Bureau of Land Management "OK" With Leasing in Wayne National Forest

No sense in me stating what an article can do more effectively. Please read below.

Boo Hoo lefitist environmentalists!

BLM Finds “No Significant Impact” in Wayne National Forest from Oil & Gas Leasing

Over the last several months, the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been deliberating whether to offer 40,000 acres of minerals located in Monroe, Noble, and Washington Counties in Ohio for competitive lease sale for oil and natural gas development under the surface of the Wayne National Forest (WNF). Last week the agency released its long-awaited Environmental Assessment (EA) announcing that it found “no significant impact” that would result from a decision to move forward with these lease sales. An Athens News headline put it well explaining, “Leasing to drillers won’t hurt national forest.”  Specifically, District Manager Dean Gettinger of the BLM said,

“Based upon a review of the EA and supporting documents, I have determined that the Proposed Action is not a major Federal action, and will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively, with other actions in the general area.”

While the final EA will not be issued until public comment has been accepted for the draft, this is welcome news.

BLM is mandated by federal law to develop our nation’s minerals, under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Federal Land and Management Act of 1976, the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987and the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  According to the WNF document, the BLM clearly states that,

The leasing of federal mineral is vital to the United States as it seeks to maintain adequate domestic production of this strategic resource. The oil and gas leasing program managed by the BLM encourages the sustainable development of domestic oil and gas reserves which reduced the dependence of the United States on foreign sources of energy as part of its multiple-use and sustainable yield mandate.” (emphasis added)

The U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the BLM have a very long history involving oil and gas development. The WNF has been managing drilling for nearly a century and continues to do so today with over 1,200 active wells on the surface of national forests.

Property Rights Are At the Heart of the WNF Debate

Unlike most other national forests, the WNF is not comprised of contiguous acreage. It is a patchwork of acreage adjacent to privately held minerals, and even encompasses private minerals under the surface of the WNF. In fact, 59 percent of rights to the minerals beneath the WNF are actually privately owned and scattered throughout the forest. This makes it virtually impossible for private landowners to have their minerals developed if federal leasing is not allowed. Given this unique “split-estate” scenario—where the federal government owns the surface rights and private landowners own the minerals beneath the majority of land—it is easy to see how this debate is really one that centers around property rights.

This focus on property rights was especially clear over the last few months as landowners turned out in force when the national Keep It in the Ground movement parachuted into local communities, disrespecting our laws, our regulators, and most importantly the local men and women who actually live and work in the Buckeye State.  Throughout the rounds of public meetings that resulted in over 3,400 public comments, landowners, elected officials, unions, economic development groups, and concerned citizens stood up against the Keep It in the Ground organizers. These locals told BLM they support leasing in the forest and the protection of their property rights.  They asked the agency to base its decision on sound science and facts instead of the emotional rhetoric coming from outsiders that don’t speak for them.

Latest EA Shows Local Voices Were Heard and Science Trumped Rhetoric

At the end of the day, it appears the BLM not only heard these voices, but also took into consideration discussions held with native tribes, and consultation and external scoping with other coordinating state and federal regulatory bodies. The result is an Environmental Assessment that is extremely comprehensive and lays out a compelling case as to why leasing should be permitted to move forward.

Further, the EA also found that the Proposed Action is in compliance with the Final Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Wayne National For..., which incorporated a Supplemental Information Report (SIR) that was added to the plan in 2012. This should not be surprising for anyone who has actually read the SIR given that the most recent EA was essentially conducted as an added layer to already existing environmental reviews that had been previously made by the U.S. Forest Service, the Wayne National Forest, and the Bureau of Land Management. Recalling that activist groups completely discounted the SIR and its merit only a few months ago when they submitted their comments, it’s clear their case did not hold water, yet again.

Table ii highlights the potential impacts leasing in WNF (Proposed Action) would have on forest resources. Obviously, by not allowing leasing (No Action Alternative) there would be “no effect” to these resources, but also notice that there are “no direct impacts from leasing” on every one of them, resulting in “minor cumulative impacts” overall to the forest system.

