditional rangelands are EXEMPT from those requirements!!! They are exempt from those requirements because of their previous entitlement to those lands pursuant to the WFH&B Act which statutorily MANDATES that those lands be set aside as principally for their use and I am pretty sure that the intent of that Act was to keep them there forever,...where they have always been, roaming wild and free on the rangelands of their ancestors.
In Conclusion: Wild Horses and Burros Roaming Upon Their Traditional Rangelands (as found or known in 1971) are EXEMPT from FLMPA requirements and persuant to the provisions of the WFH&B Act of 1971,..are (supposed to be)protected against any land use plan that would divest them from their principal use of the land.
FLMPA NOT Meant to Apply to Lands Previously Designated for a Specific Use
TITLE I
SHORT TITLE,
DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND
DEFINITIONS
SHORT TITLE
Sec. 101. [43 U.S.C. 1701 note] This Act may be cited as the “Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976”.
DECLARATION OF POLICY
Pay close attention to the text in bold;
Sec. 102. [43 U.S.C. 1701] (a) The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that–
(1) the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest;
(2) the national interest will be best realized if the public lands and their resources are periodically and systematically inventoried and their present and future use is projected through a land use planning process coordinated with other Federal and State planning efforts;
(3) public lands not previously designated for any specific use and all existing classifications of public lands that were effected by executive action or statute before the date of enactment of this Act be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
(4) the Congress exercise its constitutional authority to withdraw or otherwise designate or dedicate Federal lands for specified purposes and that Congress delineate the extent to which the Executive may withdraw lands without legislative action;
(5) in administering public land statutes and exercising discretionary authority granted by them, the Secretary be required to establish comprehensive rules and regulations after considering the views of the general public; and to structure adjudication procedures to assure adequate third party participation, objective administrative review of initial decisions, and expeditious decision making;
(6) judicial review of public land adjudication decisions be provided by law;
(7) 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;
(8) the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will pro-vide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use;
(9) the United States receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their resources unless otherwise provided for by statute;
(10) uniform procedures for any disposal of public land, acquisition of non-Federal land for public purposes, and the exchange of such lands be established by statute, requiring each disposal, acquisition, and exchange to be consistent with the prescribed mission of the department or agency involved, and reserving to the Congress review of disposals in excess of a specified acreage;
(11) regulations and plans for the protection of public land areas of critical environmental concern be promptly developed;
(12) the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from
the public lands including implementation of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 U.S.C. 21a) as it pertains to the public lands; and
(13) the Federal Government should, on a basis equitable to both the Federal and local taxpayer, provide for payments to compensate States and local governments for burdens created as a result of the immunity of Federal lands from State and local taxation.
(b) The policies of this Act shall become effective only as specific statutory authority for their implementation is enacted by this Act or by subsequent legislation and shall then be construed as supplemental to and not in derogation of the purposes for which public lands are administered under other provisions of law.
DEFINITIONS
Sec. 103. [43 U.S.C. 1702] Without altering in any way the meaning of the following terms as used in any other statute, whether or not such statute is referred to in, or amended by, this Act, as used in this Act–
(a) The term “areas of critical environmental concern” means areas within the public lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.
(b) The term “holder” means any State or local governmental entity, individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other business entity receiving or using a right-of-way under title V of this Act.
(c) The term “multiple use” means the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to pro-vide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.
(d) The term “public involvement” means the opportunity for participation by affected citizens in rule making, decision making, and planning with respect to the public lands, including public meetings or hearings held at locations near the affected lands, or advisory mechanisms, or such other procedures as may be necessary to provide public comment in a particular instance.
(e) The term “public lands” means any land and interest in land owned by the United States within the several States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except–
(1) lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf; and
(2) lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.
(f) The term “right-of-way” includes an easement, lease, permit, or license to occupy, use, or traverse public lands granted for the purpose listed in title V of this Act.
(g) The term “Secretary,” unless specifically designated otherwise, means the Secretary of the Interior.
(h) The term “sustained yield” means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.
(i) The term “wilderness” as used in section 603 shall have the same meaning as it does in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1131–1136).
(j) The term “withdrawal” means withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than “property” governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 472) from one department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency.
(k) An “allotment management plan” means a document prepared in consultation with the lessees or permittees involved, which applies to livestock operations on the public lands or on lands within National Forests in the eleven contiguous Western States and which:
(1) prescribes the manner in, and extent to, which livestock operations will be conducted in order to meet the multiple-use, sustained-yield, economic and other needs and objectives as deter-mined for the lands by the Secretary concerned; and
(2) describes the type, location, ownership, and general specifications for the range improvements to be installed and maintained on the lands to meet the livestock grazing and other objectives of land management; and
(3) contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the Secretary concerned to be consistent with the provisions of this Act and other applicable law.
(1) 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.
(m) The term “department” means a unit of the executive branch of the Federal Government which is headed by a member of the President’s Cabinet and the term “agency” means a unit of the executive branch of the Federal Government which is not under the jurisdiction of a head of a department.
(n) The term “Bureau” means the Bureau of Land Management.
(o) The term “eleven contiguous Western States” means the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
(p) The term “grazing permit and lease” means any document authorizing use of public lands or lands in National Forests in the eleven contiguous Western States for the purpose of grazing domestic livestock.
[The term “sixteen contiguous Western States,” where changed by P.L. 95-514, refers to: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. This term is defined by P.L. 95-514 and found in sections 401(b)(1), 402(a) and 403(a).]
SHORT TITLE,
DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND
DEFINITIONS
SHORT TITLE
Sec. 101. [43 U.S.C. 1701 note] This Act may be cited as the “Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976”.
