The Wilderness Society Blog

Sacrificing Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a Running-On-Empty Strategy

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:23:05 +0000

The following statement from The Wilderness Society Senior Director of Legislative Affairs David Moulton is in response to the markup in the House Natural Resources Committee of H.R. 3407, H.R. 3408, and H.R. 3410.

“The myth that all of America’s problems can be solved by drilling for oil is front and center in this flawed plan to fix America’s crumbling bridges and highways. Combined, these bills would generate less than 1% of the necessary revenue to fund the proposed highway bill. The majority members of the House Natural Resources Committee are running on empty, trying to roll this vehicle forward a few more inches before forced to abandon it at the side of the road.

“Sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – one of the last pristine ecosystems in the world – will not even begin to fix the problem facing America’s infrastructure. Nor will opening all of America’s coasts to offshore drilling – inviting more Deepwater Horizon disasters, but coming no closer to rebuilding America’s highways. Oil shale is even less likely to solving the crisis, having never been commercially viable, and with zero likely revenue.

Meanwhile, this bill would land a massive blow to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It would force the Refuge System to do something that has never been allowed since the Refuge Act passed in 1966 – issue new oil or gas leases on a wildlife refuge. It would authorize an invasive network of roads, oilrigs, and pipelines that would fragment the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, destroying the untrammeled habitat forever. In addition, this legislation would imperil coastlines that now are protected from drilling by making them vulnerable to oil spills, and tens of thousands more acres of public lands would be leased to oil and gas companies on the false promise of oil shale development. This plan is all risk with no reward, as it will not even begin to approach the revenues needed to fix our roads.

“These bills do not represent a serious effort to address the needs of America’s highways – just more wilderness under siege from an anti-conservation Congress. They represent not-so-veiled attempts to hand out favors to fossil fuel industries that hardly need another assist from the federal government.”

For more on the attacks on America’s wild places, see the TWS report Wilderness Under Siege

Why are there public lands? Good question.

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:32:01 +0000

Editor's Note: The following piece appeared in the Las Vegas Sun on Saturday, February 4, 2012.

Why are there public lands? Good question.

William H. Meadows

As the Republican presidential nomination process moves on to the states of Nevada and Colorado, a new topic has arisen in a race that has already seen many twists and turns. That issue is the purpose and importance of public lands. In a recent interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the leading contender for the GOP nomination, was quoted as saying, in reference to the large acreage of public land in the state, “I don’t know why the government owns so much of this land.” As an organization whose mission is to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild places, I think it is important to answer the governor’s query for all people who enjoy and benefit from our public lands.

Our public lands, which include national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges and national wilderness areas, among others, are vital to America’s economy. Through recreation, such as hunting, fishing and hiking, and tourism, our public lands contribute over $1 trillion to the nation, not to mention millions of jobs.

Public lands provide much of our clean drinking water and without protection, much of it might be contaminated. Our public lands have also played an extremely important role in energy development, and the economic importance that comes with it. Oil and gas exploration could not have exploded the way it did during the early 20th century without our public lands, and now as we move forward in the 21st century, public lands can help us advance renewable energy development. Public lands provide some of the best places in the world for solar and wind energy and the energy self-dependence that the United States needs.

People of all political stripes in the West understand the importance of our public lands, as the Colorado College’s Conservation in the West Poll indicates. An overwhelming 78 percent of Westerners, across the entire spectrum, says, “We can protect land and water and have a strong economy with good jobs at the same time, without having to choose one over the other.” Sixty-eight percent think, “We should not allow private companies to profit from using our public lands when their doing so would limit the public's enjoyment of ‐ or access to ‐ these lands.” Ninety-six percent agree that public lands are “essential part of each state’s quality of life.” These finding support the contention that our public lands should be conserved and protected so that all Americans can enjoy them and recreate on them. Our public lands belong to all Americans. They are not for an individual state, or an individual company. They are a treasure and a legacy that extends back more than a century.

