Document QMy999B3b7vKNeQDpJ6yDeqQ7

DRAFT - INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE INSTRUCTIONS 1. Review the comments received for your bureau in www.regulations.gov and complete the "Comment Summary Template" (see below) for each comment. To find comments specific to your bureau, go to www.reaulations.gov and: a) Enter this Docket No. in the "Search" box: DOI-2017-0003. b) In left margin, under "Document Type" unclick all boxes except "Public Submissions" so that only "Public Submissions" is checked. c) In the upper right-hand corner, in the "Sort by" drop-down, sort by "Title (A-Z)" or "Title (Z-A)". d) The documents specific to your bureau are titled with your bureau's acronym and assigned sequential numbers for tracking. ** e) Look for the comments received during the comment period of review (e.g. February 26 - March 25) and summarize them using the template below. ** If your bureau does not have any comments for the review period, you do not need to submit a Comment Summary Report for that period but please inform your Assistant Secretary that no comments were received. 2. Compile all of the comment summaries (including all of the information in the template) into a Comment Summary Report. 3. Move the Report through your bureaus for approval by the Director in time to submit the Report to the Assistant Secretary by the first of each month (see schedule on previous page). Note on Other DOI Bureaus and Offices: The public can choose to specify the following DOI bureaus when submitting a comment: IA, BLM, BOEM, BOR, BSEE, NPS, OSMRE, FWS, and USGS. There is a catch-all category in www.regulations.gov that allows the public to comment on "Other Interior agencies and offices." The Exec Sec will review comments submitted to this "Other" category and assign them to the appropriate DOI offices and bureaus on a rolling basis to be summarized and send to the Assistant Secretary for approval in accordance with these instructions. 2 of 3 DRAFT - INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE [TEMPLATE] COMMENT SUMMARY REPORT Bureau: Number of Comments Received This Period: [After you have sorted for your bureau's comments on www.regulations.gov using the instructions above, click on each comment and then click on "Show More Details" under the Document Information heading on the right side of the screen. This will reveal the date the comment was received.] Total Number of Comments Received: [The comments are titled in www.regulations.gov using sequential numbers so the total number of comments can be easily determined.] Comment Summaries: [Provide this information for each comment received] Commenter: [If many comments or form letters were received on a topic, please specify that here. If the comment is from an individual, note that in the following manner: "Individual (LAST NAME, FIRST NAME)"] o ID: [This is a unique identifier assigned by www.regulations.gov and can be viewed when you click on the comment. E.g., ID: DOI-2017-0003-0055] o RE: [Describe the topic covered by the comment in a few words] o Summary: [Briefly explain the issues raised in the comment] o Other Bureaus Addressed in Comment: [Identify other bureaus addressed in the comment and briefly explain how they are addressed]. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [Briefly explain what the bureau recommends as an appropriate action to address the comment. Examples may include - but are not limited to - the following actions: consider preparing a formal response consider initiating a review of the pertinent regulations consider working with other affected bureaus to determine an appropriate action likely no action needed - comment is too vague to warrant a response.] 3 of 3 DRAFT - INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE RE: Effect of Tribes on property value o I own property near Indian country and a casino and in 14 years, my property value has declined almost 40% because: Indian netting of walleyes on lake areas causing closure of walleye season for two years; Giving Indians open seasons for taking fish and game year-round; Indian and federal policy trying to establish a new reservation where one does not exist; Crime, Native gang, and ongoing drug problems spilling outside the reservation; Increased property taxes; Tribe buying up properties and posting them "no trespassing;" Tribe obtaining land into trust and removing it from local tax rolls; Tribe is a major contributor to a local political party; Federal policy allows the Tribe to control many of the State of Minnesota DNR decisions. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] Individual (Anonymous, Jon) ID: DOI-2017-0003-0055 RE: Tribes o Alleviate unnecessary burdens placed on the American people with regard to Tribal governments and stop the expansion, recognition of Tribal governments. End these old laws that financially rob the American people. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] Individual (Mant, RE) ID: DOI-2017-0003-0056 RE: Tribes o "I don't know exactly how much we can profitably say about Indian politics before Europeans started displacing them, but it appears to have been one of live and let live, so arguments about possessiveness are somewhat moot to begin with." o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] Individual (Willman, Elaine) ID: DOI-2017-0003-0057 RE: Indian Reorganization Act of1934 o The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) is the backbone of federal Indian policy and has been extended, expanded, and abused beyond the original intent of Congress. It is as if a mother gives the oldest son (Natives) preferential treatment because the second-born son (non-Natives) came later. 