DECLARATION OF POLICY
Pay close attention to the text in bold;
Sec. 102. [43 U.S.C. 1701] (a) The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that–
(1) the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest;
(2) the national interest will be best realized if the public lands and their resources are periodically and systematically inventoried and their present and future use is projected through a land use planning process coordinated with other Federal and State planning efforts;
(3) public lands not previously designated for any specific use and all existing classifications of public lands that were effected by executive action or statute before the date of enactment of this Act be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
(4) the Congress exercise its constitutional authority to withdraw or otherwise designate or dedicate Federal lands for specified purposes and that Congress delineate the extent to which the Executive may withdraw lands without legislative action;
(5) in administering public land statutes and exercising discretionary authority granted by them, the Secretary be required to establish comprehensive rules and regulations after considering the views of the general public; and to structure adjudication procedures to assure adequate third party participation, objective administrative review of initial decisions, and expeditious decision making;
(6) judicial review of public land adjudication decisions be provided by law;
(7) 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;
(8) the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will pro-vide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use;
(9) the United States receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their resources unless otherwise provided for by statute;
(10) uniform procedures for any disposal of public land, acquisition of non-Federal land for public purposes, and the exchange of such lands be established by statute, requiring each disposal, acquisition, and exchange to be consistent with the prescribed mission of the department or agency involved, and reserving to the Congress review of disposals in excess of a specified acreage;
(11) regulations and plans for the protection of public land areas of critical environmental concern be promptly developed;
(12) the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from
the public lands including implementation of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 U.S.C. 21a) as it pertains to the public lands; and
(13) the Federal Government should, on a basis equitable to both the Federal and local taxpayer, provide for payments to compensate States and local governments for burdens created as a result of the immunity of Federal lands from State and local taxation.
(b) The policies of this Act shall become effective only as specific statutory authority for their implementation is enacted by this Act or by subsequent legislation and shall then be construed as supplemental to and not in derogation of the purposes for which public lands are administered under other provisions of law.
DEFINITIONS
Sec. 103. [43 U.S.C. 1702] Without altering in any way the meaning of the following terms as used in any other statute, whether or not such statute is referred to in, or amended by, this Act, as used in this Act–
(a) The term “areas of critical environmental concern” means areas within the public lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.
(b) The term “holder” means any State or local governmental entity, individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other business entity receiving or using a right-of-way under title V of this Act.
(c) The term “multiple use” means the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to pro-vide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.
(d) The term “public involvement” means the opportunity for participation by affected citizens in rule making, decision making, and planning with respect to the public lands, including public meetings or hearings held at locations near the affected lands, or advisory mechanisms, or such other procedures as may be necessary to provide public comment in a particular instance.
(e) The term “public lands” means any land and interest in land owned by the United States within the several States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except–
(1) lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf; and
(2) lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.
(f) The term “right-of-way” includes an easement, lease, permit, or license to occupy, use, or traverse public lands granted for the purpose listed in title V of this Act.
(g) The term “Secretary,” unless specifically designated otherwise, means the Secretary of the Interior.
(h) The term “sustained yield” means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.
(i) The term “wilderness” as used in section 603 shall have the same meaning as it does in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1131–1136).
(j) The term “withdrawal” means withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than “property” governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 472) from one department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency.
(k) An “allotment management plan” means a document prepared in consultation with the lessees or permittees involved, which applies to livestock operations on the public lands or on lands within National Forests in the eleven contiguous Western States and which:
(1) prescribes the manner in, and extent to, which livestock operations will be conducted in order to meet the multiple-use, sustained-yield, economic and other needs and objectives as deter-mined for the lands by the Secretary concerned; and
(2) describes the type, location, ownership, and general specifications for the range improvements to be installed and maintained on the lands to meet the livestock grazing and other objectives of land management; and
(3) contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the Secretary concerned to be consistent with the provisions of this Act and other applicable law.
(1) 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.
(m) The term “department” means a unit of the executive branch of the Federal Government which is headed by a member of the President’s Cabinet and the term “agency” means a unit of the executive branch of the Federal Government which is not under the jurisdiction of a head of a department.
(n) The term “Bureau” means the Bureau of Land Management.
(o) The term “eleven contiguous Western States” means the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
(p) The term “grazing permit and lease” means any document authorizing use of public lands or lands in National Forests in the eleven contiguous Western States for the purpose of grazing domestic livestock.
[The term “sixteen contiguous Western States,” where changed by P.L. 95-514, refers to: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. This term is defined by P.L. 95-514 and found in sections 401(b)(1), 402(a) and 403(a).]
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
WFH&B Historic Ranges EXEMPT from FLMPAs "Multiple Use & Sustained Yield" Requirements!!!'
Sec. 302 (a)of the Federal Land Management & Policy Act requires the Secretary to manage BLM lands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, in accordance with available land use plans developed under Sec. 202 of FLPMA.
There is one exception: where a tract of the BLM lands has been dedicated to specific uses according to other provisions of law, it shall be managed in accordance with such laws.
Here we have yet another FEDERAL STATUTE that IF enforced, would require that the BLM adhere to the provisions of the WFH&B Act, which means managing them on their historic rangelands NO MATTER what else they may have planned for those lands....under this provision of the FLMPA, the wild ones COULD NOT be removed from their historic rangelands FOR ANY REASON (other than emergencies) as the land was designated principally for their use PRIOR to the passage of the FLMPA. Section 302(a) of FLMPA EXEMPTS those lands marked out by the BLM as "principally for wild horse and burro use" from FLMPAs' "Multiple use and sustained yield" requirements .
Of course, the language of the WFH&B Act of 1971 itself indicates that wild horse and burro ranges MAY be used for other uses (as long as the principal use is for the wild ones) but absent the FLMPA "multiple use and sustained yield" requirements, there is no statutorily required "balancing" of all resources nor any "sustained yield" requirments to consider when making land use decisions in wild horse and burro lands- as the relevant laws are clear that the lands marked out by the BLM after the passage of the 1971 WFH&B Act intend that those lands be reserved throughout eternity as principally for wild horse and burro use. The relevant laws are The WFH&B Act if 1971 itself,....and Code of Federal Rules (CFR) another federal statute, sec. 4710.5 also indicates that in matters of conflict of resources,...the BLM "may,"....."if necessary to provide habitat for wild horses or burros, to implement herd management actions, or to protect wild horses and burros from disease, harassment or injury, the autrhorized officer MAY close appropriate areas of the public lands to grazing use by all or a particular kind of livestock."