Gov. Romney has stated that as a child his family, “…went from national park to national park. And they were teaching me to fall in love with America.’’ We hope that as he travels the country, and especially our Western states, he will start to understand the answer to his question: Why does the government own so much of this land? For its preservation for future generations to experience what Gov. Romney did, traveling from sea to shining sea, marveling at the foresight of our ancestors to keep some special places free of exploitation, so all Americans have the chance to fall in love with this country like no other, where all the people own some land.

William H. Meadows is the president of The Wilderness Society.

Report: Wilderness Under Siege

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:48:29 +0000

The Wilderness Society releases a report on the congressional assault that would threaten nearly half a billion acres of public lands

Since the beginning of the 112th Congress, we have seen a wave of new legislation that seeks to systematically dismantle decades of laws that protect America’s wilderness and public lands. Today, The Wilderness Society released a new report, “Wilderness Under Siege.” In total, 13 pieces of legislation that could affect nearly half a billion acres of wild public lands have been introduced.

In addition to the report, there is an interactive map that shows how the 13 bills – collectively and individually – affect each state. You can view the report, interactive map and a list of state-by-state impacts of these bills at
http://wilderness.org/content/wilderness-under-siege.

“It appears that some members of Congress are waging an all-out war on wilderness,” said Dave Alberswerth, senior policy advisory at The Wilderness Society. “These bills are out of touch with the cultural and natural values that define us, and they ignore the $1 trillion dollars that conservation, recreation and preservation contribute to our economy every year.”

The bills highlighted in the report include:

1. The Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act (H.R. 1581) -- introduced by Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the third-ranking Republican in the House -- is better known as the Great Outdoors Giveaway. It would remove protection of 58 million acres of roadless National Forests, and 6.7 million acres of pristine Wilderness Study Areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). It would open these tens of millions of wild public lands to logging, road building and other forms of development that are incompatible with wild land protection.

“The Great Outdoors Giveaway puts corporate polluters first, and the American people second,” said Mark Starr, MSW, Iraq war veteran and program director at the Vet Voice Foundation in Los Angeles, California. “We should treasure, not squander our lands and waters that define the America I fought to protect.

2. The Action Plan for Public Lands and Education Act of 2011 (H.R. 2852) -- introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) -- should be called the 30 Million Acre Giveaway Act. Thirty-million acres of national forests and BLM lands would be given away under this bill by allowing certain states to choose five percent of the federal lands within their borders to be given to them, which they can sell to developers.

“The 30 Million Acre Giveaway Act is an unwarranted and unmerited giveaway of assets owned by all Americans to corporate polluters,” continued Alberswerth. “This bill would result in corporate polluters profiting from public lands owned by all Americans.”

3. The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (H.R. 1505) -- sponsored by Reps. Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Peter King (R-NY) -- is really the Border Patrol Takeover Act. National treasures like Glacier National Park in Montana would be turned over to the "operational control" of the U.S. Border Patrol, which could block public access, build roads, and erect fences and other structures. The bill also exempts the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from having to comply with dozens of environmental statutes on these lands, like the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. The DHS strongly opposes this bill, as do the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service, since federal agencies already work closely with Border Patrol to secure our borders.

“The Border Patrol Takeover Act would turn back the clock 50 years to a time when there were few federal rules in place to protect our air and water and cultural heritage,” said Tony Bynum, adventure photographer and small business owner in East Glacier, Montana. “People from all over the world come here to see and experience the remote wilds of Montana -- whether it’s hunting, fishing, hiking or just seeing the vastness from their cars. They come here in search of an experience in a wild setting. They expect a healthy environment.”

4. From Arizona's Grand Canyon, to Virginia's Fort Monroe, presidents of both parties for more than 100 years have used the power under the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments on federal public lands. But eight bills (The End of the National Monuments Acts: H.R. 302, H. R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, H.R. 2147, H.R. 2877 and H.R. 3292) pending in the House of Representatives would in various ways prohibit the president from exercising his authority to designate new national monuments under the Antiquities Act.