3 DRAFT - INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE o Stanley Speaks [Regional BIA Director] communicated to LIBC that Interior wanted to delete from their Tribal constitution any Interior oversight so Interior would not be held accountable for overreach by Tribal leadership. Instead, individuals and non-Indians must address the overreach. Interior's "covering" for these Indian groups, which don't qualify for putting lands into trust or governmental authority must be corrected. o I sued to address a 5% utility tax adopted by LIBC in the early 1980's on any business on the Lummi reservation, which is rolled over to the individual rate payer. The Tribal judge ruled that he could not determine jurisdiction and that I would have to go to Federal court, but I had no intention of paying those costs. Interior must correct abuse of what are intended to be only "communities" of Indians. The treaties never intended them to have "governmental" authorities related to taxing, zoning, etc. o I was told that LIBC is federally recognized, but this analysis is wrong. Instead it is the acceptance of land into trust that affirms tribal governmental authority. To this end, trust lands are being created out of thin air for these groups with no valid standing. o Correct the record for what Indian groups qualify for the IRA. Make clear for the people residing within the historic public domain reservations and for the city and county governments that surround these Indian communities. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] Individual (Montonye, James) ID: DOI-2017-0003-0060 RE: Tribes in Washington State o There should be uniform State enforcement of fishing. o Tribes and their untaxed casinos provide undisclosed campaign contributions creating politicians unwilling to discuss issues related to water adjudications and fish. o Timeline included. Highlights are: Treaty of Point Elliott was a cession treaty in which the 22 Indian groups assigned to the four reservations ceded all rights to those reservations. In 1934, the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) restored to "trust" some reservations. Lummis rejected the Act and the Nooksacks didn't qualify. Generic IRA tribal constitutions were inappropriately given out to others in our region. The Indian Claims Commission established that the remaining groups were not tribes, but BIA persists in treating them as tribes. o Salish tribes integrate into commodity communities, meaning salmon for cash. o Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife should have power over all fishing, water rights, and taxation. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] BLM Anonymous ID: DOI-2017-0003-0012 5 DRAFT - INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE determine their consistency with the Secretarial Order. If these requirements are not consistent, then they should be withdrawn or terminated. o CEQ guidelines on time limits for the NEPA process (3 months for EAs and 12 months for EISs) should be followed. Direct staff to use existing CXs unless an EA is clearly shown to be necessary. The NEPA process should tier from recent reviews of similar, nearby project where circumstances have not materially changed. BLM should use Determination of NEPA Adequacy where appropriate. o Secretary should review existing guidance documents to determine their consistency with the Secretarial Order. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] Berkshire Hathaway Energy ID: DOI-2017-0003-0044 RE: 43 CFRpart 2800 (Rights-of-Way under FLPMA) o The BLM needs to do a better job of coordinating its environmental reviews and stipulations for power lines with other agencies to save time and avoid duplicative action. o BLM documents should refer to and incorporate the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee's document, "Best Management Practices for Electric Utilities in Sage-grouse Habitat." This document is updated as new information becomes available and reflects the best current science. o Aerial ROWs should not be required to undergo NEPA analyses. The NEPA process should be made consistent across all Field Offices in order to eliminate confusion, reduce project costs, and delays. o At the start of projects, the BLM should provide ROW permit holders with a staff directory and a list of key contacts to make it easier to identify staff and their roles because agency websites are not clear on this. o The BLM should acknowledge the feedback it receives from the public on various planning documents. o The BLM needs to expedite maintenance-project applications by following a standardized review schedule that's transparent to applicants and by meeting set timelines. Tribes, state, local, and other Federal agencies and stakeholders should be involved in the review process as early as possible. The BLM should not be allowed to add stipulations after initial analysis and approval has occurred. Stakeholders should not be allowed to use the NEPA process to unduly delay projects and their concerns should be based on science and not on emotion. o The BLM should implement a streamlined and expedited approval process for electric utility ROW project renewals. There should be a process for applicants to take their concerns to the State Director rather than be directed back to field-office managers who may not be responsive. Applicants should not be required to analyze environmental impacts on portions of their transmission-line ROWs that cross private lands. Perch discouragers are not effective and should not be required. 7 DRAFT - INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE o The setback that restricts mining within a set distance like 200 feet from a stream often makes it impossible to mine the stream because mineable ground is in that area. When the stream is diverted to avoid the mining area, that should be enough to protect the stream and water. A setback of 20 feet would be more appropriate just to protect the diversion. o The existing setback costs jobs without providing any environmental benefit and eliminates side streams from being prospected for placer gold. o On larger waterways where boats frequent a maximum setback of 50 feet seems better and some cases 100 feet. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] Individual (Anonymous, SRM) ID: DOI-2017-0003-0062 RE: New Oil and Gas rules that replace Onshore Oil & Gas Orders 3, 4, and 5 at 43 CFR 3173.29 (Requirements for Site Security and Production Handling; Immediate assessments), 3174 (Measurement ofOil; Immediate assessments), 3175 (Measurement ofGas; Immediate assessments) o Immediate assessments have been forced into rule that are unfair, ineffective, and place unnecessary burdens on oil and gas operators. o 43 CFR 6163.1(b) was crafted to state that immediate assessments were to be enforced "without exception" prior to going to State Director Review - this is unreasonable, unrealistic and a waste ofgovernment personnel time and resources o This is unfair because it treats mom & pop operators exactly the same as a major corporation, with potentially devastating economic impact. o Declare the immediate assessment aspects of these rules unenforceable. With an administration that is more sensible to the struggles ofbusiness, I cannot overstate how completely unreasonable these assessments are. o The broad-brush approach of 43 CFR 3163.1.b "Remedies for Acts of NonCompliance" must be nullified so that the field can implement reasonable discretion. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] Power Company of Wyoming LLC (PCW) ID: DOI-2017-0003-0075 RE: Competitive Processes, Terms, and Conditions for Leasing Public Lands for Solar and Wind Energy Development and Technical Changes and Correction. o This regulation adds an additional $47 to $106M in costs to our project and will inhibit job creation and impose costs that exceed benefits for renewable energy developers. o We've been developing the nation's largest renewable energy project on BLM land, the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project (CCSM Project) (see comment for details on project). o To date, PCW has invested over $70M in private capital in developing and permitting the project. These costs were anticipated and included in our analysis of economic viability. 9 DRAFT - INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE We did not, however, anticipate or forecast a new lease and fee structure from BLM for this project. o BLM proposed the rule in September 2014 and we provided extensive comments about the economic implications and recommended grandfathering projects because they enjoyed not benefits from the regulation and should therefore bear no cost. Others raised similar comments. We also briefed OMB on our concerns in July 2016. DOI finalized the regulations in November 2016. o The application of the rule to our project and others in development prior to the regulatory initiative inhibits job creation, imposes costs that exceed benefits, and fails to accomplish the stated policy objectives of the regulation. o The rule requires ROW holders for wind development to pay two types of fees: (1) an acreage rental fee; and (2) a megawatt (MW) capacity fee based on the nameplate capacity approved in the ROW grant. To further complicate matters it also provides the ROW holder must choose between either a Standard Rate Adjustment or Scheduled Rate Adjustment. See comment for calculations on how this increases costs at least $46 million and potentially as much as $106 million. o Despite providing our estimates of impacts at every stage of the input process, the BLM estimate of economic impact of the rule was only $5 million. This low estimate did not make this rule eligible for repeal under the Congressional Review Act, but since the rule has been effective, operational solar projects in California and Nevada are also facing massive rent increase. o PCW made significant private investments in developing this project in hopes of strengthening energy independence, creating jobs in rural areas, and making a reasonable return on our investment. Mid-stream, the rules of the game were changed by this regulation, resulting in additional unforeseen operational costs. Despite expressing our concerns, the final rule failed to grandfather our project. We urge you to reconsider how this rule is applied to projects in development and modify the rule to apply only to prospective projects. This regulation undermines the stated goal of facilitating the advancement of renewable energy on public lands. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] BOEM Office of Alaska State Senator John Coghill ID: DOI-2017-0003-0025 RE: The plan to develop a new national OCS leasing program o We recommend removing the recent Obama-era additional restriction in the Hanna Shoal area (in the Chukchi Sea). The withdrawal of that area negatively affected a number of then-existing leases, including three by Shell, seven by Repsol, and five in the immediate adjacent area that covered similar petroleum prospects. The restriction raised the costs for exploration and mitigation costs just for planning and exploration. 10 DRAFT - INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE o Prohibit FWS employees from accepting compensatory mitigation payments and directing them to organizations on which they serve on the board of directors (cites example of FWS employee brokering dollars from a FWS compensatory mitigation payment project with a developer then funneling those dollars to an organization in which he serves on the board). o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] American Falconry Conservancy ID: DOI-2017-0003-0019 o Request the elimination of FWS regulatory oversight regarding any and all activities with the personal use, in contrast to harvest, of birds of prey (raptors), because States have adopted regulatory provisions for the protection of wild raptors, so Federal involvement is redundant and costly. Specific Federal provisions that should be eliminated include: Allowing FWS to inspect to ensure birds are being treated humanely Requirement to submit a Migratory Bird Acquisition and Disposition Report (Form 3-186A) to FWS for any wild take or transfer of raptors Inclusion of hybrid falcons scope of requirements Continued management of the formerly threatened peregrine falcons as threatened, rather than allowing a harvest of 5% The prohibition on acquiring golden eagles in livestock depredation situations. Interpretation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in a manner more restrictive than other nations. Inclusion of raptors in the Wild Bird Conservation Act Raptor propagation, abatement, education regulations, all of which should be left to States to regulate. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] Anonymous ID: DOI-2017-0003-0020 o FWS's protection of foreign species with no funding or expertise just duplicates foreign government's CITES rules. It is impossible to sell captive-bred listed species from one state to another without a massive permitting process; this inhibits legal breading of wildlife. The ESA should apply only to native species. Animal rights groups petition for listing a species knowing FWS cannot meet the legal deadlines and then sue FWS to earn money for themselves. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] Office of Alaska State Senator John Coghill ID: DOI-2017-0003-0027 RE: Management ofAlaska public lands and wildlife o Alaska wants to manage their own public lands and wildlife. 12 DRAFT - INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE o State of Alaska was blocked in their efforts to manage game and predator populations by FWS "biological diversity" program. The State feels this is causing declines in animal populations, not protecting them. The State wants to be allowed to manage their own wildlife. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] Individual (Jordan, R) ID: DOI-2017-0003-0028 RE: FWS regulation ofexotic pets o FWS has made owning a parrot "bureaucratic red tape and potential arrest." o Noon-profits habitually sue the Service over exotic animals causing FWS to spend resources defending those lawsuits. o Permit to sell exotic species of parrot that was born in the U.S. can take two years and requires showing benefit to wild species in a third-world country. o The agenda now is to attack U.S. pet owners and their rights. o Get control of the Endangered Species Act and the Wild Bird Conservation Act now. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] Individual (Ingram, James) ID: DOI-2017-0003-0029 RE: Regulation offalconry o 262 regulations can be eliminated from the Falconry Standards. o Every State that allows falconry has adopted more restrictive regulations, so the Federal regulations are redundant. o FWS does not have authority to determine the use and care of raptors in falconry; it is only responsible for evaluation of raptor populations for safe harvest of wild raptors and sale and commerce of raptors. Birds born in captivity are private property. o No similar regulations apply to other species, such as someone who has captive bred a Mallard duck. o The regulations require States to conduct warrantless searches. o The FWS study showed falconers have zero impact on raptor populations, the peregrine falcon population has exploded, yet FWS severely limits the number of birds that can be taken. Remove the restrictions. o FWS has disallowed the practice of legally harvesting golden eagles, even though Congress allows for it in the Eagle Act. This is unnecessary regulation. o RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] Individual (Rush, Barbara) ID: DOI-2017-0003-0036 RE: Regulation ofoil and gas at Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge o Continue to regulate oil and gas leases and practices at Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge. 13 DRAFT - INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE o Ensure the public can provide meaningful input into management of public lands. o We encourage the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to discuss these vital issues. o None of the legal mandates authorize DOI or USDA to establish energy development as the dominant use of public lands - it is either an allowable use to be balanced or is subservient to protection of resources. Any action that enshrines energy development as the dominant use of public lands is invalid. o Land Management Agencies with Multiple-Use Mandates - BLM & USFS Federal courts have consistently rejected efforts to elevate energy development over other public uses of lands and doing so would violate FLPMA and NFMA. o Land Management Agencies with Conservation/Preservation Mandates - NPS & FWS Encouraging development is not part of NPS or FWS mission. Federal courts ruled that decisions that fail to promote conservation for NPS lands and activities that are not compatible with conservation of National Wildlife Refuges cannot be upheld. o NEPA & NHPA Overlays - All Land Management Agencies NEPA requires agencies to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, and the orders establishing energy development as the dominant use of public lands flouts NEPA requirements. Similarly, NHPA requires agencies to respect cultural resources and follow certain processes. The orders risk endangering invaluable cultural resources and undermining NHPA obligations, which must be addressed prior to approving energy development. o Congress directed DOI to implement management to further the public interest, not just the economic interest of extractive industries. It is inappropriate to tailor regulations, policies, guidance and decisions to the exclusive benefit of energy development. Take heed of your legal mandates to balance uses and, in many cases, prioritize conservation, recreation, and other pursuits. RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: [INSERT] 24