Lubbock Times

Washington, D.C. – Chairman Jodey Arrington (TX-19) has raised concerns to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding efforts to expand the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge through the acquisition of private land using funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, and North American Wetlands Conservation Act.

“The land included in USFWS’s Conservation Partnership Area (CPA) – like much of rural America – is critical to our nation’s supply of agriculture and energy,” wrote Chairman Arrington. “When the federal government enacts policies that could interfere with the day-to-day lives of the hard-working farmers, ranchers, and energy producers who depend on this land for their livelihoods and on whom we depend for our nation’s food security and energy independence, my first instinct will always be to defend their rights, their way of life, and the future of rural America.”

A signed PDF of Arrington's letter is available online.

The full text of his letter is as follows:

Dear Director Williams,

I write today to express concern about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Final Land Protection Plan & Environmental Assessment” for the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge. It is my understanding that the ultimate goal of this plan is to expand federal land in my district from 6,400 acres to 700,000 acres for preserving sandhill crane, pronghorn, and lesser prairie-chicken habitats without Congressional approval or appropriate engagement with local stakeholders. While the plan states that federal land purchases and conservation easement partnerships are “voluntary” for landowners to enter into, I am concerned that this plan to expand the Muleshoe Wildlife Refuge could have negative effects that will reverberate throughout West Texas.

The land included in USFWS’s Conservation Partnership Area (CPA) – like much of rural America – is critical to our nation’s supply of agriculture and energy. When the federal government enacts policies that could interfere with the day-to-day lives of hard-working farmers, ranchers, and energy producers who depend on this land for their livelihoods and on whom we depend for our nation’s food security and energy independence, my first instinct will always be to defend their rights, their way of life, and the future of rural America.

My constituents have concerns about several aspects of this plan including how it will affect property values and taxes if landowners will be coerced into selling their properties or entering a conservation easement if this plan will restrict economic growth, and what oversight process this plan will entail. While USFWS did put out a detailed plan and environmental assessment direct communication between the Service and county governments in my district has been lacking.

Therefore I would like to seek answers in writing on these questions by July 11:

1. Can USFWS provide county-level data on how average property values and taxes changed in the first 10 years after counties were included in a CPA?

2. If USFWS achieves its goal of acquiring or issuing conservation easements for 700,000 acres of private land what would be estimated cost be to the federal government?

3. How long does USFWS anticipate it will take to acquire or obtain conservation easements for 700,000 acres?

4. Does USFWS plan on providing any oversight to ensure that landowners aren’t pressured or coerced into selling their properties or entering conservation easements?

5. If a developer would like to engage in new commercial recreational or research activities in CPAs which special permits would they need?

6. The Protection Plan claims proposed action would “have negligible effect on future oil/gas development within CPA” but makes no such claim about farming/ranching impacts within area can USFWS elaborate?

7. With global population Sandhill Cranes at 1.45 million Pronghorns North America at approximately 1 million why use these animals justify expansion wildlife refuge?

###