New BLM requirement for "courtesy" notification of surface owners at lease sale

The BLM has new guidance (Instruction Memorandum 2009-184) requiring notification of split-estate surface owners when their subsurface is going to be included in a lease sale. In addition, when companies nominate parcels that are on split-estate lands, they must provide the name and address of the surface owners or the BLM will not process the nomination. The requirement to include the information is effective immediately, but the IM states that the requirement to notify landowners is not effective until October 2010 lease sales – which seems a bit far off.

There is a sample form letter included that is to be used by the BLM to send out the notice with the notice of lease sale. Also, of interest, the IM was developed with staff from the Colorado, Eastern States, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and the IM states that there was a desire to make the policies in place in New Mexico and the Eastern States (and part of a recent pilot effort in Montana) uniform across the BLM.


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
http://www.blm.gov

July 24, 2009

In Reply Refer To:
3120 (310) P

EMS TRANSMISSION 07/30/2009
Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-184
Expires: 09/30/2010

To: State Directors

From: Acting Assistant Director, Minerals and Realty Management

Subject: Courtesy Notification of Surface Owners When Split Estate Lands are Included in an Oil and Gas Notice of Competitive Lease Sale

Program Area: Oil and Gas Leasing.

Purpose: This Instruction Memorandum (IM) establishes a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requirement to notify surface owners, as a courtesy, whenever split estate lands are included in an oil and gas Notice of Competitive Lease Sale. The BLM’s notification serves as a reasonable attempt to inform surface owners when their lands are included in a list of lands to be offered for competitive sale. This courtesy notification will provide basic information on Federal oil and gas leasing, the Oil and Gas (O&G) development process, and applicable O&G regulation. The notification will also include any special stipulations attached to the parcels that include their lands.

Policy/Action: Effective with the issuance of this memorandum, parties filing an Expression of Interest (EOI) to offer lands at a competitive oil and gas lease sale are required to provide the names and addresses of any surface owners where split estate lands are included in their EOI. Any new EOI including split estate lands that does not provide the name and address of the surface owner(s) will not be processed or listed in a competitive oil and gas sale until the required information is received. The State Office (SO) will return the EOI to the nominator with a letter advising of the new requirement.

If a SO has a pending EOI that includes split estate lands, the BLM must inform the party filing the EOI of the new requirement. This should be completed in the most efficient method possible, whether by letter or phone call. All phone calls should be documented. Also, depending on what is most efficient for the SO, the EOI may be held as pending until the surface owner information is provided. The BLM may have to return the letter to the party filing the EOI to request that the EOI be resubmitted with the required information if there is still interest in having the lands offered for lease.

Effective with the issuance of this memorandum, the SOs will use the courtesy notification form letter (attachment 1) to notify surface owners whenever split estate lands are included in an oil and gas Notice of Competitive Lease Sale. The letter is to be sent by regular mail when the Notice of Competitive Lease Sale is posted. Use the name and address provided with the EOI to send the notification letter. The SOs are not required to expend any additional time or effort to verify surface owner names and addresses or research alternative names and addresses if delivery to the provided name and address is unsuccessful. This is a courtesy notice. An unsuccessful delivery of the letter is not a reason to withdraw a parcel from the lease sale.
Establishing the requirement to provide surface owner names and addresses

Attachment 2 is a notice to announce this requirement. Effective with the issuance of this instruction, each SO must include this notice with at least two consecutive Notices of Competitive Lease Sale. In addition, an announcement of this requirement must be included in the opening remarks at two area competitive lease auctions, at a minimum. Each SO is to modify the Notice of Lease Sale and relevant web pages to include this requirement in describing how a party files an EOI.

BLM nominated parcels

The policy to send this courtesy notice also applies to BLM-nominated split estate lands included in an oil and gas Notice of Competitive Lease Sale. In such cases, it is incumbent upon the BLM to obtain the names and addresses of the surface owners. This IM does not dictate the method to be used to obtain this information, because the location of, and access to, such information varies from state to state and county to county. State and Field Offices are encouraged to research and use the most efficient and cost-effective methods possible.

Relationship to other BLM policies and procedures regarding split estate lands and oil and gas leasing

This policy does not cancel, replace, or modify any existing policy or procedures regarding split estate lands, particularly relating to land use planning and National Environmental Policy Act compliance. It is limited to the notification of surface owners whenever split estate lands are offered at auction.

