# BLM getting gutted by congress



## highbrace (Mar 27, 2007)

All:

congress (republicans ) have introduced two resolutions getting voted on THIS WEEK!. They are SJ Res 15 and HJ Res 44. These two "bills" would gut the BLM's and public's imput in having a transparent process in designating lands, rivers, water shed, all lands/rivers we enjoy. These "bills" would get rid of that process. CALL/EMAIL your reps and senators to vote against these. Time to unite and save what we all love to visit, see, float on, hike over. 
HighBrace


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Here's how to get your congressional representative's number.


----------



## theusualsuspect (Apr 11, 2014)

So H.J. Res 44 is disapproving the transparency and public input that was made a federal regulation in December of 2016? So it's going back to the way that it's been since 1976?

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior relating to “Resource Management Planning” (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 89580 (December 12, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-12/html/2016-28724.htm

I couldn't find anything relating to the BLM under S.J. Res 15. 

Not arguing just looking for clarification or an explanation from someone much smarter than I am.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

So the rule is summarized in 81 Fed. Reg. 89580 as:



> The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is amending its
> regulations that establish the procedures used to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The final rule affirms the important role of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, Indian tribes, and the public during the planning process and enhances opportunities for public involvement and transparency during the preparation of resource management plans. The final rule will enable the BLM to more readily address resource issues at a variety of scales, such as wildfire, wildlife habitat, appropriate development, or the demand for renewable and non-renewable energy sources, and to respond more effectively to change. The final rule emphasizes the role of using high quality information, including the best available scientific information, in the planning process; and the importance of evaluating the resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions at the onset of planning. Finally, the final rule makes revisions to clarify existing text and to improve the readability of the planning regulations.


Here's where the rule was published in the Federal Register.

I'm not exactly sure of the effect on the current public process. 
What this legislation would do is to negate the rule and thus pare back the process by which the BLM solicits public input for resource and land management plans (these are often accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement examining the consequences for the land in question and the population living there or using it for recreation). The rule also promotes using "the best available scientific information in the planning process." Conservation and citizens groups (like American Whitewater) routinely use the public input process to comment on BLM land management actions. As an example, many of us provided public comments on how we'd like to see the Upper Colorado River managed a few years ago when the Resource Management Plan for the Upper C was being updated. This rule doesn't say anything about not being able to use the resources, doesn't limit drilling or mining. It just says we should think about how we do those things, make the process transparent, and that the public should have a say in it.

So basically, if you want transparency in how the government manages our lands, the ability to provide input in the decision process, and for the managing agencies to use the best science when developing their plans, these bills are a bad thing.

Here's the Senate bill (FYI - Colorado's Cory Gardner is a sponsor)

Here's the House Bill, virtually the same as the Senate. (FYI - Colorado's Scott Tipton is a sponsor)

-AH


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Essentially HJ res 44 would eliminate the new BLM planning process 2.0 which mandates a much higher level of public input when formulating management plans. It's not an extreme setback, but it will make it much more difficult again for the everyday citizen to have their voice heard when deciding how to manage their local public lands... and will have waisted all the time and effort put into developing the updated planning process.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

From what I could see of the final rule published in the Federal register, this was an improvement that is being gotten rid of. I can not say for 100% though, as I did not make it through all 91 pages the BLM has posted in the register. 
Unless there is something in those 91 pages that's bad, scrapping it seems to be the wrong thing to do. I kept randomly skimming, and nothing raised a red flag for me. If anyone finds something, I would love to know.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Can't help but wonder if the reason some lawmakers are trying to get rid of it, is that they DON'T want the public to know or interfere, when a particular stakeholder is pushing for there own interests. A stakeholder that also makes mega Campaign contributions.


----------



## TonyM (Apr 17, 2006)

So there is not going to be anyone to stop you, so do what you want. But maybe pack a gun.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

TonyM said:


> So there is not going to be anyone to stop you, so do what you want. But maybe pack a gun.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

The description on page 89581 of a new "regulatory requirement" that initiates earlier consultation with tribes makes me wonder if these states are trying to avoid expanded tribal advocacy like we saw for Bears Ears. Tribes have historically been treated tangentially with management of non-tribal BLM land and we see that slowly changing. There are definitely proposals that benefit from cumbersome hurdles to diverse stakeholder involvement. 

