If you like your freedom to go out and ride motorized vehicle in the woods and those woods are near wilderness type wilds. If you are going to make a noise with this piece of equipment then, dont go in the wilderness or land that will soon be classified as "Wild Lands"
If you are going into the wilderness you should ask yourself if you are going to desturb the naturalness of the wilderness area. If it has a motor dont go in woods with it.
Please go to the link below and read the Department of the Interior's new sneak attack that was filed or released December 23, 2010. The Grinch was so busy doing this he could have missed Christmas. Things that are done in this way shouldnt be permitted but that is our federal government.
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Abbey-Restore-Protections-for-Americas-Wild-Lands.cfm
Now that you have read this you will need to read this to make you feel somewhat better. I am so glad we have a Governor who really listens to you. Read January 26, 2011
The Honorable Kenneth L. Salazar Secretary United States Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear (vtt:. Secretary,
I have grave concerns about Secretarial Order 3310 and associated policies, which appear to allow
the Bureau of Land Management (ELM) to create de facto wilderness in a state without Congressional
oversight. My concerns center on how the Order imposes a new "Wild Lands" designation for AI.M to
administer, and on the Interior's intention to conduct wilderness reviews in the BLM planning process.
The new "Wild Lands" designation places a higher priority on protection of "wilderness
characteristics," as defined by the Wilderness Act, which effectively trumps most other land uses.
Putting such a sweeping initiative in place overnight, with no Congressional direction and no
advance consultation with affected states or the public, is unfathomable. Irus approach not only
runs counter to President Obama's January 21, 2009 Memorandum entitled Transptmnry and Opm
Govemmml and similar supplemental directives, but federal law as well.
The following outlines my specific concerns with Order 3310 and accompanying planning guidance:
•
By designating ''Wild Lands," Order 3310 usurps congressional authority where the Interior improperly
acted as an administrative sULtogate for Congressionally-designated Wilderness;
•
In Alaska, where most of BLM's 86 million acres retain their wilderness values, the heavilyweighted
default protection of wilderness characteristics could easily render most ELM lands de facto wilderness
areas absent BI ,M's multiple-use direction. This would have a devastating effect on Alaska's people,
economy, and land use and access. Thus, the Order directly conflicts with the "no more" clauses in the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) as well as the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA);
•
The Order is, for all practical purposes, an end-run around ANn£A, which T predict will lead to
egregious social and economic consequences for Alaskans. Without the explicit provisions of
ANIJ,CA that apply to conservation system units, BLM Wild Lands will likely
be managed more restrictivly in Alaska than ANILCA-designated Wilderness managed by the
National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, or Forest Service;
•
'J be Order purports to seek "balance" between responsible resource development and protection
of wilderness characteristics; yet there is a strong presumption in favor of wilderness-style protection.
For that reason, this Order will have a severe chilling effect on furure proposals designed to create jobs
in resource development once an area is designated Wild Lands. This approach also contradicts BLM's
multiple use mandate under FLPMA;
•
BLM managers' discretion to determine where and when "impairment" of wilderness characteristics is
"appropriate" is subject to undue scrutiny and approval in Washington DC, where decisions tcnd to be
political and knowledge of local conditions, issues, and needs is diluted, at best;
•
I,ast, but certainly not least, BLM has no authority whatsoever to apply this policy to the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska because it is not subject to FLPMA.
These and other key issues are discussed in more depth in an attachment.
I know other western states arc similarly concerned, if not appalled, by this new policy. Our state, and likely
many others, would be best served by the former policy regarding wilderness revlcws and recommendations
that respected the preferences of State and local elected officials. Barring that, any new policy and associated
planning direction must first undergo formal State and public review and compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act, and as appropriate, the Administrative Procedure Act.
In addition, no such policy should be applicable to the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. I urge you to work
with the State Director of BI.M in Alaska to ensure Secretarial direction docs not run counter to the "balance"
already established by ANILCA for Alaska.