Timeframe: The requirement to obtain surface owner name and addresses from parties filing an EOI is effective immediately. The requirement to notify surface owners whenever split estate lands are included in an oil and gas Notice of Competitive Lease Sale is effective October 1, 2010.

Budget Impact: There will be minor expenses incurred by the SOs to prepare, print, and send the required letters to surface owners. Researching the names and addresses of surface owners for BLM-nominated parcels will require some additional expenses. However, it is anticipated that the number and frequency of such nominations are not significant.

Background: As a result of work done to implement portions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 relating to split estate lands, BLM offices increased their efforts to provide split estate surface owners more information and notice regarding oil and gas leasing activities. However, these actions do not include direct notification of the surface owner when split estate parcels are going to be offered at auction, except in Eastern States and New Mexico and the start of a recent pilot effort in Montana. The Rocky Mountain State Directors suggested that a uniform and broadly applied BLM policy should be considered and implemented so that all SOs are providing the same notification to surface owners in the same manner.

Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: This policy will be included inthe BLM Manual 3120 –Competitive Leases, and BLM Handbook H-3120-1 – Competitive Leases, when they are next updated.

Coordination: This policy was developed in coordination with staff from Colorado, Eastern States, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. A draft of this Instruction Memorandum was provided to all State Directors for review and comment.

Contact: If you have any questions concerning the content of this IM, please contact me at 202-208-4201, or your staff may contact Robyn Shoop at 202-452-0334 or robyn_shoop@blm.gov.


Signed by: Authenticated by:
Jeff Holdren Robert M. Williams
Acting, Assistant Director Division of IRM Governance,WO-560
Minerals and Realty Management


2 Attachments
1 – Letter to Surface Owners (1 p)
2 – Notice of Expression of Interest Requirement (1 p)

Cartels Turn U.S. Forests Into Marijuana Plantations, Creating Toxic Mess

Empty turtle shells, decaying skunk carcasses and a set of deer antlers lay strewn about an empty campsite in California's Sierra National Forest. The butchered animals, as well as several five-pound propane canisters, camp stoves and heaps of trash, were all that remained of the 69 marijuana plantations recently uncovered in Fresno County as part of operation "Save our Sierras." The massive operation that began in February has already seized about 318,000 marijuana plants worth an estimated $1.1 billion, officials announced last week. In addition to 82 arrests, the multi-jurisdictional federal, state and local operation netted 42 pounds of processed marijuana, more than $40,000 in cash, 25 weapons and three vehicles. "Mexican drug trafficking organizations have been operating on public lands to cultivate marijuana, with serious consequences for the environment and public safety," said Gil Kerlikowske, chief of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy at a briefing on the investigation. The drug plantations are as much an environmental menace as they are a public safety threat. Growers in Fresno County used a cocktail of pesticides and fertilizers many times stronger than what is used on residential lawns to cultivate their crop. "This stuff leaches out pretty quickly," said Shane Krogen, executive director of the High Sierra Volunteer Trail Crew in charge of helping clear the land of chemicals and trash so it can begin its slow restoration. While the chemical pesticides kill insects and other organisms directly, fertilizer runoff contaminates local waterways and aids in the growth of algae and weeds. The vegetation in turn impedes water flows that are critical to frogs, toads and salamanders in the Kings and San Joaquin rivers, Krogen said. The Sierra operations are the latest in a growing number of illegal plantations run by foreign suppliers who have moved north of the U.S.-Mexico border where they are closer to U.S. drug markets. Of the 82 individuals arrested in the "Save our Sierras" sting, all but two were Mexican or some other foreign nationality. Bankrolled by sophisticated drug cartels, suppliers are sidestepping border patrols to grow in relative obscurity on Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service lands across the West and even into the Southeast...NYTimes

Must be appropriation time again.