"Thank goodness President Theodore Roosevelt had the foresight to enact the Antiquities Act in 1906 during his presidency. It is critical that the president of the United States continues to have the authority to protect sensitive public lands for future generations under this Act," said John Cornell, campaign coordinator at the New Mexico Wildlife Federation in Hillsboro, New Mexico. "Thanks to the Antiquities Act, generations of hunters, anglers and hikers have had the opportunity to enjoy our public lands, and they will continue to do so for years to come."

5. The American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act (H.R. 3407) -- sponsored by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Don Young (R-AK) -- which should be called the Drill the Arctic Refuge Act, would undo protections that this landscape has enjoyed since President Eisenhower first protected it. Opening the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas drilling would only translate to as little as 0.4 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, but could devastate the biological heart of the Refuge’s ecosystem.

“The Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge is the sacred place where life begins,” said Sarah James, Chairperson, Gwichin Steering Committee, Elder and Board Member of the Neet’sai Gwich’in, Arctic Village. “If we allow oil companies to drill and develop in the Arctic Refuge, we will lose the birthing grounds for the Porcupine Caribou Herd that the Gwich’in people depend on for our culture, sustenance and way of life.”

6. This benign-sounding proposal, the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act (H.R. 2834) -- sponsored by Dan Benishek (R-MI) -- would more appropriately be titled the Motorize Our Wilderness Areas Act, as it contains a “Trojan Horse” provision which would potentially allow motorized access to tens of millions of acres of designated National Forest and BLM Wilderness Areas. Because much of America's highest quality hunting and fishing occurs within Wilderness Areas -- the very reason that they are off-limits to motorized use -- this bill would ironically undercut the very values for sportsmen its sponsors claim to have in mind.

“The travel, tourism and outdoor industries are working hard to ensure that Montana is protected so that we may continue to share this wonderful landscape with others. Adding roads and unmanaged development would change everything,” added Bynum. “Due to its ambiguity, the Motorize Our Wilderness Areas Act would create a quagmire of legal challenges that in all likelihood would last for decades.”

To view the report, interactive map and state-by-state impacts please visit: http://wilderness.org/content/wilderness-under-siege

Hollywood's 'Big Miracle' reminds Americans of the special nature of the Arctic Ocean

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:13:27 +0000

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Feb. 1, 2012) – Although it may not appear in the credits, the Arctic Ocean is one of the stars of this week’s release from Universal Pictures, “Big Miracle,” featuring Drew Barrymore as an activist who helps rescue three endangered gray whales after they become trapped by sea ice off the coast of Barrow, Alaska.

Based on actual events that occurred in 1988 and drew the world’s attention to the Arctic and its inhabitants, this film from Universal Pictures highlights a remote and fragile part of the world that is facing unprecedented pressures as climate change opens new shipping routes and oil companies prepare to begin drilling the Outer Continental Shelf.

These changes pose threats not only to a variety of Arctic creatures – quite possibly including the very trio of whales that inspired “Big Miracle” – but to Alaska Natives who depend on the Beaufort and Chukchi seas to support their generations-old culture and subsistence way of life.

As moviegoers enjoy the film’s opening weekend, Shell Oil is making plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean this summer, pending final approval from the federal government. The Department of the Interior appears to be fast-tracking offshore oil development off Alaska despite a glaring lack of scientific knowledge about the Arctic Ocean and how a major oil spill would affect whales, polar bears, fish and migratory birds, not to mention the food supply for indigenous people.

Meanwhile, Shell promises to recover 95 percent of any oil released into the Arctic Ocean, a goal it has never come close to achieving under far more hospitable conditions in other parts of the world. The fact is, effective spill-response technology just doesn’t exist for an environment where ice, rough seas, fog and high winds are the norm.

As moviegoers will see this weekend, rescuing three whales in the Arctic was such a daunting task that it required the United States and the Soviet Union to set aside their Cold War differences.

Maybe we should all consider what would happen if sea ice stranded not whales, but a major oil spill?

Sounds sort of like a Hollywood disaster movie, doesn’t it?