1BLM-WNF-Tableii2BLM-WNF-Tableii3

Now, also on the chart is a category for the ‘Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice’ impact to the forest.  Unlike the other categories highlighted in the above, in this section, which was included following intense public outcry from landowners, BLM found that there will in fact be negative impacts if leasing is prohibited. According to the BLM the decision not to lease would result in:

“Loss, reduction, or delay of revenues generated through leasing and royalties.”

BLM goes on to say that should leasing be allowed,

Leasing would generate revenues that would be shared with counties. Reasonably foreseeable development may generate additional royalties, economic stimulation in form of additional employment, output, and support services. Environmental justice concerns are not expected to occur, since private landowners have the option to influence lease terms for operators using their lands to access federal minerals.”

In other words, oil and gas development within the WNF would have very minor, if any, environmental impacts, yet would be a huge benefit to the local economy.  The BLM’s recent decision to move forward with leasing through their Proposed Plan is in fact consistent with its mandate from Congress, and is what would be expected with findings such as this.  An added bonus is that this decision comes after the majority stood up to the national (and international) groups that are calling the shots behi....  After all, as the Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewell recently pointed out,

“We are a nation that continues to be dependent on fossil fuels… It oversimplifies a very complex situation to suggest that one could simply cut off leasing or drilling on public lands and solve the issue of climate change.  You can’t just cut it off over night and expect to have an economy that is in fact the leader of the world.”

Views: 457

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Make no mistake I am in favor in drilling on the Wayne.    When I have read rapidly  over the 100 page finding there are a couple of things that bother me very much.   Yes, money will be shared with the counties which I want to happen, however it is only 25% of the royalty that is made.   Also within that document it refers to the percentage of royalties as 12 and a half percent.     Now receiving 25%  of 12 and a half percent is less than receiving 25% of 20% royalties which is the rate much of the private property in the Wayne area in Monroe County was leased for.    Indeed I want to see the drilling done in the forest, but the share back to the counties is not enough and the royalty percent is not enough.  

I may be wrong, but I believe 12.5% is standard on land owned by the BLM if Wayne is owned by BLM.  Other areas such as the lakes/parks in counties north of Wayne have been leased for 17 or 20% if I am not mistaken.  Names of the lakes are escaping me right now.  Atwood maybe?  But I think that land would be owned by the county which wouldn't be bound to standard BLM lease terms?

I'm sure someone knows the answer to this better than me.

G. H. yes 12.5% is standard and what I am complaining about.   The Wayne is a patchwork of ownership.   Many individual private landowners own property BOTH surface and minerals bordering acreage that the WNF owns and have leased for the 20% range.   Monroe and Washington counties will get lower revenues returned to their county governments because of this standard percentage.   WNF has an area that they designate forest land, but they DO NOT own all the acreage within that solid green area that always shows up on maps.  And yes the Wayne is under the BLM. 

And yes the Muskingum watershed which is state owned property leased in the 20% range and Wayne which is federal thinks 12.5 % is ok or standard.   

All I'm saying is I think all BLM land is leased (federal leases) at 12.5%, they probably don't have the option to lease for more without going through LOTS of bureaucracy.  Tons of land out west is under BLM and that is the standard federal lease rate as far as I know.  Not saying it shouldn't be changed, but changing it would probably be very difficult and take a long time.  And yes, the MCWD leases are what I was thinking of and had heard of.  But if minerals surrounding or underlying Wayne are privately owned, it should be up to the owners to negotiate that, they should not be bound to 12.5%.  So are you upset because the 12.5% sets the bar very low for private landowners?  Or are you upset because BLM leases don't contribute enough/at all to the local economy?  Seems like you are upset that the local economy doesn't get as much coming back to it from these federal leases, I just don't think much can be done about that without a very long drawn out process.

Searchone, Thanks for pointing that out. Wayne has not been a good neighbor to their fellow landowners. They do not pay any real state tax in Monroe and Washington which throws the two counties tax burden on individual landowners . Shame on our Federal government for discriminating against real state tax payers in Monroe and Washington counties.

Local paper say they are going to put the acreage up for bid so the 12.5% may just be referring to the state min.

Dump 40,000 acres in to the pipeline and see what happens to the price of nat gas not to mention choking back on mom and pop production

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service