These two federal statutes, coupled with Sec. 302(a) of the FLMPA as mentioned above, which exempts designated wild horse and burro ranges from the "multiple use and sustained yield" requirements, if enforced, would serve efficient enough protections to insure the wild herds a statutory right to remain on their traditional and historic rangelands. (Getting the BLM to maintain the herds in viable numbers is another thing all together.)
The importance of the exemption under the Sec. 302(a) of the FLMPA is this: one of the general reasons the BLm uses to rely on in deciding to remove the herds or declimate their numbers is their claim that they must do so in order to comply with the "multiple use and sustained yield" provisions of FLMPA when in fact,...persuant to Sec. 302(a)of that act,..those provisions DO NOT apply for wild horse and burro range since it was designated PRIOR to the FLMPA,...as principally for their use.
Enforce the existing laws and there is no need for no new act - but what IS needed is an amendment to the 1971 Act that will strike out the Burns Rider and (maybe) replace it with (Madeline) Pickins Plan (that would concern only the placement of those horses and burros LEGALLY removed from their historic rangelands.)
As for the rest, we pray for a return to freedom for them, upon their own (historic) and statutorily protected lands. Without statutory entitlement to their historic lands,...the wild ones will in effect, be without a homeland, and America will have lost not only its wild and free roaming herds, but will have lost millions of acres of historic wild horse rangeland to boot.
What will become of our historic wild horse rangelands once the wild ones are gone?
We will look out upon the lands and see gas and oil rigs, utility corridors, wind farms and the like, and we will think to ourselves in quiet resignation, "Wild horses and burros used to roam free here - it used to be their land." And maybe we will ask ourselves, "why did we let their right to these lands slip away?"
We are fighting hard, but we must fight harder,...in one voice saying: keep their historic rangelands as "principally for their use." This is a right of the wild ones that we must fight for or lose forever. This provision of the WFH&B Act of 1971 is the "deed" to their land and is the only thing holding them there. Absent this provision, there is no legal or statutory "right" for them to be upon ANY land but will be left to the sole discretion of the BLM of where to put them and with whom. And now, the question begs asking, "do we trust the BLM to do the right thing for the wild ones?" As for me, I will put my trust in the laws as mentioned above and fight harder to get them enforced.
What say you, amigos?
There is one exception: where a tract of the BLM lands has been dedicated to specific uses according to other provisions of law, it shall be managed in accordance with such laws.
Here we have yet another FEDERAL STATUTE that IF enforced, would require that the BLM adhere to the provisions of the WFH&B Act, which means managing them on their historic rangelands NO MATTER what else they may have planned for those lands....under this provision of the FLMPA, the wild ones COULD NOT be removed from their historic rangelands FOR ANY REASON (other than emergencies) as the land was designated principally for their use PRIOR to the passage of the FLMPA. Section 302(a) of FLMPA EXEMPTS those lands marked out by the BLM as "principally for wild horse and burro use" from FLMPAs' "Multiple use and sustained yield" requirements .
Of course, the language of the WFH&B Act of 1971 itself indicates that wild horse and burro ranges MAY be used for other uses (as long as the principal use is for the wild ones) but absent the FLMPA "multiple use and sustained yield" requirements, there is no statutorily required "balancing" of all resources nor any "sustained yield" requirments to consider when making land use decisions in wild horse and burro lands- as the relevant laws are clear that the lands marked out by the BLM after the passage of the 1971 WFH&B Act intend that those lands be reserved throughout eternity as principally for wild horse and burro use. The relevant laws are The WFH&B Act if 1971 itself,....and Code of Federal Rules (CFR) another federal statute, sec. 4710.5 also indicates that in matters of conflict of resources,...the BLM "may,"....."if necessary to provide habitat for wild horses or burros, to implement herd management actions, or to protect wild horses and burros from disease, harassment or injury, the autrhorized officer MAY close appropriate areas of the public lands to grazing use by all or a particular kind of livestock."
These two federal statutes, coupled with Sec. 302(a) of the FLMPA as mentioned above, which exempts designated wild horse and burro ranges from the "multiple use and sustained yield" requirements, if enforced, would serve efficient enough protections to insure the wild herds a statutory right to remain on their traditional and historic rangelands. (Getting the BLM to maintain the herds in viable numbers is another thing all together.)
The importance of the exemption under the Sec. 302(a) of the FLMPA is this: one of the general reasons the BLm uses to rely on in deciding to remove the herds or declimate their numbers is their claim that they must do so in order to comply with the "multiple use and sustained yield" provisions of FLMPA when in fact,...persuant to Sec. 302(a)of that act,..those provisions DO NOT apply for wild horse and burro range since it was designated PRIOR to the FLMPA,...as principally for their use.
Enforce the existing laws and there is no need for no new act - but what IS needed is an amendment to the 1971 Act that will strike out the Burns Rider and (maybe) replace it with (Madeline) Pickins Plan (that would concern only the placement of those horses and burros LEGALLY removed from their historic rangelands.)
As for the rest, we pray for a return to freedom for them, upon their own (historic) and statutorily protected lands. Without statutory entitlement to their historic lands,...the wild ones will in effect, be without a homeland, and America will have lost not only its wild and free roaming herds, but will have lost millions of acres of historic wild horse rangeland to boot.
What will become of our historic wild horse rangelands once the wild ones are gone?
We will look out upon the lands and see gas and oil rigs, utility corridors, wind farms and the like, and we will think to ourselves in quiet resignation, "Wild horses and burros used to roam free here - it used to be their land." And maybe we will ask ourselves, "why did we let their right to these lands slip away?"