Governor
cc: The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, United States Senate
The Honorable Mark Begich, United States Senate
The Honorable Orrin Hatch, United States Senate
The Honorable Don Young, United States House of Representatives
The Honorable Mike Simpson, Chair, Interior Appropriations Committee,United States House of Representatives
Honorable Rob Bishop, Chair,Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands,United States House of Representatives,
The Honorable Kenneth L. Salazar January 26, 2011
The Honorable Jan Brewer, Governor, Srate of Arizona
The Honorable Matt Mead, Governor, State of Wyoming
The Honorable Butch Otter, Governor, State of Idaho
The Honorable Brian Sandoval, Governor, State of Nevada
The Honorable Gary R. Herbert, Governor, State of Utah
The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Attorney General, State of Utah
The Honorable Tom Home, Attorney General, State of Arizona
The Honorable Bruce Salzburg, Attorney Genera~ State of Wyoming
The Honorable Lawrence Wasden, Attorney General, State of Idaho
Tom Strickland, Assistant Secretary, Esh, Wildlife and Parks, United States
Department of the Interior
Kim Elton, Interior Director of Alaska Affairs, United States Department of the Interior
Pat Pourchot, Special Assistant to the Secretary for Alaska Affairs,
United States Department of the Interior
Robert Abby, Director, Bureau of Land Management
Hud Criblcy, State Director for Alaska, Bureau of J,and Management
John W. Kat, Director of State/Pederal Relations and Special Counsel, Office of the Governor
Greg Conrad, Interstate Mining Compact Commission
Western Governors Association
Conference of Western Attorney Generals
Alaska 11iners Association
Resource Development Council
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Attachment to Governor Sean Parnell's Letter
Regarding Interior Secretarial Order 3310
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)
The Order Inventory and Planning Guidance Questions and Answers (Q&A) relies on several provisions
of ANILCA to justify application in Alaska; however, the Order fails to recognize the full context of the
law and the many other provisions that contributed to the "proper balance" referred to in Section IOI(d)
of ANILCA. Specifically, the Q&A document claims that Section 1320 of ANILCA "invites" BLM to
designate wilderness in Alaska. We agree ANILCA Section 1320 provides BLM the authority to make
wilderness recommendations to Congress; however, contrary to the Order, Section 1320 specifically
prohibits the presumptive management ofland for its wilderness characteristics without Congressional
action. While the Order distinguishes between recommending designated wilderness and administratively
designating Wild Lands, there is a very fine line between the two, as the basis for both is the Wilderness Act,
and any lands set aside as Wild Lands will be managed to preserve the wilderness characteristics as defined
by Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. In addition, ANILCA Section 1326(b) states:
No further studies of Federal lands in the State ofAlaska/or the single purpose of
considering the establishment of a conservation system unit, national recreation area,
national conservation areas or for related or similar purposes shall be conducted unless
authorized by this Act or further Act of Congress. [emphasis added]
The underlined language broadens the scope of the provision beyond defined conservation system
units (CSUs). Wild Lands are essentially administrative CSUs. Choosing to preserve wilderness
character and administratively designating Wild Lands circumvents both Congress and the statutory
intent behind ANILCA Sections 1320, I 326(b), and 101(d). In addition, the onthe-ground effects of a
Wild Lands designation will likely resemble the administrative "withdrawal" that Congress prohibits
in Section 1326(a), and thus are inappropriate.
The Order also ignores ANILCA 's hard-fought provisions that protect access for traditional activities
and to resources that are the bedrock of Alaska's economy. In contrast to Congressionally-designated
conservation system units (CSUs), including Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas, many of ANILCA's
essential provisions would not apply to designated Wild Lands on general BLM lands. These provisions
include, but are not limited to:
•
Section 1102 Title XI transportation and utility systems;
•
Section 1110(a) motorized access for traditional activities and for travel to and from villages and homesites;
•
Section 111 Orb) inholder access (vs. Section 1323(b) that currently applies);
•
Section 1111 temporary access;
•
Section 1310 navigation and communication facilities;
•
Section 1314(c) taking of fish and wildlife; or
•
Section 1315(c) and (d) new and existing cabins.
The importance of these provisions cannot be over-emphasized. For example, the Title Xl process for considering
transportation and utility systems is critical in Alaska where there are few roads. Congress assumed general BLM
lands would remain available for this purpose.
While we understand such corridors are not automatically prohibited in designated Wild Lands, we have little
doubt that once wilderness characteristics have been identified
as warranting protection, applicants would be forced into an excessively costly process or to utilize alternate
routes that could end up precluding a legitimate access need.