Seems like these joint resolutions aren't draconian but do seem to reverse efforts to invite more stakeholders and information earlier in the process. Not shocking but disappointing.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

According to an email i got from the Outdoor Alliance, HJ Res 44 passed the House late yesterday, and next will go to the Senate under the name S.J. Res 15.
If you do not want this resolution to pass, which gets rid of BLM 2.0, it appears the one thing you can do is call your Senator. If you do not have the number, you can get it by calling 202-224-3121.
As far as I can see, BLM 2.0 was really a good thing if you want increased transparency, and say in how the BLM manages our public lands.

Just thought some of you would want to know.

Best,
Matt


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

At the risk of monopolizing this thread, does anyone know where you can keep an eye on the legislation that is being proposed in congress? This Congress more than ever, I feel the need to do my duty as a responsible citizen, and keep up with what is being proposed, especially when it comes to conservation.
Thank you for any info!


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

mattman said:


> At the risk of monopolizing this thread, does anyone know where you can keep an eye on the legislation that is being proposed in congress?



Funny you should ask that, Matt. Here's a link to the GoogleDoc that keeps track of the shitstorm of bills gutting environmental protections, it has congress contacts, etc.

During the Bush administration, we had "outrage du jour," they're coming about every hour these days...

5 or 10 minutes a day, be polite, state the bill number and keep it to the point and don't worry about long speeches to the congressional staffer whose daddy owns a steel mill or oil company.

Here's your fun fact for the day about regulations: 1) There a cost-benefit analysis done for just about every one that's in existence, along with rule-making that listens to all sides, including the regulated community. 2) Each year "The Clean Air Act... averts more than 230,000 preventable deaths, 86,000 emergency room visits, and more than 16 million lost days of work or school every year. That saves the country up to $2 trillion annually, or 30 times as much as it costs to comply with our clean air laws. " 

There's also a very substantial part of the economy helping industry comply with those regulations. 

Don't forget to support groups like the NRDC

Democracy - it's not a spectator sport. 

Speed dial - a lot easier than typing out the letters like we used to do.

-AH


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

FYI - if you'd like to contact Senator Gardner personally, his email address is:

[email protected]

Feel free to copy and paste this in an email to him (or you could just ask him to withdraw his sponsorship and oppose the bill):



> Senator Gardner,
> 
> I am troubled by your co-sponsorship of S. J. RES. 15. As a Coloradoan who enjoys the quality of life afforded by access and use of public lands, I was heartened to hear that the BLM land use planning process was going to be made more transparent and accessible to citizens and local and State governments by the recent rule published in the Federal Register enacting “BLM 2.0” or 81 Fed. Reg. 89580 (December 12, 2016).
> 
> ...


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Thank you for the Link's Andy!!
I received a reply from Cory Gardner in relation to a different bill which I voiced my opinion about, he said how important public lands and the environment are to him, so I am very interested in what he has to say about sponsoring S.J. Res 15, as this seems damaging to both.

Thanks again!
God bless America, let's continue to save some of it.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

mattman said:


> ...he said how important public lands and the environment are to him, so I am very interested in what he has to say about sponsoring S.J. Res 15, as this seems damaging to both.


I think he means to say they're important to him as revenue sources for his pals in the oil, mining, and timber industries that funded his campaign in 2014.

Thanks for getting involved! Now go make some phone calls!

-AH


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

An additional comment regarding the cost versus benefits analysis Andy referred to.From Robert Reich's list of the 10 Biggest Economic Lies,#4-"We'd have a stronger economy if we had fewer regulations".Untrue,As I said before,corporations exist for one reason only-to make a profit and thereby increase the value of their shares,not to protect the public.Yet public health and safety,fairness to small investors,and a sustainable environment are all public goods.Without them we'd be poorer for it.Regulations make sense where the benefits to the public exceed the costs,and regulations should be designed to maximize those benefits and minimize those costs.Period.."

Now we have a plan to cut 2 regulations for every new regulation implemented...about the same level of thoughtless simplicity as Herman Cain's " nine nine nine" tax plan.


----------

