19 Western governors protest Zinke’s plan to change Interior boundaries

[Ben Lamb]

This will leave a mark. I'm not opposed to moving BLM out to Denver or even someplace like Reno, but to advance this without even talking to Governors about how to do it seems to be rather imperious, and impetuous. Glad to see all 19 governors standing up together here.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...ernors-protest-zinkes-plan-to-change-interior

A group of 19 governors of Western states are protesting Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's plan to overhaul the department, saying he has not sought their recommendations.

The bipartisan Western Governors Association sent a letter to Zinke on Feb. 1 asking for a delay on the plan, according to The Associated Press on Thursday.

Zinke wants to reorganize the department's regional management system, shifting authority away from state boundaries toward new ecologically-determined regions across the country.

Zinke's plan would divide the U.S. into 13 geographic regions, retooling the department to focus on unique environmental factors in place of the current state-based system.

In the letter, the governors said that the association asked Zinke in recent months to consult them if he planned to reshuffle the regional management structure. The governors said that Zinke had not consulted them on the proposed changes.

“Western governors expect to be treated as the chief executives of a sovereign level of government, not as stakeholders,” the association's executive director Jim Ogsbury told the AP.

"We’re looking at reshaping our current bureau-based regional system of management and moving to a system based on ecosystems, watersheds and science, rather than the current state or regional boundaries,” Zinke explained in a video message to the department in January.

In the letter, the state leaders asked how the plan, which would divide management of some states in up to three regions, would affect how the department interacts with state authorities.

The governors that signed the letter represent South Dakota, Hawaii, Alaska, Colorado, California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, and North Dakota.

The governors “are welcome to share their ideas and opinions with the secretary or their staff are also encouraged to reach out to the secretary’s staff," Interior Department spokeswoman Heather Swift told the AP.

The association has yet to receive a response from the secretary, a spokesman for the association told the AP.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Boy oh boy does that plan of his sound like one major mess waiting to happen!

 

[mtnrunner260]

Wonder if this rearrangement will be his big announcement tomorrow?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Wonder if this rearrangement will be his big announcement tomorrow?

No, I think he will take his boss's lead, round up all the wild horses, burros, Bundy's cattle and have a big parade at Bears Ears, with the DOI on his big paint horse leading with his Zinke DOI flag swirling in the wind.

 

[BuzzH]

Wonder if this rearrangement will be his big announcement tomorrow?

If he's at work...

I can tell you that this is going to be an expensive, disruptive deal...and makes very little sense.

Sounds a lot like something a DC bureaucrat would do.

 

[onpoint]

"We’re looking at reshaping our current bureau-based regional system of management and moving to a system based on ecosystems, watersheds and science, rather than the current state or regional boundaries,”

On it's face, this sounds fairly intelligent.....................................................................................................................

 

[Sytes]

Must have been a typo... Missouri (Not part of the WGA) and Montana who is in the WGA.

Pretty interesting. I'm not opposed to reorganization though consulting with the leading States who have the largest share of the lands of topic would have been expected.

How long has the State boundry method of Fed land management been in play? Is this specific to BLM or all DOI regulated land? I don't follow WGA's claim of "Sovereign level" as the premise of following the geographic view seems a better approach than State boundries,
Seems the State's ability to continue as Chief Executives would remain within their areas unless it effects the, "ecosystems, watersheds and science" of the land itself. Not bad in theory. Seems the WGA members felt slighted... Left out of the process, Rightfully so to a reasonable degree.
Would be interesting to have MTMiller's take on this. How may this reshape range management or does it? Having to involve state bordered State decisions vs regional seems to hold a more streamlined setting. Not sharing fact... Simply my take on this.

 

[Ben Lamb]

"We’re looking at reshaping our current bureau-based regional system of management and moving to a system based on ecosystems, watersheds and science, rather than the current state or regional boundaries,”

On it's face, this sounds fairly intelligent.....................................................................................................................

It does, and that was the approach to BLM 2.0, the Sage Grouse plans, and other programs and policies from the former administration. Yet those had to go.

For a more rigid and less collaborative approach that is likely to cost millions and have limited benefit in it's current form.

 

[onpoint]

"..............Yet those had to go". So you're saying that this may be more nefarious than face value? Hmm.........