In another example, ANILCA purposefully differentiated Section 1110(b) inholder access requirements for
CSUs (including Wilderness areas) and Section 1323(b) inholder access provisions that apply to general
BLM land. Section III O(b) gives inholders a stronger right of access in areas designated for more
restrictive management (CSUs). The stronger inholder access guarantee would not apply to inholdings
within Wild Lands on general
8LM lands, which could be highly problematic for individual land owners.
These differences, among others, illustrate that Congress understood the importance of balancing
conservation objectives with special accommodations for Alaskans.
In addition, the "proper balance" referenced in Section IOI(d) is further predicated on continued
multiple use management on BLM lands in Alaska. The Order also speaks of the need to protect
"rare opportunities for solitude ... " as a basis for the new policy. This
objective is apparently reflective of"Lower 48" circumstances where remote and primitive
areas are the exception ("rare"), not the norm. As we have seen many times over the
last several decades, cookie cutter federal land management policies do not fit in Alaska.
The Q&A (Page 6) claims "There has never been a statewide wilderness inventory in Alaska."
This assertion is offensive to those Alaskans who lived through the lengthy studies and deliberations
leading up to ANILCA. Contrary to the Q&A claim, numerous reviews,
inventories and studies were conducted pursuant to the Section l7(d)(I) and (d)(2) withdrawal
processes initiated by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
Virtually all these studies focused on BLM lands, and those deemed by Congress to have
the highest national interest for conservation purposes eventually ended up in over
100 million acres ofconservation system units, including 57 million acres of designated Wilderness.
The BLM Kobuk-Seward Resource Management Plan adopted in 2008
documents this history (Page 14):
Alaska lands were inventoried, reviewed, and studiedfor their wilderness values under thf! Wilderness
Act criteria beginning in 1971 when Congress enacled A NCSA. For eight years thereafter, the
Department evaluated national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wild and
scenic rivers, and other lands for potential designation as wilderness.
Subsequently, Congress passed ANILeA, which preserved more than /50 million acres in specially
protected conservation units. This reprf!sents more than 40% ofthe land area of the State ofAlaska,
and about 60% ofthe Federal land in Alaska. Pursuant to AN/LCA,
more than one-lhird of/he lands prf!served in conservation units, or 57 million acres, were formally
designated as wilderness.
2
Examples of such pre-ANILCA studies include a 28-volume EIS completed in 1974 and another
EIS signed by Secretary Cecil Andrus in 1978.
National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska (NPRA) The State is especially a1anned by the extension
of the Order to the National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska (NPRA). The Q&A document does not
disclose the authority under which the Department of the Interior believes
BLM may designate Wild Lands in NPRA. It simply states the BLM "must inventory land\' in
the NPR-A and may designGle Wild Lands in the NPR-A as part ofits
integrated activity planningfor the area." The State strongly disagrees that BLM has such
authority. Federal law prohibits BLM from exercising its land use planning authority under
Section 202 of FLPMA in the Reserve, and also prohibits wilderness designation
recommendations under Section 603 of FLPMA. In particular, land use planning and
management in the Reserve is subject to the requirements of the Naval Petroleum Reserves
Production Act of 1976, as amended. The Production Act provides no authority for applying the
Wild Lands Order to NPR-A, and BLM is therefore prohibited from doing so.
De Facto Wilderness Secretarial Order 3310 and the associated polices provide BLM with the
ability to create de facto wilderness without Congressional oversight. The Order is largely based
on authorities, values, and definitions in the Wilderness Act of 1964. In debates leading up to
passage of the Wilderness Act, Congress struggled with how far to extend their new mandate.
They considered automatically including "primitive" lands, roughly equivalent to the new "Lands
with Wilderness Characteristics;" but in the end developed Section 3(b) of the Act, which established
a suitability process that ended with Congressional approval. Below are some relevant remarks
by Senator Peter Dominick from the Congressional record (Senate Bill 4) leading up to passage
of the Wilderness Act:
... the difficulty is that we are grouping together and putting into one .\ystem, without any particular
legislative scrutiny, a vast area qfland known as primitive lands, which have not been classified by
the executive department or reviewed by Congress, to see whether [his is the most useful purpose
for that particular group o/public lands .
