Public Involvement in Land Use Planning Under Attack

[Ben Lamb]

Next week, Congress will be looking to eliminate the BLM 2.0 planning rule which expanded public involvement and input in public land management. They are looking to use what is called a CRA or Congressional Review Act to elimiante the rule, and take land use planning back to roughly the mid 1980's.

You can learn more about the 2.0 rule and what it does for sportsmen here:

https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/planning2

http://www.trcp.org/2016/05/12/blms-planning-rule-public-lands-will-give-locals-voice-not-less/

This is the way things will go in Congress, and with the administraton. We will win the phyrric victories, while the regulatory mechanisms we use to ensure better land management are eliminated or rolled back.

Take that same vigor and enthusiasm you showed against the Chaffetz bill, and fight like hell for your right to engage in management decisions on public land.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Article from Ammoland on the issue:

http://www.ammoland.com/2017/02/con...ans-say-public-land-management/#axzz4XYIpIlhE

 

[onpoint]

while the regulatory mechanisms we use to ensure better land management are eliminated or rolled back.

Remember, that was one of Donald's pre-election promises:
For every new regulation, two will be eliminated.
Gee, maybe some of the "rolled back" regulations may have an indirect or direct impact on Sportsmens/Womens resources.
Elections have consequences.

 

[teamhoyt]

In a time when so many people are against government oversight why would legislators be proposing to remove public interaction with the federal land managers? Is the end run to further aggravate people and make another run at plt when the timing and attitudea change?

The Trcp has a link to email your legislators and let them know to keep public input in land management issues and let them know to properly fund land agencies to improve our public lands

 

[Ben Lamb]

Part of the issue is the zeal of congress to eliminate as much of President Obama's regulatory legacy as much as it is to make it easier for oil, gas and mining companies to do whatever they want on public lands.

The other part is that congress has no clue what it is doing, or how to govern since they've spent the last 6 years simply saying no and stomping their feet like spoiled children while obstructing President Obama.

Now that they 're in charge, they don't know what to do or how to do it, but by god, they're gonna do something.

 

[1_pointer]

In a time when so many people are against government oversight why would legislators be proposing to remove public interaction with the federal land managers? Is the end run to further aggravate people and make another run at plt when the timing and attitudea change?

The Trcp has a link to email your legislators and let them know to keep public input in land management issues and let them know to properly fund land agencies to improve our public lands

For folks interested in commenting on this, the TRCP site and email (once you sign up to get them) has a nifty "app" for contacting your senators. It is largely boilerplate, but does have a section in which to personalize your message. So sign up or log on and use it. It's stupid easy. I know they get to their destination as I received a reply from one of my senators this morning regarding my comments sent this way. Here's the link:
https://secure3.convio.net/trcp/sit...&NONCE_TOKEN=CB0A19F0E36C43C2640A088530D65FE6

The most troubling for me if this goes the Congressional Review Act is that it would greatly eliminate the ability to change the planning process. I personally do think there are problems with the planning process, both current and proposed, but not being able to change them for essentially ever is not a good move.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I've also read that if the CRA is used to roll back this plan, it also means that the agency is barred from implementing this plan or any plan substantially similar to it in the future unless specifically requested by Congress. Does anyone know anything more about this?

The co sponsors of this include representatives from nearly every western state, and they are arguing that it somehow takes power away from locals in the planning process. I don't know how they are arriving at that interpretation.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I've also read that if the CRA is used to roll back this plan, it also means that the agency is barred from implementing this plan or any plan substantially similar to it in the future unless specifically requested by Congress. Does anyone know anything more about this?

The co sponsors of this include representatives from nearly every western state, and they are arguing that it somehow takes power away from locals in the planning process. I don't know how they are arriving at that interpretation.

Yes. It's a nuclear option. It ties the hands of the Secretary of Interior so that essentially you would revert back to management schemes from decades ago, when James Watt was the Sec. of Interior.

I would hope that Zinke is working on this and trying to get Congress to quit acting like children and get on with the serious business of governing.

The spin from congress is a flat out lie. BLM 2.0 increases public involvement and places recreation on the same level as development. That's the real reason they want to eliminate it - it gives the public too much power.