Senate Hunting Bill Would Allow Motor Vehicles in Protected Wilderness Areas

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 07:00:00 +0000

Companion legislation threatening tens of millions of acres of wilderness already introduced in the House

The Wilderness Society expressed deep concern about a key provision of the “Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act,” introduced today by Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). A companion bill, H.R. 2834, has been reported from the House Natural Resources Committee.

While the bill’s stated and laudable intention is to provide for recreational hunting and fishing opportunities on our federal public lands, Section 4(e)(1) could lead to motorized access into designated Wilderness Areas that are statutorily off-limits to off-road vehicles.

While the legislation was moving through the House Natural Resources Committee, The Wilderness Society raised these concerns, requesting that the problematic language be stricken from the bill.

“This legislation has ‘Trojan Horse’ language in it that would have devastating consequences for Wilderness protection,” said Dave Alberswerth, senior policy advisor at The Wilderness Society. “Since the sponsors of the bill claim that they do not intend to allow motorized intrusions into wilderness areas, we are urging them to drop Section 4 of the proposal.”

To learn more about the Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act and other misguided legislation, please visit http://wilderness.org/content/wilderness-under-siege

To view The Wilderness Society’s statement for the record on the House version, please visit: http://wilderness.org/files/TWS-letter-HR-2834.pdf

Assault on wilderness fails in the polls

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:06:11 +0000

Image:

Half a billion acres. Thirteen bills -- ranging from giving away our great outdoors to mining in the Grand Canyon -- that would attack our nation’s lands and waters have been introduced this Congress. Our wilderness is under siege, and it seems as though the House leadership thinks that the American people support this inherently anti-American assault on our nation’s natural legacy.

But Republican, Democratic and Independent voters in the West appear to reject that assault.
A recent Colorado College poll conducted in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming showed that people want to protect, not squander, our great outdoors.

Called the Conservation in the West Poll, the survey paints a different picture of Americans’ opinions on conservation of our public lands. Not surprisingly, the majority of Western voters are in favor of conservation.

In fact, westerners whole-heartedly support conserving our public lands.
According to the survey, more than 85% of voters in every state surveyed (AZ, CO, MT, NM, UT, WY), “agree with the importance of public lands to their economy.” Dave Metz, a representative at one of the polling firms issuing the survey, found that “Western voters consistently believe that conservation helps create and protect jobs for their states.”

And while many in Congress continue to attack our wilderness and environmental protections, and promote proposals to sell off or give away these lands to corporate polluters, Americans revealed a very different sentiment. For example,
• A broad consensus of voters agrees that “we should not allow private companies to develop our public lands when their doing so would limit the public’s enjoyment of – or access to – these lands.”
• The majority of voters in every state are “more likely to view regulations as safeguards and protections,” rather than burdensome regulations.
• About 9 out of 10 agree that “our national parks, forests, monuments, and wildlife areas are an essential part of your state’s economy.”

It appears that there is a clash of values between many in Congress, who want to give away our great outdoors, and the American people, who want to protect these lands and waters that sustain us.

As any elected official can tell you, the truth is in the numbers.

The Wilderness Society Statement on Obama Administration’s Release of Forest Planning Rule

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:59:30 +0000

The following statement from Mike Anderson, Senior Resource Analyst for The Wilderness Society, is in response to the Obama Administration’s release of a new National Forest Planning Rule.

“The Forest Service has needed a new planning rule for some time in order to move forward with the important task of updating management plans for the National Forest System. The process of revising forest management plans is an important one – it gives citizens a voice in the management of their national forests and assurance that our national forests will successfully fulfill their role as providers of clean water, healthy outdoor recreation, and habitat to imperiled species.

“The agency’s latest proposal provides a strong vision and generally sound framework for sustainably managing our national forests, and represents an improvement over the earlier draft in many respects. It relies on sound science, provides direction to protect the ecological integrity of national forests, creates mechanisms for addressing climate change, and emphasizes the importance of water. We are hopeful that it will result in management plans that reflect modern-day thinking about ecosystem management, and that provide important services like clean drinking water and great recreational experiences.

