News Release


For Release: February 18, 2009
Contact: John Dearing/Jan Bedrosian, 916-978-4610, email: jdearing@ca.blm.gov;
CA-SO-09-03
BLM Taps Californian Mike Pool as Acting National Director

Mike Pool, California state director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), has been tapped to serve as the agency's acting national director in Washington D.C., effective March 1.
Pool, 55, a career veteran, has served more than 34 years with BLM, starting at the field office level and working his way up through a variety of assignments in Alaska, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington D.C., and the Department of the Interior.

He has been California state director since 2000, overseeing 15.1 million acres of public lands in California and another 1.5 million in northwestern Nevada. In the new acting position, he will oversee 256 million surface acres – more than any other federal agency. Most of this public land is located in 12 western states, including Alaska.
He replaces current BLM Acting Director Ron Wenker, who will return to his current position as BLM's Nevada state director. Pool will remain in the new assignment pending selection of a permanent director by new Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. In California, Pool's Associate State Director Jim Abbott will serve as acting California state director.

"I'm honored by the new assignment and look forward to assisting the new administration care for the public lands under BLM's jurisdiction," he said. The 55-year-old Pool, an Arizona native raised in New Mexico, holds a B.S. in wildlife science from New Mexico State University

...TJ

Is this good or bad news?

Exactly. What's the point of this thread?

Fill us in on how this affects us please....

We loose a known decision maker (at least for a while) in California.

He goes to DC to make national decisions for BLM.

So... Mr. Pool has been the state director here in California since before the ISDRA/CBD lawsuit.

I guess one needs to make a decision on how we feel about BLM in California with Mr. Pool in charge.

So Mike is the known good decision maker, and he's going to DC, this sounds like a good thing from what you just said!

So the bad part is, we don't know who we are getting now?? Or do we??

Based on what I've seen from the government lately...


We will get someone that will do everything he/she can to help the greenies and this "good decision maker" will be so wrapped up in othe BS he won't be involved in the little sandbox in California




Nah, I'm not bitter

I never said anything about "good" or "bad". Those who deal with him and are affected by his decisions (or lack thereof) at least know how and where he stands on things.

I have no idea who might be put into his position - perhaps no one at this time - and we will have someone who is in the State Office now working as a temp for Mr. Pool.

Does that mean that he is one of the guys that should have been doing his job so that the CBD, PEER, Ect wouldn't have been able to file lawsuits that closed the dunes?

Actually wasn't Mike Pool appointed as State Director shortly after the lawsuit.

I seem to remember that back in 99 or so he was regional and got moved up to state right after the lawsuit.

Ah, your right, i did read that wrong.

Are you one of the people that "deals with him"? I still dont understand if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Can you bring some light to this question??

I only met Mr. Pool once.

I knew Ed Hasty (the previous State Director) rather well before Mr. Pool.

I can't really pass judgement on the good or bad thing.

This post was more than a FYI.

I know that I liked Mr. Hastey, he was a good director and was open and forthright.

That's a tough question Robbie.

I'd say if Mr. Hastey was running the show, BLM likely would have put up a better defense.

Mr. Pool was a newbie and didn't have the contacts and experience that Mr. Hastey did.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but i remember sitting in an ASA meeting, listening to a Forest Service guy explaining how the law suit really went down. From what i remember, the CBD actually sued the Forest Service over the Milkvetch, and won on a techicality issue!

It had nothing to do with the plant OR the BLM!!!

Sorry to hi-jack, but am i right or wrong on this issue?? I do have terminal CRS!!

Mike Pool is a politician, always has been. Is that good or bad? I guess that depends on whether he's in your pocket or someone else's.

As for the lawsuit, it wasn't won an a technicality of any kind. It was "won" through a settlement. They sued, BLM compromised, 50% of the dunes have been temporarily closed since.

VickiW

Is can be confusing but CBD has sued the US Forest Service many times and has won.

The ISDRA lawsuit was filed against BLM. The large picture was BLM failed to "consult" with the US Fish and Wildlife Service on decisions it made in planning since the California Desert Plan of 1980.

In the end, BLM rolled over in the lawsuit - even though they had many "Affirmative Defense" they could have submitted to the Court - and BLM, CBD, and others who achived "standing" with the Court conducted a settlement process.

Because essentially CBD had won, they got to dictate the terms of the settlement. The "others" had some input, but they didn't have the power to make a significant difference as to what CBD wanted.

The ISDRA was just one of many stipulations that closed or altered greatly how we are able to access our public lands in the California Desert District.