We are fighting hard, but we must fight harder,...in one voice saying: keep their historic rangelands as "principally for their use." This is a right of the wild ones that we must fight for or lose forever. This provision of the WFH&B Act of 1971 is the "deed" to their land and is the only thing holding them there. Absent this provision, there is no legal or statutory "right" for them to be upon ANY land but will be left to the sole discretion of the BLM of where to put them and with whom. And now, the question begs asking, "do we trust the BLM to do the right thing for the wild ones?" As for me, I will put my trust in the laws as mentioned above and fight harder to get them enforced.
What say you, amigos?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Just to Say Hello......
and to let you know I am ok but have not been posting here due to a malware attack that wont let me sign in to any of my google blogs or groups. I am posting this on a borrowed lap-top just so I can let you know I have not abandoned ship! I will get back to regular posting as soon as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, I have a question to pose regarding "The Other" Pickins Plan, which is for T Boones Plan to become energy independant,...and I am wondering does this new independance have to come at the cost of the loss of our National Wild Horse and Burro Herds?
Meanwhile, I have a question to pose regarding "The Other" Pickins Plan, which is for T Boones Plan to become energy independant,...and I am wondering does this new independance have to come at the cost of the loss of our National Wild Horse and Burro Herds?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Stop Expansion of Coal and Oil Mining as a Sell-out for Climate Change Legislation
From PeaceTeam;
Throwing More Prehistoric Carbon Into The Atmosphere Is The Climate
Change Problem, NOT The Solution
We write this alert with a sad and heavy heart, in the aftermath of
the spectacle of ONLY Dennis Kucinich casting the vote of true
conscience and courage last night, the only one who spoke the truth
about a CORPORATE takeover of national health care, that in fact CUTS
the existing Medicare program and throws a woman's right to choose
completely over the side for bad measure. And we will have much more
to say about this in the next alert, when we will debut the first in
a series of "I'm A Democrat, and I'm A Republican" issue action
videos which we have produced. So please stay tuned for that.
In the meantime, other critical issues are pressing and must be
addressed by those who are willing to take a stand for good policy in
the true public interest.
It seems that every day there is a new story about the shocking and
dramatic evidence of acceleration of global warming, which
extrapolated out means utter planetary climate catastrophe within
decades. But even the moderate measures proposed by the Boxer bill
are being stymied by the refusal of Republicans to even take their
committee seats. In the meantime the best chance to achieve worldwide
consensus on real carbon emissions cuts, the Copenhagen summit, is a
mere weeks away.
Even worse, in yet another attempt to turn a reform bill into
something that actually does more harm than good, we are being told
that to get a climate bill passed we must endorse more offshore oil
drilling and MORE coal fired power plants. The sheer lunacy of
pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, when that is the
primary CAUSE of the problem, is the stuff of farce. And Congress
needs to hear that from you, now. Please submit the action page below
and tell Congress we must burn LESS fossil fuel and find truly green
solutions instead.
Stop Fossil Fuel Expansion Action Page:
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1019.php
We were frankly shocked by some of the responses to our first alert
supporting the climate change bill, so this time please take a moment
to allow us to preemptively address some of the concerns we have
heard from you.
First there were some of you who condemned any effort to achieve
international cooperation on addressing climate change as some kind
of sinister "New World Order". Roughly in that same crowd are those
who assert national sovereignty and the rest of the planet be damned.
And damned it most surely will be unless we find a way to cooperate
globally in the interest of the survival of our civilization. And
what means national sovereignty when the carbon dioxide pollution we
create, and spread to the rest of the world, causes our OWN climate
to change in disastrous ways? Indeed, fair international cooperation
is the only hope we've got, and we'd better get used to it.
Many years ago in a high school biology lab we remember some fruit
fly experiments. And we had tubes of nutrient gel, and if you put a
couple fruit flies in there they would just breed and breed until the
tube was like some kind of fruit fly hell out of Malthus. Was there a
fruit fly in there to talk about cooperating to conserve finite
resources? Apparently not. So now will the human species rise above
the intellectual level of a fruit fly? That remains to be seen.
Next we heard from those who condemned any kind of cap and trade bill
as a sell out to polluting industries. And in all candor we AGREE
with you there. Except for one thing. The most valiant world leaders
on stopping climate change argue that cap and trade bills in Europe
HAVE reduced carbon dioxide emissions already, and that such a bill
in the U.S. Congress, as long as it were not completely debased by
further endorsement of coal and oil drilling (the point of this
alert), would bring the United States to the world bargaining table
and set the stage for a real global consensus and further progress.
So this is not a case where a reasonable cap and trade bill would be
a step in the WRONG direction. This is not a case, like the health
care bill just passed by the House, where we have so far gotten
NOTHING we want. But again, this is based on standing up to say no to
trading off a little cap and trade gains for an outrageous increase
in fossil fuel burning, in which case of course the bill must be
opposed in its entirely.
And finally, the next person that writes to us arguing that carbon
dioxide is a "life giving gas" that the plants love earns an instant
ticket to the permanent removal file. Sure, and water is life giving
too, unless you're under 20 feet of it and it's a flood.
And sure plants love carbon dioxide, except when we are clear cutting
forests from one end of the planet to the other. There is PLENTY
enough in the atmosphere already for as many plants as we allow to
grow, and indeed aggressive reforestation is the perhaps the most
powerful cure we can apply to achieve real REDUCTIONS in atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations. But perverse ignorance of what we are
doing to our own environment is the inevitable road to environmental
catastrophe, as even the average fruit fly can now tell you.
By the way, we have a new "350 ppm" cap to promote the maximum level
of carbon dioxide that the top REAL scientists believe we can sustain
without putting our future in jeopardy. We are currently at 387. And
fifty years from now, assuming we do nothing and when coastal cities
are under water, you will remember we told you so, if you are around.
350 PPM Caps: http://www.peaceteam.net/all_gifts.php
And here is the one click Facebook page for this same fax action.
Single Payer Amendments Action:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1019
And the Twitter reply to send, to send this message to all your
members of Congress that way, is
@cxs #p1019
Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.