“The Forest Service has made a sincere effort to reach out to the public, scientists, and stakeholder groups as it developed the new planning rule, and it is clear from the changes contained in this new draft that they have attempted to address many of the public’s concerns.

“Although we agree with the proposed rule’s overall vision, problems with the specifics remain. For example, we are concerned that the Forest Service will not be adequately accountable for achieving the rule’s goals, and that unfair bureaucratic requirements will interfere with citizens’ ability to voice concerns and challenge agency decisions. We urge the Administration to address these and other important concerns before the rule is finalized.

“We look forward to working with the Forest Service and U.S. Department of Agriculture to address the remaining problems with the rule, and once the rule is finalized to begin the process of developing more effective management plans for our national forests.”

Clean energy – not a drilling frenzy – will keep the State of the Union strong

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:18:15 +0000

In his annual speech to Congress and the American people tonight, President Obama is expected to address one of our nation’s most critical issues— energy. The Wilderness Society has led national efforts to ensure America moves steadily away from a fossil fuel based energy program, one of the many threats to our shared public lands, to a balanced approach that includes smart development of clean, renewable technologies.

The following statement can be attributed to Bill Meadows, president of The Wilderness Society:

“President Obama has done more to jump-start the clean energy economy than any previous president. Beginning in 2009 the Department of Interior has issued permits for 25 renewable energy projects on public lands - enough to power 2.3 million homes - while establishing a sensible framework for ensuring renewable energy is done “smart from the start,” by siting them in the right places with high energy potential and low environmental impacts.

“Continuing to expand clean energy infrastructure will keep America competitive in a global marketplace, and help free us from a harmful dependence on fossil fuels – both foreign and domestic. In the western US you are seeing the results of that effort with people being put to work, from construction jobs to high paying engineering roles. America needs these clean energy jobs.

“Tonight, President Obama is expected to lay out a plan to move America forward, but his call for increased production of domestic fossil fuels is misplaced. Recent drilling statistics prove that the oil and gas industry is sitting on millions of unused acres and thousands of unused drilling permits. In 2011 alone, for example, the Bureau of Land Management issued over 4,200 drilling permits – but only 3,260 wells were actually drilled.

“Energy independence in America will not be found at the bottom of well – it will be found alongside American jobs that cannot be outsourced, in a clean, renewable energy economy.”

For more information about unused leases and drilling permits, go to http://wilderness.org/content/numbers-dont-lie-blm-lease-sales-undercut-industry-claims.

National Parks Dive Into Five Year Action Plan

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:09:24 +0000

Image:

America’s National Parks, one of the greatest conservation legacies in the world, contain more than 84 million acres of American treasures, from untouched wilderness to historic battlefields marred by war - all protected by the National Park Service.

On January 24th through 26th America’s Summit on National Parks – Taking Action for a New Century will take place, bringing together leaders of the NPS, as well as their partners, to discuss the future of America’s parks. This summit reminds us that in five short years, the 100th anniversary of the NPS will be upon us. 100 years of conserving America’s public lands and providing a wealth of educational, recreational, economic, and research opportunities.

As a backcountry ranger at North Cascades National Park, I am quite accustomed to the bombardment of questions that occur on a regular basis, so I was very interested to see the 36 actions that the NPS will take to achieve their goal of “connecting people to parks in the next century” in the Call to Action Plan. I was happy to see that a few of the actions are geared towards educating the public about public land stewardship.
Questions like, “where can I take my dog hiking?”, “What is the best trail to see old growth forests?”, and “How do I store my food to protect the wildlife and my dinner?” are expected and quite routine for the duties of a national park ranger, and I was always happy to answer them.

