CO Sen Gardner opposed BLM 2.0

He wrote:

Dear Mr. elkduds,



Thank you for contacting me regarding public lands. I appreciate you taking the time to write. It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate and I hope you will continue to write with your thoughts and ideas on moving our country forward.

On January 30, 2017, Congressman Liz Cheney (R-WY) introduced H.J. Res. 44, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the final rule submitted to the Department of the Interior relating to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Planning 2.0 rule. This resolution would use powers provided to Congress under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify the BLM 2.0 planning rule. This legislation passed both the House and the Senate, and is expected to be passed by the President.

As a fifth generation Coloradan, I have grown up with a profound appreciation for our public lands. When it comes to management and planning on public lands, I believe policy makers are best served by robust input from local stakeholders and away from a ‘Washington knows best’ mentality, and that’s exactly what the BLM Planning 2.0 CRA would do. Our public lands should be managed under the multiple use philosophy, which promotes recreation, grazing, and energy development with a balanced approach. I’m open to working with colleagues to improve management of our federal lands, but allowing Planning 2.0 to move forward as is, which puts more authority in Washington, DC and provides less of a voice to our state and local leaders, and local users on land management decisions is not something I support. A county commissioner in western Colorado should have more say in decisions impacting their backyard than someone sitting behind a desk in New York City. Rest assured, I will keep you thoughts in mind should this legislation come to the Senate floor for a vote.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and do not hesitate to do so again when an issue is important to you.





Sincerely,

Cory Gardner
United States Senator

My reply:
Wrong. Your statement, "allowing Planning 2.0 to move forward as is, which puts more authority in Washington, DC and provides less of a voice to our state and local leaders, and local users on land management decisions" above is a disingenuous sound byte. You will find out that CO voters won't stand for the eastern Republican propaganda. 2.0 was the most collaborative, most empowering-to-CO-citizens federal land use management plan to date.

Don't believe me? Ask the Republican Park County, CO commissioners:
(Denver Post) Park County’s commissioners, all Republicans, strongly supported the planning rule, calling it essential for taking better care of sensitive wildlife-rich areas such as South Park, the main watershed for metro Denver.

They wrote last year to BLM director Neil Kornze saying they wanted “additional opportunities for public involvement earlier in the planning process, including the chance to review preliminary resources management alternatives and preliminary rationales for those alternatives.”

“The current BLM planning methodology lacks adequate opportunities for public involvement, particularly early in the process,” they wrote. “It also lacks transparency. It often results in a range of alternatives that fails to address the concerns of all stakeholders.”

Hey I got that same email today...funny how now that it is on the way to the President he has decided to respond ...but I'm a little confused. Isn't what he is saying what the BLM 2.0 did and now the new current regs put the control back in DC?
*

Dear Mr. Yaney,

*

Thank you for contacting me regarding public lands. I appreciate you taking the time to write. It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate and I hope you will continue to write with your thoughts and ideas on moving our country forward.*

On January 30, 2017, Congressman Liz Cheney (R-WY) introduced H.J. Res. 44, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the final rule submitted to the Department of the Interior relating to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Planning 2.0 rule. This resolution would use powers provided to Congress under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify the BLM 2.0 planning rule. This legislation passed both the House and the Senate, and is expected to be passed by the President.*

As a fifth generation Coloradan, I have grown up with a profound appreciation for our public lands. When it comes to management and planning on public lands, I believe policy makers are best served by robust input from local stakeholders and away from a ‘Washington knows best’ mentality, and that’s exactly what the BLM Planning 2.0 CRA would do. Our public lands should be managed under the*multiple use philosophy, which promotes recreation, grazing, and energy development with a balanced approach. I’m open to working with colleagues to improve management of our federal lands, but allowing Planning 2.0 to move forward as is, which*puts more authority in Washington, DC and provides less of a voice to our state and local leaders, and local users on land management decisions is not something I support. A county commissioner in western Colorado should have more say in decisions impacting their backyard than someone sitting behind a desk in New York City.* Rest assured, I will keep you thoughts in mind should this legislation come to the Senate floor for a vote.*

Again, thank you for contacting me, and do not hesitate to do so again when an issue is important to you.

*

Sincerely,

Falling in with the party rather than representing his constituents.

Is this in regards to https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/44 ?

I received the same reply. It made my head scratch but I spent some time reading and searching and I think the point he is making is salient. If I'm understanding Planning 2.0 correctly some have seen the idea of landscape scale planning as deleterious to the local authorities like county commissioners and the ilk. Makes sense. If you used to have the BLM's ear as a big fish in a little pond and now it looks like you will be a small fish in a bigger pond you might construe that as "washingtonizing" control. I don't agree with him in terms of Planning 2.0 being a bad idea and it is short sighted if you ask me but then again Sen Gardner is no friend to his constituents, the environment or Colorado if you ask me. I also wrote Sen Bennet about it as well but I can't find a reply from him regarding Planning 2.0. It's hard to keep track of replies since it takes them so long to get back with you.

I was also confused by this response. I thought 2.0 provided for more inputs from all concerned parties?? Is this response intentionally confusing? Or am I not understanding the issue?

I see a recurring theme regarding opinions on the lack of cogency in his response...I too thought his remarks on the senate floor 3/7 were rather vague (See link below) and wanted to hear Sen. Gardner call out specific parts of the final rule that he disagreed with rather than sounding like, well, a politician. I know the BLM received thousands of comments regarding the new plan and it was a multi-year effort; Secretary Jewell and others championed components of the plan that got the public involved early, strengthened state, local and tribal partnerships and how adaptive management techniques were to be used; the final rule mentions the types of concerns that Sen. Gardner references but also discusses how the BLM altered the final rule in response to some of his intimated concerns. I may actually agree with Cory on some of his issues with the plan but I would've liked to see him get into more of the details as I remember feeling a similar lack of certainty when reading Sen. Cheney's objections to the rule.

The fact that I received Cory's response (Same as posted above) on 3/15 and his comment that he would keep my thoughts in mind should the issue come to vote and then to see that the party line vote occurred on 3/7 bothers me as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paPG5CxLv9E&feature=youtu.be