If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.peaceteam.net/in.htm
Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function
at http://www.peaceteam.net/out.htm
usalone351b:60985
Throwing More Prehistoric Carbon Into The Atmosphere Is The Climate
Change Problem, NOT The Solution
We write this alert with a sad and heavy heart, in the aftermath of
the spectacle of ONLY Dennis Kucinich casting the vote of true
conscience and courage last night, the only one who spoke the truth
about a CORPORATE takeover of national health care, that in fact CUTS
the existing Medicare program and throws a woman's right to choose
completely over the side for bad measure. And we will have much more
to say about this in the next alert, when we will debut the first in
a series of "I'm A Democrat, and I'm A Republican" issue action
videos which we have produced. So please stay tuned for that.
In the meantime, other critical issues are pressing and must be
addressed by those who are willing to take a stand for good policy in
the true public interest.
It seems that every day there is a new story about the shocking and
dramatic evidence of acceleration of global warming, which
extrapolated out means utter planetary climate catastrophe within
decades. But even the moderate measures proposed by the Boxer bill
are being stymied by the refusal of Republicans to even take their
committee seats. In the meantime the best chance to achieve worldwide
consensus on real carbon emissions cuts, the Copenhagen summit, is a
mere weeks away.
Even worse, in yet another attempt to turn a reform bill into
something that actually does more harm than good, we are being told
that to get a climate bill passed we must endorse more offshore oil
drilling and MORE coal fired power plants. The sheer lunacy of
pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, when that is the
primary CAUSE of the problem, is the stuff of farce. And Congress
needs to hear that from you, now. Please submit the action page below
and tell Congress we must burn LESS fossil fuel and find truly green
solutions instead.
Stop Fossil Fuel Expansion Action Page:
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1019.php
We were frankly shocked by some of the responses to our first alert
supporting the climate change bill, so this time please take a moment
to allow us to preemptively address some of the concerns we have
heard from you.
First there were some of you who condemned any effort to achieve
international cooperation on addressing climate change as some kind
of sinister "New World Order". Roughly in that same crowd are those
who assert national sovereignty and the rest of the planet be damned.
And damned it most surely will be unless we find a way to cooperate
globally in the interest of the survival of our civilization. And
what means national sovereignty when the carbon dioxide pollution we
create, and spread to the rest of the world, causes our OWN climate
to change in disastrous ways? Indeed, fair international cooperation
is the only hope we've got, and we'd better get used to it.
Many years ago in a high school biology lab we remember some fruit
fly experiments. And we had tubes of nutrient gel, and if you put a
couple fruit flies in there they would just breed and breed until the
tube was like some kind of fruit fly hell out of Malthus. Was there a
fruit fly in there to talk about cooperating to conserve finite
resources? Apparently not. So now will the human species rise above
the intellectual level of a fruit fly? That remains to be seen.
Next we heard from those who condemned any kind of cap and trade bill
as a sell out to polluting industries. And in all candor we AGREE
with you there. Except for one thing. The most valiant world leaders
on stopping climate change argue that cap and trade bills in Europe
HAVE reduced carbon dioxide emissions already, and that such a bill
in the U.S. Congress, as long as it were not completely debased by
further endorsement of coal and oil drilling (the point of this
alert), would bring the United States to the world bargaining table
and set the stage for a real global consensus and further progress.
So this is not a case where a reasonable cap and trade bill would be
a step in the WRONG direction. This is not a case, like the health
care bill just passed by the House, where we have so far gotten
NOTHING we want. But again, this is based on standing up to say no to
trading off a little cap and trade gains for an outrageous increase
in fossil fuel burning, in which case of course the bill must be
opposed in its entirely.
And finally, the next person that writes to us arguing that carbon
dioxide is a "life giving gas" that the plants love earns an instant
ticket to the permanent removal file. Sure, and water is life giving
too, unless you're under 20 feet of it and it's a flood.
And sure plants love carbon dioxide, except when we are clear cutting
forests from one end of the planet to the other. There is PLENTY
enough in the atmosphere already for as many plants as we allow to
grow, and indeed aggressive reforestation is the perhaps the most
powerful cure we can apply to achieve real REDUCTIONS in atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations. But perverse ignorance of what we are
doing to our own environment is the inevitable road to environmental
catastrophe, as even the average fruit fly can now tell you.
By the way, we have a new "350 ppm" cap to promote the maximum level
of carbon dioxide that the top REAL scientists believe we can sustain
without putting our future in jeopardy. We are currently at 387. And
fifty years from now, assuming we do nothing and when coastal cities
are under water, you will remember we told you so, if you are around.
350 PPM Caps: http://www.peaceteam.net/all_gifts.php
And here is the one click Facebook page for this same fax action.
Single Payer Amendments Action:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1019
And the Twitter reply to send, to send this message to all your
members of Congress that way, is
@cxs #p1019
Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.
If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.peaceteam.net/in.htm
Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function
at http://www.peaceteam.net/out.htm
usalone351b:60985
NE Nevada Museum - No Care for Wild Horses?
From the Northeastern Nevada Museums' website;
Lots of interesting info and places to visit in NE Nevada. You'll note that here is not ONE MENTION of wild horses or burros in any of their many pages...but NOTE, the webmaster wants to hear our ideas about what might be added to the pages.
".... If you know or would like to add anything about this page, please let me know..."
Click on the title above to go there and remind them of the National Treasures that stand on our public lands in Nevada.
http://www.elkorose.com/nenevada.html
Lots of interesting info and places to visit in NE Nevada. You'll note that here is not ONE MENTION of wild horses or burros in any of their many pages...but NOTE, the webmaster wants to hear our ideas about what might be added to the pages.
".... If you know or would like to add anything about this page, please let me know..."