However, there is another level of questions that I often find myself answering with extended explanations, all surrounding the web of public land management. For example, last summer while patrolling a few miles up the Cascade Pass Trail, I came across a father and daughter breaking for a snack on a large boulder overlooking the valley. “So, when I was driving to the trailhead this morning,” he began, “I passed a sign that said I was entering the National Forest, and then a few miles later I saw a sign that said I was entering a National Park. So, what’s the difference anyway?” To the public’s credit, understanding the complexity of public land management is no easy task. In fact there are four land managing agencies, residing under two federal departments, who manage our public lands – the National Park Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the US Forest Service. I laid my own pack down and began my usual speech distinguishing the different rules and regulations that apply to both the national park and national forests, and how the distinction allows a variety of recreational opportunities while also protecting or utilizing the natural resources of both.

To make things more complicated, each of the four agencies also manages designated Wilderness. Wilderness with a capital “W” can be imagined as a type of security blanket that can overlay any public land, it is public land with the highest form of protection. “Designated Wilderness” is limited to non-motorized or mechanical recreation and is defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled (unhindered or free from manipulation) by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain…an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition.” Designated Wilderness has five prominent characteristics based on the Wilderness Act, the land must be natural, undeveloped, untrammeled, have opportunities for solitude or unconfined recreation, and be unique in some way.

Another difficult aspect of understanding the four land managing agencies for the average recreational user is that simply knowing who manages the land may not tell you which rules and regulations apply. However you may be able to assume certain things, for example, by estimating how many people use the public land. Visitor use provides a big hint as to how the land is managed. National Parks receive the most visitors of all the agencies, and therefore their mission and policies focus on protecting natural resources from the damage that result from such high and concentrated use. Therefore, National Parks generally have more restrictions on the average user compared with Bureau of Land Management lands, for instance. In contrast, remote national forests may have fewer restrictions on the average recreationalist because the impact of their recreation is less concentrated and the forest is more resilient to the impact. However, there are exceptions to this. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness in Washington State, managed by the Forest Service, is such a hot destination that rules and regulations on the average user are stronger than some National Parks. It is best to check with each individual land unit you wish to visit for specific policies.

Back to the upcoming National Park Summit, I was also pleased to see that several of the actions needed to accomplish the NPS’s “Call to Action Plan” are already being implemented! For example, one of the items calls for better community involvement in national parks in their area. Through the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program more than 50 communities goal have protected 33,230 acres of open space and parkland, created 1,991 miles of trails, and conserved 1,925 miles of river (nps.gov/rtca). This program is part of President Obama’s Great Outdoors Initiative and clearly shows his support for public land protection and accessibility.

To read more about the National Park Service vision for the next 100 years, as well as to learn more about the actions being taken in the five year “Call to Action Plan” check out, http://www.nps.gov/calltoaction/.

API continues to mislead American public and lawmakers

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:42:03 +0000

Data released today by The Wilderness Society refutes the conclusions of a recent report by The American Petroleum Institute that government policies are inhibiting oil and gas development on onshore federal lands.

“API continues to cherry-pick data to push for more drilling on our public lands,” said Dave Alberswerth, senior policy advisor for The Wilderness Society.

The data released by the Wilderness Society shows that industry “nominations” for tracts of federal lands for leasing have declined over the past several years, with a resultant decline in the number of leases issued to oil and gas interests by the Bureau of Land Management. The Wilderness Society notes that, despite the downturn in leasing requests by industry, there are over 38.4 million acres of onshore federal lands currently under lease to the industry of which over 26 million acres have never been developed – an area larger than Kentucky.

In addition, The Wilderness Society also pointed out that the BLM in recent years has approved over 6,500 new drilling permits that have not been utilized by the industry.

“If the industry is so concerned with increasing drilling, their actions aren’t showing it,” said Nada Culver, senior director for agency policy and planning for The Wilderness Society. “The thousands of unused federal drilling permits, the tens of millions of acres of idle leases, and now the general downturn in lease tract nominations from industry– these facts all tell a far different story than the one that API is telling. The bottom line is that the new reforms implemented by the Bureau of Land Management are badly needed to restore an appropriate balance between development and conservation of our public lands, and the oil and gas industry has ample opportunities to responsibly develop oil and gas resources on those lands.”

The lease nominations data for the years 2006 through 2011 is here.