 

[Oak]

Ben, perhaps you can explain the opposition to the Planning 2.0, because I know it is out there. It is largely not supported by local governments in rural areas, and I think it has something to do with the decision-making being moved from local BLM offices to regional or national offices. I confess that I did not follow closely the process of implementing 2.0, so I'm not sure what the significant changes are. But I know there are a lot of people who do not support it, including some Hunttalkers. So can you explain exactly what it is about 2.0 that is causing the angst, in real terms? Not "to make it easier for oil, gas and mining companies to do whatever they want on public lands" which, right or wrong, sounds like rhetoric.

 

[Oak]

Ben, perhaps you can explain the opposition to the Planning 2.0, because I know it is out there. It is largely not supported by local governments in rural areas, and I think it has something to do with the decision-making being moved from local BLM offices to regional or national offices. I confess that I did not follow closely the process of implementing 2.0, so I'm not sure what the significant changes are. But I know there are a lot of people who do not support it, including some Hunttalkers. So can you explain exactly what it is about 2.0 that is causing the angst, in real terms? Not "to make it easier for oil, gas and mining companies to do whatever they want on public lands" which, right or wrong, sounds like rhetoric.

Ben, or anyone else that can provide the CliffsNotes version of the changes that 2.0 implements which have some people concerned?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ben, or anyone else that can provide the CliffsNotes version of the changes that 2.0 implements which have some people concerned?

This.

I have no problem becoming outraged, but, I like to have a bit of knowledge and understanding to back up my outrage.

You never know when a sitting member of Congress is going to attempt to call you out on your outrage, and you better have some ducks in a row.

 

[Ben Lamb]

here is the testimony from The Wyoming Stockgrowers Association:

http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/publ...eases?ID=EEE72DA8-C476-4229-8101-3C295DC68538

From what I can tell, the thrust of the opposition is that it requires planning be done on a landscape level, as opposed to individual districts, so there is more coordination between district offices, with a heavier lift from regional offices to help coordinate that effort. From a conservation perspective, I would think that looking at landscape impacts versus simply looking at project specific issues makes a lot more sense, especially when we look at issues related to sage brush ecosystems and the impact that development can have on them (For example - the Jonah & Pinedale Anticline Fields).

Personally, I think that the concern about having a coordinated effort to manage land for sustainability is a little bit like saying we wouldn't want to diagnose all engine problems if we think it's just a belt and not a leaky head gasket.

 

[joelweb]

In a time when so many people are against government oversight why would legislators be proposing to remove public interaction with the federal land managers? Is the end run to further aggravate people and make another run at plt when the timing and attitudea change?

Quite frankly, this specific rollback is being pushed by county commissioners who are opposed to increased public involvement in public lands management. Local governments receive special cooperator privileges with public lands management, and they see increased agency transparency and public engagement as a threat to their power.

 

[joelweb]

Cliff Notes Here:
• The revised BLM planning rule will increase agency transparency and opportunities for public involvement, something that nearly all stakeholder groups have been calling for.
• Under the old planning process, the public submitted scoping comments which seemed to go into some black box, then two or three years later the BLM issued a draft RMP out of the blue. This process resulted in increased public frustration and excessive legal action at the end of the planning process.
• With the new planning rule, the BLM provides three additional opportunities for public involvement at the start of the planning process. These include the public envisioning process, assessment process, and the issuance of preliminary alternatives. These extra steps will enable the BLM to gather public opinions and the best available information at the start of the planning process and vet the preliminary alternatives before issuing the draft RMP. These upfront steps should increase public satisfaction in the planning process and create more efficiency at the back end by reducing conflict.
• The “assessment” process on the front end of planning provides the best opportunity to identify critically important habitats for wildlife, including migration corridors that have all but been ignored by BLM in the past, intact landscapes, and areas important for sportsmen.
• The final BLM planning rule made several changes to accommodate requests from county commissioners and state governments, including 1- making the special cooperator status requirements more closely resemble FLPMA, 2- publishing notices more frequently in the federal register, and 3- lengthening the duration of comment periods
• The notion that the final rule provides less opportunity for local governments to have meaningful and significant input, in violation of FLPMA, is simply not true. In fact, local governments will have even more opportunity to engage throughout the planning process (three additional opportunities for each and nothing lost). Governors will get 30 opportunities to be involved in an RMP revision process, and local and tribal cooperators will get 27 opportunities to be involved. The general public will get 12 opportunities.
• A Congressional Review Act repeal of Planning 2.0 would eliminate Planning 2.0, revert planning to the outdated and problematic 1983 planning rule, and likely eliminate the BLM’s authority to revise their planning regulations ever again in the future. Once utilized, the CRA prevents new rules from being developed that are “substantially the same.” Given the nature of planning regulations, it would be hard to create something substantially different.

