President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 17, 2009 11:23 PM UTC

BLM: Breaking the Law in the Gaspatch?

  • 22 Comments
  • by: ClubTwitty

The Colorado Independent is reporting on a Government Accountability Office report, issued yesterday which found BLM field offices across the West in violation of their own guidelines and, perhaps, federal environmental law in moving to permit thousands of new gas wells without proper environmental review:

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 rather famously – or infamously, depending on your point of view – allowed for a Safe Drinking Water Act exemption for the Haliburton-perfected process of hydraulic fracturing in of natural gas wells.

But, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report issued today, the act also sought to pick up the pace of natural gas exploration and production by allowing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to use “categorical exclusions” when issuing oil and gas drilling permits.

The report found that from 2006 to 2008 the BLM signed off on more than 22,000 new oil and gas drilling permits in 20 states, mostly in the mountain west. Of those, Section 390 categorical exclusions granted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 were used to approve more than 6,100 permit applications, or about 28 percent.

In 85 percent of the field offices sampled, the GAO found that BLM officials failed to follow guidance and provide adequate justification for using categorical exclusions, which allow for drilling permits outside of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process in order to speed up production.

Today we learned that former Secretary of Interior Norton is under investigation for corruption, and yesterday that current DOI Sect. Salazar is moving to shut down the scandal plagued Mineral Management Service’s Royalty In-Kind Program (where Shell and other oil and gas industry employees traded sex and drugs for sweetheart deals at the public’s expense).  

The GAO report (from a synopsis forwarded to me by a colleague who has examined it in detail) finds that:

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued a long-awaited report … that highlighted a number of concerns about how the BLM is inappropriately using categorical exclusions.  Notably, the report finds that violations of law and BLM policy in approving applications using categorical exclusions were fairly widespread.

…Both it and full 72-page report are available online at: www.gao.gov/docsearch/repandtest.html.

…Here are few highlights:

Like many projects on federal land with possible environmental impacts, oil and gas development activities are typically subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was drafted in part to expedite oil and gas development includes language (in Section 390) that authorizes BLM, for certain oil and gas activities, to approve projects without preparing new environmental analyses that would normally be required by NEPA, through categorical exclusions.

— According to the GAO report, from 2006 to 2008, the BLM approved more than 22,000 new oil and gas drilling permits across 20 states, largely in the mountain West. GAO’s analysis of BLM field office data shows that section 390 categorical exclusions were used to approve approximately 6,100 of 22,000 applications for drilling permits (about 28 percent) during that time. (page 6)

–The GAO report found that the violations and non-compliance “may have thwarted NEPA’s twin aims of ensuring that BLM and the public are fully informed of the environmental consequences of BLM’s actions. (summary)

— According to the Environmental Protection Agency and others, ozone levels around at least three field offices-Farmington, New Mexico; Pinedale, Wyoming; and Vernal, Utah-have reached or exceeded allowable levels, in part because of the release of nitrogen oxides from additional wells approved with section 390 categorical exclusions. (page 41)

— The GAO found that “BLM’s use of section 390 categorical exclusions has frequently been out of compliance with both the law and BLM’s guidance.” Violations of law using categorical exclusions included “approving more than one oil or gas well under a single decision document, approving projects inconsistent with the law’s criteria, and drilling a new well after time frames had lapsed.” (page 2)

— For example, the GAO report found that BLM field offices in Glenwood Springs, Colo. and Rawlins, Wyo. used one type of categorical exclusion to approve new wells on sites that did not have any wells started or drilled, even though the law clearly states the categorical exclusions are only to be used to speed permitting for drilling on existing sites. (page 30)

— “GAO found numerous examples-in 85 percent of the field offices sampled-where officials did not correctly follow guidance, most often by failing to adequately justify the use of a categorical exclusion. A lack of clear guidance and oversight contributed to the violations and noncompliance. While many of these are technical in nature, others are more significant and may have thwarted NEPA’s twin aims of ensuring that BLM and the public are fully informed of the environmental consequences of BLM’s actions.” (page2)

— GAO found at least one instance in which a field office approved an initial environmental assessment nearly 2 months after the office began the approval process for 18 additional wells in that location using catergorical exclusions. In other words, GAO concluded, the fact that an “approval of an environmental assessment that was, in effect, outdated before it was signed raises troubling questions about the extent to which BLM is using section 390 categorical exclusions in a manner that undermines NEPA’s purposes of fully informing the agency itself and the public of the environmental consequences of proposed actions.” (page 44)

— “Without corrections to the gaps and shortcomings in BLM’s existing guidance, compliance problems will likely persist that may thwart NEPA’s twin aims of ensuring that both BLM and the public are fully informed of the environmental consequences of BLM’s actions, field offices will continue to interpret section 390 categorical exclusions inconsistently and sometimes incorrectly, and the public’s confidence and trust in BLM’s decision making will continue to erode.” (page 57)

The tales of graft, illegal behavior, and corruption that is the legacy of the Bush administration’s public lands programs keep piling up.  Perhaps Nate or johnpauljones will show up soon to defend lawbreaking, prostitution, and corruption among cabinet members…I look forward to the debate.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

22 thoughts on “BLM: Breaking the Law in the Gaspatch?”

  1. Come on people.  At least use the right first name.  You’re intentionally trying to mislead people that Jane Norton is, in fact, Gale Norton.  This is why nobody watches MSNBC.