Click on the title above to go there and remind them of the National Treasures that stand on our public lands in Nevada.
http://www.elkorose.com/nenevada.html
BLM Utah Absolves Itself of Responsibility for Pollutants Emitting from BLM Projects
From the Price Field Office Resource Management Plan - 2004;
The Carbon Power Plant, Sunnyside Cogeneration Plant, Hunter Power Plant, and Huntington Power Plant are major sources of air pollution in Carbon and Emery counties. The greatest amounts of air pollution emissions in the PFO result from those major sources, which are located in Carbon and Emery counties. Primary pollutants in Carbon County are carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). NOx is the primary pollutant in Emery County followed by SO2, CO, and PM10. Area sources account for the most emissions in Carbon County, whereas point sources account for the most emissions in Emery County (UDAQ, 1996). Pollutants of interest resulting from BLM activities in the PFO are NO2, SO2, CO, and PM10. However, none of the major sources of these pollutants are managed by BLM.
Air quality in the PFO could be affected by emissions from construction equipment, gaseous emissions from the operation of natural gas-fired compressors and glycol dehydration units at compressor facilities, occasional flaring of natural gas at well sites, suspended PM10 generated by construction activities, motorized vehicles traveling on access roads, off-highway vehicles (OHV), and wind-blown dust over exposed areas.
Price Field Office Resource Management Plan - 2004;
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/price_fo/Planning.Par.99859.File.dat/Chapter_3.pdf
The Carbon Power Plant, Sunnyside Cogeneration Plant, Hunter Power Plant, and Huntington Power Plant are major sources of air pollution in Carbon and Emery counties. The greatest amounts of air pollution emissions in the PFO result from those major sources, which are located in Carbon and Emery counties. Primary pollutants in Carbon County are carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). NOx is the primary pollutant in Emery County followed by SO2, CO, and PM10. Area sources account for the most emissions in Carbon County, whereas point sources account for the most emissions in Emery County (UDAQ, 1996). Pollutants of interest resulting from BLM activities in the PFO are NO2, SO2, CO, and PM10. However, none of the major sources of these pollutants are managed by BLM.
Air quality in the PFO could be affected by emissions from construction equipment, gaseous emissions from the operation of natural gas-fired compressors and glycol dehydration units at compressor facilities, occasional flaring of natural gas at well sites, suspended PM10 generated by construction activities, motorized vehicles traveling on access roads, off-highway vehicles (OHV), and wind-blown dust over exposed areas.
Price Field Office Resource Management Plan - 2004;
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/price_fo/Planning.Par.99859.File.dat/Chapter_3.pdf
BLM "Range Management Specialists" Deem Wild Horse Range NOT Suitable for Wild Horses but "A-OK" for Cattle & Sheep
From an 07' Report;
Hundreds of sheep brought in after wild horses removed: a supporter contacted us to report that, after 200 horses were removed in December from the Dry Lake Complex in Nevada, he was shocked to see about 1,000 sheep trucked in to that very area, less than two weeks after the round-up. Questioned on the issue, BLM confirmed that the area includes a grazing allotment for 2,200 private sheep, whereas for horses the “appropriate management level” is set at only 128 head, or one horse per 5,500 acres! What BLM failed to address is why substantially more forage is consistently allocated to private livestock on the very areas that should be “devoted principally” to wild horses under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act.
The "Science" Behind Wild Horse Roundups
2007, KTVN
Rounding up wild horses carries inherent risks for the animals, so presumably, there should be a good reason for capturing them. In early September, a BLM roundup captured 900 horses in Nevada's Jackson Mountain Wilderness Area, supposedly because there wasn't enough forage to support them. When the horses got to the Palomino Valley holding facility, they started dying because of the feed they received. What bothers wild horse advocates the most is that while the BLM felt there was only room for 200 or fewer horses in the 280,000 acre Jackson Range, they said it was still okay to have 8,000 cattle and sheep grazing in the same area.
Hundreds of sheep brought in after wild horses removed: a supporter contacted us to report that, after 200 horses were removed in December from the Dry Lake Complex in Nevada, he was shocked to see about 1,000 sheep trucked in to that very area, less than two weeks after the round-up. Questioned on the issue, BLM confirmed that the area includes a grazing allotment for 2,200 private sheep, whereas for horses the “appropriate management level” is set at only 128 head, or one horse per 5,500 acres! What BLM failed to address is why substantially more forage is consistently allocated to private livestock on the very areas that should be “devoted principally” to wild horses under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act.
The "Science" Behind Wild Horse Roundups
2007, KTVN
Rounding up wild horses carries inherent risks for the animals, so presumably, there should be a good reason for capturing them. In early September, a BLM roundup captured 900 horses in Nevada's Jackson Mountain Wilderness Area, supposedly because there wasn't enough forage to support them. When the horses got to the Palomino Valley holding facility, they started dying because of the feed they received. What bothers wild horse advocates the most is that while the BLM felt there was only room for 200 or fewer horses in the 280,000 acre Jackson Range, they said it was still okay to have 8,000 cattle and sheep grazing in the same area.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Dry Lake HMA - Lincoln Co., Nv.
Status Unknown: Anyone?
Location/Habitat
The Dry Lake Herd Management Area (HMA) is located just a few miles west of the town of Pioche in
Lincoln County, Nevada. Pioche is a frontier mining town established in the mid 1800s. It is
approximately 30 miles south of Lund. The Dry Lake HMA encompasses 494,335 acres. The major land
features in the HMA are Dry Lake, Muleshoe, and Cave Valleys bounded on the east and west by the
Schell Creek, Pahroc, Bristol, and Fairview mountain ranges. No major streams flow in the area, but
several small artesian springs and fresh water seeps occur throughout the HMA mostly in the mountains
and along the mountain edges. The majority of the HMA is dry Great Basin desert. Elevation ranges
from approximately 4,600 feet in Dry Lake Valley to 8,929 feet on Roe Peak in the Bristol Range.
The climate is arid to semiarid, which is typical of the Great Basin. Annual average precipitation varies
from approximately 16+ inches at the higher elevations to 8 inches or less at the lower elevations. The
bulk of the precipitation occurs through early spring rains and winter snows. Temperatures range from
summer maximums in excess of 100 degrees Fahrenheit to winter lows falling well below zero.