Take Action Here:
https://secure3.convio.net/trcp/sit...&NONCE_TOKEN=CB0A19F0E36C43C2640A088530D65FE6

 

[Ben Lamb]

That last point is crucial: Congress would be tying the Secretary of the Interior's hands on any planning for the future. This would cement top-down regulation that could only be changed by an act of congress, rather than through the usual changes through rule and regulation as they have been done for 30 years.

Enacting the CRA on this would make Congress the manager of our public lands. Good bye to any science-based management, hello to strictly politically based management.

 

[Oak]

Thank you, Joel.

 

[teamhoyt]

That last point is crucial: Congress would be tying the Secretary of the Interior's hands on any planning for the future. This would cement top-down regulation that could only be changed by an act of congress, rather than through the usual changes through rule and regulation as they have been done for 30 years.

Enacting the CRA on this would make Congress the manager of our public lands. Good bye to any science-based management, hello to strictly politically based management.

It seems like if this gets through it would open the door for another round of "the damn Feds screw us again ". Local frustration and land agencies having no authority will then soften the market on control of federal lands.

It's seems its that scenario or that congress is giving the public land advocates the middle finger saying if you don't want the state to manage these lands you will when we're thr with them.

I May be reading to much into this but I can't see a good motivation behind it.
Help me understand if I'm messed up.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It seems like if this gets through it would open the door for another round of "the damn Feds screw us again ". Local frustration and land agencies having no authority will then soften the market on control of federal lands.

It's seems its that scenario or that congress is giving the public land advocates the middle finger saying if you don't want the state to manage these lands you will when we're thr with them.

I May be reading to much into this but I can't see a good motivation behind it.
Help me understand if I'm messed up.

A lot of it comes down to, if Obama was fer it, I'm again' it.

 

[Oak]

A lot of it comes down to, if Obama was fer it, I'm again' it.

I don't think that's the case. Just FYI, when you get dismissive like that it makes me suspicious. Right or wrong, I think it has more to do with this (from your linked testimony above):

“As written, Planning 2.0 will effectively ignore expert knowledge in both local agency offices – and among local land users – and I believe compromise the ability of state and local governments to represent the people and resources in their own districts. In an effort to make its goal of a transition to what’s called ‘landscape-scale’ planning, BLM proposes to shift authority from local and district offices to Washington, D.C.,” said Barrasso.

“Now I appreciate that the BLM wants to make management plans more cohesive among local offices, but developing sweeping, landscape-scale plans from the director’s office in Washington, D.C., I believe, will result in the failure to use invaluable, localized knowledge of ecosystems and resources,” Barrasso continued. “This change would result in plans that don’t reflect on-the-ground realities and ultimately will disenfranchise knowledgeable local agency employees.”

I'm not saying 2.0 is bad. I just wanted to understand why many locals are against it. I think I better understand their position now, so thank you Ben and Joel. Understanding the opposition's concerns is a good thing, IMO, and not something to be dismissed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I was being puckish.

The fears, IMO are unfounded and don't reflect what is in the 2.0 rule. If you look at the opposition, it's the same folks who generally oppose things that sporting groups support. The rhetoric doesn't match up to what is in the decision. Joel did a good job of lining out the issue, and if it truly does come down to the opposition not wanting to look at landscale-level planning versus the usual way of doing business, which most sporting groups would agree hasn't been true mulitple use as it relates to ensuring the conservation of wildlife habitat, or that the decisions would come from D.C., then I would have expected them to raise the same concerns when Bush was president, and the VP was calling the Wyoming BLM office to make sure their leasing numbers were satisfactory.