. . . Congress, should have the right to determine, after recommendafion by the executive department,
which qfthese primitive lands or which group o/these primitive lands should be brought into the wilderness
system, and that they should not all be blanketed in at the same time. [Congressional Record 109 (1963) pg. 5890]
Congress clearly rejected the option to delegate the creation of wi lderness areas to the Executive branch;
yet the creation of a new system of BLM Wild Lands is a thinly veiled effort to do just that. Department
officials argued during the press conference that since a Wild Lands designation is not permanent,
they are not "locked up." Yet conventional wisdom and experience show that once an area is
placed in a formalized protective status through a plan, altering that status or accommodating
competing uses becomes much more difficult, especially since plans are only updated every
15-20 years, sometimes less often.
3
The single-minded approach to wilderness characteristics is explicitly illustrated
in the Order (Section 4 Policy): "Where the BLM concludes that protection of
wilderness characteristics is appropriate, [he BLM shall designate these lands as .. Wild Land;
" through the planning process." [emphasis added] BLM has additional or alternative
tools to maintain opportunities for primitive recreation in combination with other public use and
or reasonable development without applying a Wild Lands designation. Funhennore, the policy
provides no standards to determine when BLM shall conclude that ''protection of wilderness
characteristics is appropriate."
Also, just as Wild Lands are essentially de facto Wilderness areas, they also mimic Wilderness
Study Areas -even though the Q&A (Page 3) attempts to dismiss the similarities. The draft
planning Chapter 6300-2 (.3) describes a process whereby the State Directors will determine
whether they will"... develop a recommendation for Congress (a designate Wild Lands as units
wilhin [he National Wilderness Preservation System."
"Balance" is Not Achieved The Order and policies purport to seek ;'balance" between responsible
resource development and protection of wilderness characteristics. As stated in the Q&A
document: "Balance will be achieved through a public process where lands with energy potential
and lands with wilderness characteristics will be identified, evaluated, and managed in accordance
with the new policy and the BLM's multiple use mandate." Yet if"balance" is the goal, the planning
policy need only require an improved inventory ofall resources and values, including wilderness
characteristics. Area managers would then retain the discretion to do the local "balancing" within
the context of a plan. Instead, the policy imposes a default decision to protect wilderness character,
unless the local manager can make a proactive determination that impairment of wilderness
characteristics is appropriate. Making wilderness character a higher priority than other land
uses is not "balance," nor is it consistent with FLPMA' s multiple use mandate.
Parenthetically, we note that the Q&A quote above. while referencing "lands with energy potential,"
is curiously silent regarding mineral resources. We understand that mining is not necessarily
precluded by the presence of wilderness characteristics; but the lack of
recognition of mineral potential in this context may be indicative of bias against mining.
To avoid a Wild Lands designation, or authorize a development project, or use that could affect
wilderness character, BLM must determine that "impairment' of such wilderness characteristics is
"appropriate." These tenns set a high bar, and force BLM to make
determinations in a negative context, rather than weighing all the options and making
a positive choice toward a desired condition. This negative context adds built-in bias
to the deliberative process.
Furthermore, it appears any anempt to steer away from wilderness protection at the State
level must be approved in Washington DC by individuals far removed from local issues and
control. This is especially problematic for Alaska where an understanding ofAlaska's geography,
economy, culture. infrastructure, resource development potential, and laws such as ANILCA
seem to be poorly understood in Washington DC.
Unfunded Mandate The Order also represents an unfunded mandate to BLM. Environmental
organizations are poised to provide inventory infonnation about wilderness characteristics.
According to an 4
Anchorage Daily News article published on November 6, 2010, the Washington DC based
conservation group, the Wilderness League, opened an office in Fairbanks, Alaska. The article
quotes the League's stated purpose as " ...securing wilderness designations in the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska ... and on other ELM lands in eastern Interior." We are concerned
BLM will have insufficient resources to review and either confirm or invalidate wilderness
characteristics "nominated" by pro-wilderness interest groups, leading to excessive protection in
areas where wilderness characteristics are already compromised. Also, based on the date of this
article, we are disappointed the administration apparently engaged in informal consultation with
environmental groups who seemed to be aware of the content of this policy before anyone else.