Report: Public lands see increase of OHV use

Hampered by lean budgets and growing responsibilities, federal land management agencies have struggled in recent years to keep up with the rising popularity of off-highway vechicle use on public land, congressional investigators said in a report Thursday. The Government Accountability Office said OHV use on public land has grown during the past five years, while the response by the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management has been limited by dwindling resources and growing responsibilities. The three agencies, which oversee 530 million acres, all reported to the GAO that the main challenge to managing OHV recreation was having too few employees to enforce existing regulations. The report pointed to the BLM's office in Grand Junction, Colo., where a single law enforcement officer patrols 1.3 million acres. "Law enforcement officers have many responsibilities including, among others, enforcing OHV regulations, controlling gang activity, preventing illegal drug activities, and responding to impacts on resources and public safety from illegal smuggling activities along the U.S. border," the report said. Larry Smith, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Americans for Responsible Recreational Access, said federal actions haven't been adequate to meet the growing popularity of off-road recreation...AP

Wolves kill four more bear-hunting dogs

Four more bear-hunting hounds have been killed by wolves in northern Wisconsin while running free during bear-hunting training sessions. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources reported Thursday that the dogs were killed, and another injured, in separate incidents over the past two weeks in Bayfield, Burnett, Clark and Oneida counties. The latest dog deaths follow four deaths in Ashland, Clark, Oneida and Forest counties earlier in July. Wisconsin has more than 500 wolves that, under a court settlement, were returned last month to federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. It remains illegal under federal law to kill a wolf in Wisconsin, except for federal trappers who kill wolves near where livestock or dogs have been killed...NewsTribune

Forest Servince In NM - $2.8 Million In "Potty Pork"

New Mexico's oldest and most-used national forest restrooms will soon get a potty break thanks to $2.8 million in the federal pipeline. The money from the federal economic-stimulus package is set to be spent on repairing and replacing aging toilets in three of the state's national forests including the Cibola National Forest where Jim Hughes is a park host. But some critics think spending millions of making potties pretty is a waste even calling it "potty pork."...KRQE-TV

The American Thinker headline is 2.8 Million porkulus dollars down the toilet. They compute the cost to be $125,000-$150,000 per restroom.

I'd best keep my comments to myself.

NM Ranch Is First Ranch Approved Under IMI Global's VerifiedGreen

Integrated Management Information, Inc. Integrated Management Information, Inc. (IMI Global) (OTCBB: INMG), a leading provider of verification solutions in the agricultural/livestock industry, today announced that the nation's first cattle were sold at auction under the Company's new VerifiedGreen™ program (See More Information), an innovative verification system that caters to ranchers, retailers and consumers who are committed to reducing their carbon footprint. The cattle auction featuring animals that were assigned a specific number of carbon credits took place on Monday, July 27, 2009, on Superior Livestock's (http://www.superiorlivestock.com/) Video Royale XVII sale in Winnemucca, Nevada. Buyers of the cattle -- typically feed yards -- paid the owner, Mayfield Ranch of Hidalgo, N.M., one price for both the cattle purchased at auction and the carbon credits associated with the sustainable activities of the ranch. Butch Mayfield, owner of Mayfield Ranch, said, "We are very excited to be participating in the carbon market with IMI Global and VerifiedGreen. It has been hard to determine the actual value of carbon credits, but this program ensures the benefit of our credits will stay in the beef industry and not be sold to benefit another industry. One group of the cattle we sold brought $1.36 per pound and topped the market that day so we are very pleased with the results." Under the VerifiedGreen program, farmers and ranchers who employ environmentally sustainable production processes can have their operations verified "green" by IMI Global's auditors, making them eligible to market their animals with carbon credits attached. The quantity of carbon credits attached to each calf is determined independently for each ranch based on the carbon sequestration rate of the land where the cattle were born and raised...marketwire

Take Home Messages From The Animal Agriculture Alliance Meeting

Consider these facts: Ninety-five law schools now offer at least one course in animal law. A publication exists called the Journal of Animal Law and Ethics. The World Bank has created a publication on animal welfare. Animal rights issues have permeated our culture, and animal agriculture is seeing the effects. So in May, when farmers, legislative leaders, veterinarians, issue management specialists, government officials and others interested in the future of agriculture came together in Arlington, Virginia, for the Animal Agriculture Alliance’s Stakeholders Summit, that’s what they talked about. This year’s theme was "Politics, Activism and Religion: Influencing the Debate on Animal Welfare in America." Here are some of the highlights: There was a warning from Wes Jamison, associate professor of communications at Palm Beach Atlantic University: animal rights activists are using messages with religious themes and language to advance their agenda: vegetarianism. Bruce Vincent, a third generation logger from Montana, also gave an impassioned talk, warning that animal rights groups thrive on conflict – in fact, they must perpetuate conflict to survive. It is a conflict industry, he said. "Groups involved in this industry generate cash by marketing fear.” He warned that activist groups put before the public false choices, especially on animal welfare and the environment (the only way to have clean water is to eliminate animal agriculture, etc.)...cattlenetwork