The way i understood it was...

CBD applied to have the milkvetch listed as and endangered species and the Forest Service put it on its to-do list.

The CBD KNOWING the FS had X number of days to address the issue, didnt say a word about it after they filed the listing.

Once X number of days expired THEN the CBD filed suit against the FS to have all the dunes closed!!

The aggrement part of it was worked out with the BLM on getting the closures to be temporay, and keeping what we now have open.

The plant was never really the issue, the FS allowing the "acessment of the issue" period of time to expire was the REAL reason our dunes were closed. The FS f'd up, and the BLM paid the price, along with the rest of us.

Sorry Joe, the US Forest is a differnt agency and has nothing to do with BLM lands. The US Forest Service is under the Departmen of Agriculture, BLM is under the Department of the Interior.

BLM, in 1999, recieved a Notice of Intent to sue from CBD regarding what I posted above. BLM did not respond and thus CBD filed suit.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service listed the weed in the mid 1990's or so.

i remember clearly a Forest Service guy explaining all of this to us. maybe thats why i thought was FS related. or maybe your right, it was a fish and wildlife guy explaining the situation, and i have the two entities confused.

i wish i would have recorded that meeting!!!! crs f'n sucks sometimes.

Remember - the lawsuit was not just the dunes, it covered the entire CDCA and a number of plants/issues. So you could be thinking of some other aspect of it that wasn't dune related.


As far as the dunes go the problem was basically that the BLM is required to consult with FWS about any threatened or endangered species (that's where FWS comes into it). The BLM planned on doing that as part of the new RAMP that was due to be developed in 2000 (or so I may be off a year or two). The RAMP that the BLM was operating under did not address the PMV - never mind that the RAMP was created BEFORE the PMV was listed - the law is once they have a listed species they have to consult with the FWS about it....and that was the "in" that the CBD exploited. The BLM had NOT consulted the FWS because they had not started the new RAMP yet. It doesn't matter that they had plans to do so shortly, and it doesn't matter that the RAMP was in place before the PMV was listed - it's a technicality but one that the CBD latched onto and used as their in.

Basically the CBD said it doesn't matter that the BLM creates a new RAMP every XX years and plans on doing their consultation at the next RAMP. What the CBD argued was that the BLM needed to consult with FWS and revise the RAMP as soon as the PMV was listed - not when the RAMP was next due to be updated.

Duck, thanks for the correction!!! Your right, it was Fish and Wildlife that was at that meeting, and this is the process I was refering too here:

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/listing/petition.pdf

What are petitions for listing?

Petitions are formal requests to list a

species as endangered or threatened

under the Endangered Species Act.

They require published findings. We (or

the National Marine Fisheries Service

for most marine species) must make a

finding within 90 days of receiving a

petition (to the extent practicable) as to

whether or not there is “substantial

information” indicating that the

petitioned listing may be warranted. If

this preliminary finding is positive, a

status review is conducted. Within one

year of receipt of the petition, we must

make a further finding that the listing

either is or is not warranted. A positive

one-year finding can be incorporated into

a proposed listing or, if a prompt

proposal is precluded by other listing

activities, the proposal may be deferred.

These “warranted but precluded”

proposals require subsequent one-year

findings on each succeeding anniversary

of the petition until either a proposal is

undertaken or a “not warranted” finding

is made.

The 90 day Service Review was missed by F&W, and that's what caused the Intent To Sue to move forward. If they has addressed the issue within the 90 window, the dunes would still be open.

Boy here's all kinna interesting reading....

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/Species....do?spcode=Q2ND

I still think you're confused Joe. The PMV was already listed at the time the suit was filed. It wasn't due to the FWS not responding to the listing petition it was due to the BLM not having done a "section 7" consultation with the FWS.

Here's some info from 2000 that may help clear it up:

http://www.americansandassociation.org/php...p?f=8&t=154


Now - there are various attempts by the CBD currently going on to get MORE species listed (a bunch of insects) the discussion about FWS responding may have to do with that - but that's a totally separate issue and the PMV was already listed (so there was no failed response) at the time of the CDCA lawsuit that resulted in the current closures.

I'm sure your prolly right, I'm trying to get it all straight, so thanks for all your guys help! I'm just going by what i remember from that meeting, and it was a long time ago. At least now, me and everyone else here, has some valuable reading material! I'll digest it as time allows. Thanks for all the info.

Could someone define the difference, between a "politician" and a "public official"...TJ