The Dry Lake HMA sustains a variety of public land uses. These uses include: hiking, camping, hunting,
firewood cutting, off-road vehicle touring, pine nut harvesting, livestock grazing and mining. Some of the
major wildlife found in the HMA include: mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, mountain lions, coyotes,
bobcats and kit foxes. Birds include: sage grouse, blue grouse, chukar, golden eagles, several species of
neo-tropical birds, and occasionally in the winter, bald eagles. Smaller animals common to the area
include cottontail rabbits, badgers, black-tailed jackrabbits and several species of ground squirrels.
Dry Lake Herd Management Area
Lincoln County, Nevada
Vegetation
Major ecosystems/plant communities in the area are the pinyon-juniper woodland in the mountains and
the salt desert shrub communities in the valleys. The salt desert shrub community is composed of two
major vegetative zones, the shadscale and the sagebrush.
The pinyon-juniper zone, scattered throughout the area, generally occurs above 6,000 feet elevation
within and surrounding the mountain ranges. Stands of these pinyon pine and juniper trees vary in
density from scattered to closed (solid) stands. A few isolated and ancient ponderosa pine stands and
several aspen groves dot the higher elevations. This zone provides summer range for the wild horses and
elk.
The shadscale zone is found mostly in the bottom of the valleys. Plants have adapted to the very arid
saline soils of the valleys. Important plants are shadscale, winterfat, black sagebrush and black
greasewood. This zone serves as important winter range for wild horses, livestock, and a year-round
population of pronghorn antelope.
The sagebrush zone is scattered throughout the area, roughly occurring between 5,500 feet and 7,000 feet
elevation where soils are less salty and more gravelly in nature. The big sagebrush zone provides an
important source of perennial grasses and forbs from which the wildlife of the area derive a majority of
their nutrition.
Throughout each of these zones, small riparian areas (wet/green) occur with seeps, springs and creeks.
Vegetation found in these areas can be found no where else in the ecosystem due to the lack of water.
Plants include rushes, sedges, deciduous trees and willows. Riparian areas are the most essential
components to life in the cold deserts of Nevada, and every species that exists there is dependent on it.
Herd Description
The area is currently being managed for wild horses by the Ely Field Office to maintain a viable healthy
population of 94 horses. In order to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, the Dry Lake HMA is
gathered periodically to reduce the number of wild horses roaming the management area. The Dry Lake
HMA was first gathered in August 1993, and was again gathered in 1996. The total number of wild
horses removed from this management area between 1985 and 1999 is 452 horses. These horses were
placed into the national wild horse and burro adoption program. Dry Lake wild horses posses a variety
of colors with variations from white to black and all shades in between. The herd contains a
preponderance of sorrels, bays and blacks.
History of wild horses in the area before 1971 has not been very well documented. The wild horses
which inhabit the area are believed to have mostly descended from horses which escaped or were turned
loose for various reasons by ranchers, miners and settlers. There is some evidence that the Army
Remount Service was active in at least part of the area. When they were in operation during the early
1900s through 1940, remount stallions of various breeds were released on the range to upgrade the
existing herd. These stallions were mainly thoroughbreds or Morgans, but a few draft blood lines were
introduced to develop a hardier strain for pulling supply wagons and heavy artillery. Existing stallions
were sometimes shot to allow breeding dominance by the remount stallions.
Wild horses on the range today are well adapted to the harsh environment they inhabit. Dry Lake wild
horses are generally smaller and sturdier than domestic horses, though very large specimens are captured
regularly. Wild horses use the HMA on a yearlong basis. They primarily graze in the valleys during the
winter and early spring. They will stay in the pinyon-juniper zone on the lower benches during the day
and graze in the valley bottoms in the evening and early morning. During open winter when there is little
snow in the mountains, the horses will stay higher on the mountain slopes and will not move down into
the valleys. Wild horses can be found at all elevations during the warmer summer months.
The wild horses prefer to eat bunchgrasses, but may shift to a diet of mostly shrubs during the winter.
White sage (also known as winterfat) grows in the silty valley bottoms where the horses tend to
congregate in the winter months.
Foals are generally born in the spring when new green grass is plentiful. Generally, wild horses are
sound and healthy, having been subjected to the rigors of natural selection which sort out only the
toughest animals.
The herd is comprised of numerous smaller bands ranging in size from one animal (rare) to bands of
more than twenty animals. Wild horses exhibit a fairly complex social structure. Typically a band will
consist of one stallion and one to several mares with their offspring. Bands are stable family units, and
commonly reunite after a wild horse gather although they do interact and change members occasionally.
The stud horse (stallion) will vigorously defend his mares against other studs through a complex series of
gestures, body stances and physical combat. A young colt (a male) will generally stay in its family band
until it reaches two to three years of age. It may then be driven out of the band by the dominant stud or
will choose to leave the band to search for its own harem of mares. Often young studs will form bachelor
bands. Bachelor bands are very loose associations of young studs which apparently form to satisfy the
need for social contact and mutual protection. Young studs may remain in bachelor bands until they
mature enough to establish their own harem of mares. Young studs will sometimes be tolerated by other
bands but have low social status. Young fillies (females) will often stay in their family bands for longer
periods of time than the young studs, but they will eventually either wander off to seek a new band or
will be stolen by a different stud horse and incorporated into a new band.
http://www.nv.blm.gov/ely/pdf/drylake_hma.pdf
Location/Habitat
The Dry Lake Herd Management Area (HMA) is located just a few miles west of the town of Pioche in
Lincoln County, Nevada. Pioche is a frontier mining town established in the mid 1800s. It is
approximately 30 miles south of Lund. The Dry Lake HMA encompasses 494,335 acres. The major land
features in the HMA are Dry Lake, Muleshoe, and Cave Valleys bounded on the east and west by the
Schell Creek, Pahroc, Bristol, and Fairview mountain ranges. No major streams flow in the area, but
several small artesian springs and fresh water seeps occur throughout the HMA mostly in the mountains
and along the mountain edges. The majority of the HMA is dry Great Basin desert. Elevation ranges
from approximately 4,600 feet in Dry Lake Valley to 8,929 feet on Roe Peak in the Bristol Range.