 

[elkduds]

Want to understand what motivates Zinke's dark overlord? Just ask how any effort or decision will benefit the extractive industries. The motivation for regionalizing BLM management is to nationalize extraction decisions, taking influence and control away from states. Obvious from the governors' responses.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Want to understand what motivates Zinke's dark overlord? Just ask how any effort or decision will benefit the extractive industries. The motivation for regionalizing BLM management is to nationalize extraction decisions, taking influence and control away from states. Obvious from the governors' responses.

To build off of this: Almost every Governor with a coastline is pissed at the Secretary as well for his ham-fisted approach to offshore drilling.

I think he's up to 30 or 35 Govs who are not pleased. It's strong work to get to this level of dislike in such a short period of time.

 

[rtraverdavis]

It's strong work to get to this level of dislike in such a short period of time.

I’ve only been paying attention to public land issues for the last couple years, so I’m wondering—are all successions of Interior Secretary so extreme the executive branch goes from one party to the other? The amount of helterskelter change this guy has been pushing seems ridiculous to me. Is this normal?

 

[Cerebral Stalker]

Didn't even ask for their recommendations. Come on!!! Zinke can't just shove this down the throat of the states without even considering them in the equation like he's the king or something. Sounds like a great way to get a piece of policy shot down and make a whole bunch of enemies in the meantime. Disregarding the policy itself, this is just F- people skills and collaboration.

 

[onpoint]

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politic...gest-civil-service-change-40-years/315981002/

Work for the DOI (for instance)? Is this becoming a connect the dots affair? Or maybe I'm just too cynical .........

 

[1_pointer]

DOI is not the only dept looking to restructure, possibly to a more regional vs. state based approach. I'm not against it, but the devil's definitely in the details. I've long thought that a restructuring to a regional approach would happen and in ways makes sense; especially for federal land management or natural resource agencies.

 

[MTGomer]

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politic...gest-civil-service-change-40-years/315981002/

Work for the DOI (for instance)? Is this becoming a connect the dots affair? Or maybe I'm just too cynical .........

"Hire the best" it says.

That's not going to work in the DOI.
I'm not saying I'm the best, but I'd say I'm average. I just looked at (did not consider applying, just read the posting) a DOI job that I'm qualified for and would be similiar to my private sector job. It would be a $45k/yr pay cut for me, and for the 'best' it would be much more.
How are you going to get the best by offering that?

 

[LCH]

"Hire the best" it says.

That's not going to work in the DOI.
I'm not saying I'm the best, but I'd say I'm average. I just looked at (did not consider applying, just read the posting) a DOI job that I'm qualified for and would be similiar to my private sector job. It would be a $45k/yr pay cut for me, and for the 'best' it would be much more.
How are you going to get the best by offering that?

I've never worked for DOI, but most folks that fill the postings I see on USAJobs make significantly more than the advertised salary. That is usually base pay, doesn't take into account locality %, retainment pay, step and grade increases over time, etc. Benefits are also much better than most private sector jobs, which often makes up for a potentially lower paycheck.

In the Dept. I work for, most have masters degrees and we have several doctorates right here in my building. I don't know if they're the "best" but nobody's tripping over themselves to go work somewhere else.

 

[Nameless Range]

In the Dept. I work for, most have masters degrees and we have several doctorates right here in my building. I don't know if they're the "best" but nobody's tripping over themselves to go work somewhere else.

I think it is entirely dependent upon the position, but I see this frequently in the public sector. Some jobs are incredibly difficult to fill because there is such disparity with the private sector in terms of pay. Others though, even when significantly below private sector pay, are far more competetive than 90% of open private sector jobs in the same field. I've seen "the best" compete for a job that didn't pay well at all relative to the private sector. Interesting work, location, and lurking perks(flexible schedule, not having to bill for time, good benefits, etc.) can offset tens of thousand of dollars in wages.

To the OP, it seems that reorganizing to a non-state based model could cause friction, because certain activities on BLM still have to jump through hoops specific to the state they are in -State Sage Grouse Plans for example. Not knowing any details, it does seem that a move west would make sense. I'm tired of the phrase, "those DC bureaucrats", and "those Denver Bureaucrats" would be a welcome change.

 

[Jwill]

Something like this?

 

[mtmiller]

ggggggggggggggg