Sixteen-year-old land use plans basis for last Bush public land fire sale

4 thoughts on “Sixteen-year-old land use plans basis for last Bush public land fire sale”

1. That Steven Hall(iburton) was able to get one last quote in for his buddies in the Bush administration.  

   Tens of thousands of acres of Colorado Cutthroat habitat remain in the sale as well as thousands of acres of big game habitat.  It is ridiculous that BLM allow these parcels to remain.

   For the past eight years BLM has refused to recognize that they have the discretion of whether or not to lease a parcel, instead treating any and all industry nominations as mandates from God.  

   To add insult to injury, leasing at a time when industry will just purchase these parcels at rock-bottom prices to hold on to for the next decade is ridiculous.  We should be maximizing the value of our assets, not leasing them during a period of devaluation.  It’s simple economics.  

   I’m hoping that Secretary Salazar suspends all quarterly lease sales for the foreseeable future so that BLM can  modernize its leasing procedures to include landowner notification on split estate parcel as well as greater scrutiny paid to the true cumulative impacts of leasing decisions.

   There’s a reason that 60 protests were filed for the lease sale, its a clarion cry for a new direction, one with foresight and an eye toward modernity.

   Secretary Salazar listened to the concerns of many regarding the last Utah and Wyoming lease sales, I sure as hell hope he does the same for his home state of Colorado.

   Log in to Reply

   1. and most of the Resource Management Plans for the BLM Field Offices that have land included in this lease sale are far older than 16 years, they all were actually completed in the mid-to-late 1980’s, which we all know what another period of great environmental awareness and stewardship.

      Log in to Reply

2. I believe that they are mandated by the MLA, but BLM/DOI (the ‘we’re just realtors, ma’am) can withhold parcels from leasing, they do–as you note–have sole discretion over that.

   However if parcels are nominated and the BLM finds that land use plans are sufficient, then its hard to just pull them (it was found in a case re: CO’s Vermillion Basin) to be ‘arbitrary and caprious’), they have to have cause to withhold parcels that the underlying land use plan identifies as available to leasing.  But if plans are outdated, or if significant new information exists–like is the case with these parcels, or might be the case re: wilderness proposals–BLM has an obligation (i.e. is required)to withhold them until land use plans are complete and updated (for instance the leases that got remanded in UT were found to rely on a new RMP that failed to consider impacts to air quality–and today Sect. Salazar pulled a bunch more and ordered that money be returned to the lessees).  New RMPs can set aside lands for other values/uses, making them not available for leasing.  

   There is no minimum acreage that has to be included in any sale but some forests have fairly recent land use plans, so its hard to suspend those (unless there are underlying flaws in the NEPA analysis–such as a stale Reasonable Foreseeable Development “RFD” scenario or, in the case in UT no analysis of air quality impacts).  

   But if BLM put up a single acre at each lease sale they could and this would fulfill the mandate to have a quarterly sale (as long as other nominated parcels were being withheld for legitimate reasons such as stale NEPA).  

   Log in to Reply

3. from the Post article on the oil and gas leases that got pulled in Utah today.  Just in case people wonder what paranoia looks like

   Ollie has much to learn about that which is so cleverly hidden behind environmentalists agenda, and the green owned fools recently elected or appointed. It is the greatest threat to our future, our economy, our safety as a “sovereign” nation. Connect the dots.

   They keep you from the resources that will aid in America’s recovery. These people use their “environmental” cover because IT is so easy to scare and fool the people. They don’t want you owning property, having a family, using your air conditioning, or living too long for that matter. They are Enemies of the People, and the STATE which is OUR government, of the people, by the people and FOR the people.

   To date, the cost of environmentalists lawsuits or their “policies’ that stall thwart or flat our prohibit energy production is 30-50% of what you pay ON TOP of the increase in all goods and services that you use. All because of a band of greens that think they are Almighty and fit to rule. The Obama green agenda includes big brother thermostats, chips, energy rations, mileage rations, and the bogus carbon cap and trade scam. The proposed policies on top of the already ridiculous restrictive laws in place played a huge part in the downturn we are experiencing today.

   This liberal rag of a paper, nor most of the MSM will report on the these outfits do, because they to are threatened with serious consequences if they go against global warming, or the environmentalists concerns. The greens hide behind a shroud of decency of environmental warriors. They are terrorists, the work with Mafia like intimidation, blackmail, force their lies on the children, getting children to be prepared to turn in their parents for energy use, they have the democrats taking their marching orders, and as such, have the press trumpeting for them.

   Your new Senator Bennett’s wife has serious ties to these radical groups, yet never came up in ANY paper and only 1 talk show had the guts to bring it up.

   There is nothing nobel about “going green” or the environmentalist agenda, it is simply a movement to restrict your rights, share the wealth, dismantle our Republic in exchange for global governance using the environmental laws as the unifier for world peace. How quaint…

   Log in to Reply