Bill would restrict antibiotics in food animals

A New York congresswoman is trying to rally support for a federal bill that would restrict antibiotic use in food animals just months after a similar measure tanked in California. Despite being voted down in Sacramento, a proposal that bans feeding antibiotics to cattle, hogs and poultry to increase their growth seems to be gaining momentum in the nation's capital, where the Obama administration has condemned the practice. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that as much as 70 percent of the antibiotics used in the United States are given to healthy animals. Conventional farmers and ranchers routinely feed antibiotics to their herd to help the animals use their food more efficiently and bulk up faster. They say the medication also helps ward off pathogens that could sicken or kill their livestock. But scientists and doctors fear that the overuse of these drugs makes them less effective in fighting bacteria in humans and animals. Microbes that develop immunity to the drugs will multiply and flourish. "We're looking at ways to phase out the use of antibiotics for growth promotion and food efficiency in livestock," said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, who is concerned that giving anti-microbials to animals when they are not sick is inappropriate - and even worse, contributes to more drug-resistant infections in people. Sharfstein is also pushing for veterinarians to oversee antibiotic use on animals. Currently, livestock feeds mixed with antibiotics such as Tylosin, a macrolide; and Chlortetracycline are sold over the counter...SanFrancisoChronicle

USDA reviewing 4,800 pages of comments

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has reported that it has received and is reviewing more than 4,800 pages of public comments regarding its rule to reopen the U.S. border to Canadian cattle 30 months old and older and to beef from those cattle (Feedstuffs, Nov. 19, 2007). A federal judge in South Dakota, in response to a petition by R-CALF USA to temporarily enjoin the rule, ordered USDA last year to reopen its rulemaking to public comment because it failed to provide for comment on the beef portion of the rule (Feedstuffs, July 14, 2008). However, the judge did not issue an injunction that would halt cross-border trade in older Canadian cattle and beef from those cattle...Feedstuffs

Fatalities Caused by Cattle — Four States, 2003–2008

During 2003–2007, deaths occurring in the production of crops and animals in the United States totaled 2,334; of these, 108 (5%) involved cattle as either the primary or secondary cause (1). During the same period, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska accounted for 16% of the nation’s approximately 985,000 cattle operations and 21% of the nation’s cattle and calf herd (2). To better characterize cattle-caused deaths in these four states, investigators reviewed all such deaths occurring during the period 2003–2008 that were detected by two surveillance programs, the Iowa Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (IA FACE) and the Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health (GPCAH). This report summarizes that investigation, which identified 21 cattle-related deaths. These deaths occurred throughout the year, and decedents tended to be older (aged ?60 years) (67%) and male (95%). Except in one case, the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head or chest. Circumstances associated with these deaths included working with cattle in enclosed areas (33%), moving or herding cattle (24%), loading (14%), and feeding (14%). One third of the deaths were caused by animals that had previously exhibited aggressive behavior...Docuticker

Song Of The Day #095

Let's close the week with "The Tennessee Plowboy", Eddy Arnold, singing I'll Hold You In My Heart.

Bear Family Records have collected all of his early work on two box sets, The Tennessee Plowboy & His Guitar (my favorite) and There's Been A Change In Me 1951-1955.

Obama praises US House vote for food safety reform

The House passed a bill for a sweeping reform of the U.S. food safety system, a vote immediately praised by President Barack Obama as step to protect Americans from tainted food. The bill would give the Food and Drug Administration the power to order food recalls, requires all facilities to have a food safety plan in place, increases the frequency of food inspections and expands FDA access to company records. "This action represents a major step forward in modernizing our food safety system and protecting Americans from food-borne illness," said Obama in a statement that listed administration actions for safe food. Obama thanked the House and said he will work with the Senate "to enact critical food-safety legislation."...Reuters