The climate is arid to semiarid, which is typical of the Great Basin. Annual average precipitation varies
from approximately 16+ inches at the higher elevations to 8 inches or less at the lower elevations. The
bulk of the precipitation occurs through early spring rains and winter snows. Temperatures range from
summer maximums in excess of 100 degrees Fahrenheit to winter lows falling well below zero.
The Dry Lake HMA sustains a variety of public land uses. These uses include: hiking, camping, hunting,
firewood cutting, off-road vehicle touring, pine nut harvesting, livestock grazing and mining. Some of the
major wildlife found in the HMA include: mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, mountain lions, coyotes,
bobcats and kit foxes. Birds include: sage grouse, blue grouse, chukar, golden eagles, several species of
neo-tropical birds, and occasionally in the winter, bald eagles. Smaller animals common to the area
include cottontail rabbits, badgers, black-tailed jackrabbits and several species of ground squirrels.
Dry Lake Herd Management Area
Lincoln County, Nevada
Vegetation
Major ecosystems/plant communities in the area are the pinyon-juniper woodland in the mountains and
the salt desert shrub communities in the valleys. The salt desert shrub community is composed of two
major vegetative zones, the shadscale and the sagebrush.
The pinyon-juniper zone, scattered throughout the area, generally occurs above 6,000 feet elevation
within and surrounding the mountain ranges. Stands of these pinyon pine and juniper trees vary in
density from scattered to closed (solid) stands. A few isolated and ancient ponderosa pine stands and
several aspen groves dot the higher elevations. This zone provides summer range for the wild horses and
elk.
The shadscale zone is found mostly in the bottom of the valleys. Plants have adapted to the very arid
saline soils of the valleys. Important plants are shadscale, winterfat, black sagebrush and black
greasewood. This zone serves as important winter range for wild horses, livestock, and a year-round
population of pronghorn antelope.
The sagebrush zone is scattered throughout the area, roughly occurring between 5,500 feet and 7,000 feet
elevation where soils are less salty and more gravelly in nature. The big sagebrush zone provides an
important source of perennial grasses and forbs from which the wildlife of the area derive a majority of
their nutrition.
Throughout each of these zones, small riparian areas (wet/green) occur with seeps, springs and creeks.
Vegetation found in these areas can be found no where else in the ecosystem due to the lack of water.
Plants include rushes, sedges, deciduous trees and willows. Riparian areas are the most essential
components to life in the cold deserts of Nevada, and every species that exists there is dependent on it.
Herd Description
The area is currently being managed for wild horses by the Ely Field Office to maintain a viable healthy
population of 94 horses. In order to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, the Dry Lake HMA is
gathered periodically to reduce the number of wild horses roaming the management area. The Dry Lake
HMA was first gathered in August 1993, and was again gathered in 1996. The total number of wild
horses removed from this management area between 1985 and 1999 is 452 horses. These horses were
placed into the national wild horse and burro adoption program. Dry Lake wild horses posses a variety
of colors with variations from white to black and all shades in between. The herd contains a
preponderance of sorrels, bays and blacks.
History of wild horses in the area before 1971 has not been very well documented. The wild horses
which inhabit the area are believed to have mostly descended from horses which escaped or were turned
loose for various reasons by ranchers, miners and settlers. There is some evidence that the Army
Remount Service was active in at least part of the area. When they were in operation during the early
1900s through 1940, remount stallions of various breeds were released on the range to upgrade the
existing herd. These stallions were mainly thoroughbreds or Morgans, but a few draft blood lines were
introduced to develop a hardier strain for pulling supply wagons and heavy artillery. Existing stallions
were sometimes shot to allow breeding dominance by the remount stallions.
Wild horses on the range today are well adapted to the harsh environment they inhabit. Dry Lake wild
horses are generally smaller and sturdier than domestic horses, though very large specimens are captured
regularly. Wild horses use the HMA on a yearlong basis. They primarily graze in the valleys during the
winter and early spring. They will stay in the pinyon-juniper zone on the lower benches during the day
and graze in the valley bottoms in the evening and early morning. During open winter when there is little
snow in the mountains, the horses will stay higher on the mountain slopes and will not move down into
the valleys. Wild horses can be found at all elevations during the warmer summer months.
The wild horses prefer to eat bunchgrasses, but may shift to a diet of mostly shrubs during the winter.
White sage (also known as winterfat) grows in the silty valley bottoms where the horses tend to
congregate in the winter months.
Foals are generally born in the spring when new green grass is plentiful. Generally, wild horses are
sound and healthy, having been subjected to the rigors of natural selection which sort out only the
toughest animals.
The herd is comprised of numerous smaller bands ranging in size from one animal (rare) to bands of
more than twenty animals. Wild horses exhibit a fairly complex social structure. Typically a band will
consist of one stallion and one to several mares with their offspring. Bands are stable family units, and
commonly reunite after a wild horse gather although they do interact and change members occasionally.
The stud horse (stallion) will vigorously defend his mares against other studs through a complex series of
gestures, body stances and physical combat. A young colt (a male) will generally stay in its family band
until it reaches two to three years of age. It may then be driven out of the band by the dominant stud or
will choose to leave the band to search for its own harem of mares. Often young studs will form bachelor
bands. Bachelor bands are very loose associations of young studs which apparently form to satisfy the
need for social contact and mutual protection. Young studs may remain in bachelor bands until they
mature enough to establish their own harem of mares. Young studs will sometimes be tolerated by other
bands but have low social status. Young fillies (females) will often stay in their family bands for longer
periods of time than the young studs, but they will eventually either wander off to seek a new band or
will be stolen by a different stud horse and incorporated into a new band.
http://www.nv.blm.gov/ely/pdf/drylake_hma.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