Affect on State Administrative Activities
The effects of a Wild Lands designation on State fish and wildlife management activities is not
clear. For example, the use of motorized or mechanical transport and equipment is restricted in
designated Wilderness; however, the new policy does not clarify whether similar restrictions
would apply to public use or State management activities in administratively designated Wild
Lands. The State of Alaska holds primary authority, jurisdiction, and responsibility to manage,
control, or regulate all fish and wildlife within federal lands, including uses thereof, unless
specifically preempted by federal law. Nothing in the Wilderness Act, FLPMA, or Order 3310
should be construed as an expansion of federal authority or oversight over this traditional State
responsibility.
Policy is Confusing and Contradictory
The Order and accompanying direction to BLM are confusing and potentially contradictory enabling
abuse by those seeking a back door way to pursue wilderness protection at the expense
of other legitimate uses. For example, the Q&A issued with Order 3310 indicates that "BLM will
consider wilderness values among the broad range ofother potential resource values and uses for
the public lands in accordance with its multiple-use mission, and make a decision about
whether and to what extent to protect those wilderness characteristics." However, the Order
directs all BLM offices to "protect those inventoried wilderness characteristics when
undertaking land use planning and when making project-level decisions by avoiding impairment
ofsuch wilderness characteristics unless BLM determines thai impairment ofwilderness characteristics
is appropriate and consistent with applicable requirements oflaw and other re!;ource considerations." The
Order instructs BLM to place a higher priority on protection of wilderness characteristics than other uses
contemplated by FLPMA's multiple use mandate.
BLM cannot manage land based on an inventory alone. Land management decisions may only be made in
accordance with an adopted plan. This intent is appropriately represented in the Q&A document, which
states "When the BLM decides to protect LWes through a land use plan decision. it will deSignate these
areas as "Wild Lands. " This determination will be made through a puhlic land use planning process .... "
(emphasis added) The Order, however, states "Where the BLM concludes that protection ofwilderness
characteristics is appropriate, the ELM shall designate these landfi as "Wild Lands" through the planning
process," which essentially directs BLM to make an either/or choice between "protection" and "impairment"
before the formal planning process has even begun. This pre-planning decision process is also mirrored in the
policy Section (.06) of the draft BLM Manual 6300-2; however, the section entitled "Procedures for Considering
LWCs in Land Use Planning" is more consistent with direction
in the Q&A document. These differences need to be reconciled to ensure that any management decisions
concerning LWC's occur within a planning process, following public review.
Many questions also arise from the Order and associated documents, including:
•
What flexibility will managers and State Directors have in determining Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
and deciding which lands are appropriate for Wild Lands designation?
•
How would the presence ofinholdings, mining claims, rights-of-way, and other valid existing rights affect the
inventory of wilderness characteristics and the likelihood of a Wild Lands designation?
•
How will the Order affect the future of outdated ANCSA Section 17(d)(I) withdrawals?
•
Will BLM conduct a "minimum requirements analysis" on State or federal administrative activities on Wild Lands?
•
Have you considered that ANILCA Section 811 sign ificantly constrains BLM's options to restrict access for
subsistence purposes, including off-highway vehicles?
•
How will long-standing recreational use of airplanes, snowmachines, and off-highway vehicles be addressed?
•
What is the relationship between a Wild Lands designation, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, the
National Landscape Conservation System, and other
classifications of land with conservation objectives?
Lack of State Consultation and Public Review In conclusion, Secretarial Order 33 10 is a dramatic departure
from all previous approaches to BLM management, especially in Alaska. As these comments illustrate, the
Order sets entirely new standards, challenges conventional wisdom regarding management of multiple use
lands, and raises legal and policy questions. As such, much more rigorous justification and analysis of
consequences and impacts are essential; along with an opportunity for formal State and public review.
Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act is also required -most likely through an environmental
impact statement given the potential foreseeable impacts.
A rigorous public review process is consistent with
•
President Obama' s January 21 , 2009 Memorandum entitled Transparency and Open Government.
•
Open Government Directive from the Office of Management and Budget directing all executive departments
and agencies to take specific actions to implement the principles stated in the President's memorandum.
•
The Department of the Interior's own Open Government Plan assembled by a multifunctional team from
across the Department.
•
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and BLM planning regulations regarding State and public involvement.
The above policies, directives, regulations, and laws require rigorous public discourse.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You need to be a member of Goldprospectorsspace to add comments!
Replies