U.S. House Passes Bill Overhauling Food-Safety Laws

The U.S. House voted to overhaul the nation’s food-safety laws in the wake of high-profile outbreaks of food-borne illnesses that sickened, killed and left industries fighting to woo back wary customers. The chamber approved on a 283-142 vote today a $3.5 billion measure that would direct the Food and Drug Administration to write new regulations to safeguard the food supply, require more frequent inspections of processing facilities and force companies to keep better records to help regulators trace outbreaks. The plan would be partly financed by a $500 annual fee on food producers. The FDA, which has the authority now to recall a handful of products such as infant formula, would get expanded power under the bill to have more tainted items yanked off store shelves. The agency would also be allowed to impose quarantines restricting the movement of food deemed a threat to public safety. Food processors would have to be inspected more frequently, with those deemed the riskiest examined at least once a year. Produce and processed foods would have to bear labels identifying their countries of origin. The bill also requires factories to register annually with the government, which Dingell said is “very important because without that, Food and Drug doesn’t know who is doing what.” The measure directs the Health and Human Services secretary to determine by the end of this year whether bisphenol A, a chemical used in plastic food containers, presents a risk to infants, pregnant women or young children. It also calls for a study of whether antibiotics used in animals contributes to antibiotic resistance in humans. The $500 fee, which would be indexed for inflation, would generate an estimated $1.4 billion over the next five years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Companies owning multiple facilities subject to the charge would pay no more than $175,000 annually. Farms and restaurants would be exempted from the fee...Bloomberg

A List Of Concerns - The Food Safety Bill

The Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has this to say about the bill:

The bill imposes burdensome requirements while not specifically targeting the industrial food system and food imports, where the real food safety problems lie. Small farms and local food processors are part of the solution to food safety, yet HR 2749 takes a one-size-fits-all approach subjecting local producers to the same regulations as industrial firms. The bill gives FDA much more power than it has had in the past while making the agency less accountable for its actions.

Here is their list of concerns:

1. GEOGRAPHIC QUARANTINE
HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including "prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area." Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.
2. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES*
HR 2749 would empower FDA to make warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.
3. TRACING SYSTEM
HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each "person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food" would have to "maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food," and "establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons." The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods. With all these ambiguities, it's far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers.
4. SEVERE PENALTIES
HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to a total of $100,000 for individuals.
5. REGISTRATION FEE
HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any "facility" that holds, processes, or manufactures food. Although "farms" are exempt, the agency has defined "farm" narrowly. And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times.
6. CROP REGULATION
HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers.

Ethanol Battles: What Does Iowa Have to Do With the Ambassador to Brazil?

Farm-state congressmen clearly have lots of influence over domestic policy—especially energy. But foreign policy? Ditto, as it turns out, especially when it comes to energy. Iowa’s Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley is holding up the nomination of Thomas Shannon to become ambassador to Brazil. The problem? Mr. Shannon has hinted he’s in favor of repealing the $0.54 cent-per-gallon tariff the U.S. levies on imports of Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol—a direct threat to the farm-state interests Mr. Grassley represents. “I ask that you clarify the policy of the Administration regarding the ethanol tariff […] Mr. Shannon’s statement has caused concern among domestic biofuels producers who are now left to wonder if President Obama supports repealing the import tariff,” Mr. Grassley wrote yesterday in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. trade representative Ron Kirk. That all came about after Mr. Shannon said in his Senate confirmation hearing earlier this month that removing the tariff would be “beneficial.” If it sounds familiar, it should. Last summer, when gasoline prices hit $4 a gallon, several high-ranking senators, including Richard Lugar of Indiana and Dianne Feinstein of California, came out in favor of scrapping the tariff in order to save U.S. drivers a few cents at the pump. Brazilian ethanol—even with the tariff—is cheaper than U.S. corn-based ethanol, which is blended with gasoline. Most senators, especially in the corn belt and led by Mr. Grassley, heartily opposed the idea. Candidate Obama, too, was opposed—he hails from Illinois. But the spat over ethanol tariffs revives an old question—what’s the priority behind U.S. energy policy, if there is one?...WSJ

Our energy policy is politicians rigging the market to benefit a favored constituent group. All else is rhetoric.