    1. The appropriate Norton was designated – “Secretary of Interior Norton”, as opposed to “Lt. Governor Norton”.  It’s as clear as Republicans have wanted to be while it was strictly a name recognition game; now Democrats get to play it for a while, until she gets her true name recognition.

      1. …the NRSC is trying to pick their candidate for them.  But everyone who’s involved in politics right now in the GOP is ticked off.  So “Republicans” are not trying to give her any extra name recognition.

        2. I know there’s a lot of snark surrounding the comments here, but really, who’s a Republican?

          Birthers, Teabaggers, and Death Panelistas are supposedly a fringe element – not Republicans.

          Limbaugh, Beck et al.? Media blowhards, not Republicans.

          Now the NRSC? The very leadership of the Republican Party? Not “Republicans”?

          Who’s left?

          1. First, to Pheonix up above–I’m not “complaining,” just pointing out that maybe ColoradoPols should subject itself to basic journalistic standards.  Intentionally trying to mislead readers is not good practice.  And it’s likely I’ll have to suck it up once again and vote for her next year to prevent the election of Michael Bennet.

            Now to AJB.  Again–that’s a fair question.  My response is that all of those people, save Glenn Beck (he is a conservative libertarian, whom I would gladly associate myself with), ARE Republicans.  And all of those groups probably have a very large Republican contingent.  Birthers are idiots.  “Teabaggers,” as you so pejoratively call them, include lots of independents and a small handful of Democrats.  I am one of the people you see at the rallies, but I take offense to the term “Teabagger.”  And Sarah Palin used the term “death panel” hyperbolically, and I do agree that the panel she was referring to would eventually make rationing decisions based on a need to reduce costs.

            The NRSC supports liberal Republican candidates, most notably the RINO-in-Chief Charlie Crist.  I believe a vast majority of the current Republican elected officials in this country are far more liberal, especially fiscally, than even their predecessors of 30 years ago.

            So who’s left?  The voters, who are trying to find someone to elect who might actually vote/govern as a conservative once they assume office.

            1. but I doubt that anyone here, at Colorado Pols–the audience for whom I wrote the diary–conflates former Interior Sect. Norton (Gale) with former Lt. Gov Norton (Jane).  So its a moot point, but thanks for bringing it up, again.  

              Beck is a fruitcake.  No, I don’t mean the musician.  I mean Glenn.

              Palin used the ‘death panel’ to be intentionally hyperbolic, not because she was using exaggeration as a literary tool like “OMG that thing was like the size of an elephant!” but because she knows that a sizable part of her base can be manipulated easily by lies and that they believe it.  It’s a sad statement of how desperate your party has become.  But face it, it’s the GOP today–unable to argue with facts, having to resort to lies and fear and manipulation of weak-minded fools.  

              GOP leaders should be ashamed of themselves, but instead, so desperate for power they are willing to let it go.  Shameful.

            3. I know that this is a day late and all, but I do have to get work done at some point…

              What is the connection between modern-day “Tea Party” protests and the original “Tea Party” protest?

              The original was about “No taxation without representation.” Today, we have a representative democracy. You are represented. You might not like the votes cast by your fairly elected reps. But you can work to change that. You have a voice. You have a vote. So why is it at all legitimate to appropriate the tea party metaphor just because you don’t like taxes?

              As for teabagger being a pejorative, what is it you call yourself and fellow protesters?

              On to the notion that

              I believe a vast majority of the current Republican elected officials in this country are far more liberal, especially fiscally, than even their predecessors of 30 years ago.

              I don’t believe that. Therre was a time when Rs and Ds could work together toward a common good. those days appear long gone. When you get a chance, please take a moment and try to craft a convincing argument for that.

              Last, your defense of Sarah Palin’s allegations of government euthanasia as mere hyperbole do nothing to exonerate her behavior. How do you expect to have a rational discussion when the other side calls you a nascent murderer?  

    2. Nice try changing the topic. I really could care less if it was Admiral Norton…the issue here is how Republicans could care less about the Earth G-D gave us, and are only interested in how it can be exploited for profit.

      Shame on anyone who shamelessly exploits the Earth without working to protect and preserve it.

  2. Shocked, I tell you, to find that the Bush administration did not respect our public lands.

    If Bush 43 could be best summed up by one policy statement, it would probably be that Bush completely disdained public lands and land regulations (e.g. NEPA, ESA, CEA, CWA…).  He could have cared less about a wall along our Southern border, but when the bill passed into law, the first places they started construction were the national wildlife refuges along the border, and any other place they thought endangered species might be traversing.  Whenever possible, permits for well drilling were granted as close to national parks and monuments as they could ram past the courts, and exploration along park borders was done overriding any cautions expressed by the NPS.

    Bush was an outdoor-lover’s nightmare, and all of us will be suffering the after-effects of living through it for 8 years.

  3. The truth is Bush brought us into ruin! A lot of rumors start for no good reason, and people start thinking goofy things that didn’t happen – like the recent rumor that Jimmy Carter died.  It is most certainly not the case that Jimmy Carter died, even if there are swamp rabbits that wish it to be the case.  (Ho ho – never thought you’d get a Swamp Rabbit reference, did you?) Instead, it was one of his long time advisory and White House Press Secretary, Jody Powell who passed away recently from a heart attack; he was 66.  Speaking of the rabbit incident, it was actually Powell who broke the story to the press.  Save your Jimmy Carter for the memorial – it wasn’t that Jimmy Carter died – but let’s hope that Jody Powell can rest in peace.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

163 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!