EPA "Endangerment" Finding On CO2 Could Expand Climate Change Tort Suits

In April 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a finding that elevated atmospheric concentrations of six greenhouse gases (GHG), including carbon dioxide (CO2), constitutes "air pollution" that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare." Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 18886 (Apr. 24, 2009). EPA's proposal would also find that four of the GHGs that are emitted by motor vehicles cause or contribute to pollution. As EPA states, if it makes such an Endangerment Finding, the agency would be legally obligated under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. The effect of an Endangerment Finding, however, will not be limited to new automobiles. As EPA indicated in its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), the same or very similar Endangerment Finding language in Section 202(a) is set forth in other Clean Air Act provisions governing many other kinds of stationary and mobile sources. See Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 Fed. Reg. 44354 (Jul. 30, 2008). Logically, if EPA finds that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles endanger the public health or welfare, then EPA must make the same finding as to the GHG emissions of numerous other significant sources. EPA will therefore be obligated to regulate those sources as well. Accordingly, EPA is about to embark on a course in which it will determine that most significant sources of GHG emissions throughout the economy pose a danger to public health and welfare, and must therefore be regulated. An EPA Endangerment Finding could potentially encourage a flood of lawsuits against companies that emit greenhouse gases by claiming that such activities constitute "negligence" or a "nuisance."...WashingtonLegalFoundation

Really Green Fuel: The EPA Opens the Door to Algae

The renewable energy and law blog of Stoel Rives LLP, a big law firm in the western U.S, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency will count algae as an advanced biofuel under Renewable Fuel Standard rules being developed. The EPA is said to be encouraged by recent interest in algae by heavyweights such as Exxon Mobil and Dow Chemical. Biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, sugar-cane ethanol and even biodiesel were envisioned in the RFS – but algae was absent. Why do EPA’s steps towards including algae matter? Because when Congress created its mandate to blend advanced biofuel into the fuel pool, it created a big market for these fuels. By 2012, the law mandates that two billion gallons of these advanced biofuels be blended, a figure that rises by tenfold by 2022. It’s all in Section 202 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. If EPA decides that algae should be included, that creates a big opening for companies such as Sapphire Energy similar to the opening for cellulosic ethanol makers such as Verenium Corp...WSJ

Military planning for possible H1N1 outbreak

The U.S. military wants to establish regional teams of military personnel to assist civilian authorities in the event of a significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall, according to Defense Department officials. The proposal is awaiting final approval from Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The officials would not be identified because the proposal from U.S. Northern Command's Gen. Victor Renuart has not been approved by the secretary. The plan calls for military task forces to work in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is no final decision on how the military effort would be manned, but one source said it would likely include personnel from all branches of the military. It has yet to be determined how many troops would be needed and whether they would come from the active duty or the National Guard and Reserve forces...CNN

You just knew when Bush created this domestic arm of the military under the guise of terrorism, that items like this would start popping up.

Bush gave them the hammer and now the are running around looking for nails.

Emergency Meeting Gives Food Safety Bill Another Shot

The House Committee on Rules held an “emergency meeting” today, Jul 29, 2009, to discuss the future of H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act. Early today H.R. 2749 failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of the members “present and voting” necessary for a bill to pass under Suspension of the Rules; however, the legislation did have enough votes to pass under regular order. And that appears to be the next step according to sources on Capitol Hill. The conclusion of the “emergency meeting” is that H.R. 2749 will come to the House floor for a vote under a “closed-rule,” which means no amendments were made in order. The bill, which is somewhat controversial among those in the agricultural community, will likely pass tomorrow by a significant majority based on today's Suspension of the Rules vote outcome...AALA

Farmers see prices tank for carbon credits

Farmers enrolled in a program that rewards them for reducing greenhouse gasses are finding the market for their carbon credits has shrunk amid the recession and uncertainty about climate legislation being crafted by Congress. Carbon dioxide credits are fetching about 60 cents a metric ton, down from a high of about $7 a year ago, according to the National Farmers Union, which runs the program. Farmers, ranchers and landowners earn credits by growing grasses and trees or using no-till farming practices, in which seeds are injected into the soil to reduce the amount of dirt turned over and carbon released. Livestock producers can participate by installing systems to capture methane from manure. The program pools the credits for sale on the Chicago Climate Exchange, a private agency that trades greenhouse gases and other pollutants just as other exchanges trade commodities such as crops and livestock. Corporations, cities and other exchange members buy the credits to help offset their emissions. The program's participants in 2006 and 2007 captured carbon dioxide from 2.8 million acres, or about the amount produced by 320,000 cars per year, Enerson said. Farmers usually receive payment for their credits - typically a few thousand dollars - in July. But those checks haven't been sent this year because most of the carbon credits pooled in 2008 have yet to be traded, Johnson and Enerson said...AP