If you suspect fraud, waste, abuse, misconduct, or mismanagement involving the U.S. Department of the Interior, please complete and submit the form on the following link. If you are unable to submit this form directly online, you may select one of the alternative methods listed at the bottom of < this link >.
Embedded Files
It is a simple process to submit complaints to the Department of Interior, Office of Inspector General regarding FISCAL MISCONDUCT
The public has a responsibility and a means to raise complaints about government agencies’ obligations and misuse of taxpayer dollars
Please, take a moment to provide your own submittal
The goal of this page is to enumerate a large number of short, detailed, specific complaints that will pass the intake filters and get a person to read them because they appear on-point and relevant. Each small complaint will have a clean, consistent format and a link to this page which will grow to contain a long list of complaints. There is no limit on the number of complaints you can make. If you have time - copy and paste them all in separate complaints
Seeking input from federal employees or citizens that have knowledge of wrongdoing concerning federal spending, fiscal management, or any other dealings with the federal budget including but not limited to the:
Reference Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 H.R. 3746 118th Congress
EXAMPLES
Curtailment of DOI BLM Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Incentive Program
Overview The Adoption Incentive Program operated by the BLM Wild Horse and Burro section is a failed attempt to reduce the number of animals under the care of the agency. Participants in the program regularly abuse the contract terms, resulting in neglect of the animals and creating a highly profitable industry for disposal. Adopters sign a contract agreeing to provide adequate care, which the agency is not enforcing.
Budget Annually the Bureau misrepresents the effectiveness of the program in its annual budget request. The result of the program is a negative revenue stream. Costs to conduct the program outweigh income by 3-4 times the claims made by the agency.
Body Reporting enumeration varies from one BLM data source to the other. Even with FOIA requests it is impossible to obtain solid data. The program fails to identify individuals who break the contract and dispose of the animal upon receipt of payment. Program participants are shown to adopt dozens of animals annually for the payout and then quickly dump them on the various disposal markets. The animals are often starved and sold to slaughter rather than cared for as specified by the contract. The BLM does not validate adopter performance nor track repeat contract offenders. Few offenders are identified and banned from the program.
Payback By curtailing this flawed program, funds and staff resources can be reallocated to support more thorough Environmental Impact studies. More than 80 percent of BLM lands have not been reviewed for current environmental impacts. This results in making planning decisions and taking actions without adequate information. Funding enhanced environmental protection should be a priority.
Link to this and other complaints https://bit.ly/3RD6jcN
Short and Long-Term Holding of Removed Animals
Overview The Off Range Holding Program operated by the BLM Wild Horse and Burro section is a failed attempt to deal with the animals removed from BLM lands.
Budget Annually the Bureau misrepresents the effectiveness of this program in its annual budget request. The result of the program is a negative revenue stream. Costs to conduct grow annually and there is no income. Current numbers estimate 66,000 animals under BLM care at a cost averaging $30,000 per animal for it’s lifetime. $66k x $30k - $1.98B
This program consumes 30 percent of the total 2024 Wild Horse and Burro budget request. The feeding requirements are responsible for driving up the price of forage for private and commercial livestock by 100 percent in 2023. The math reveals each horse requires 2% of its body weight in hay daily. 1 horse @1000lbs x 2% x 66000 / 2000 = 660 tons daily = $118,500 daily or $43,362,000 annually.
Body Reporting enumeration varies from one BLM data source to the other. Even with FOIA requests it is impossible to obtain solid data.
Payback By curtailing this flawed program, funds and staff resources can be reallocated to support more thorough Environmental Impact studies. The availability of $30 million annually to the remaining BLM programs will promote better management and more effective utilization of taxpayer dollars.
Link to this and other complaints https://bit.ly/3RD6jcN
Preclude the use of public lands a collateral as currently permitted by the Taylor Grazing Act is also known as 43 USC 315
This statute creates an enormous hidden benefit to wealthy, elite ranchers and corporations. And additionally creates an enormous liability for the nation.
Nearly 25 percent of public lands administered by the BLM are subject to the terms of 43 U&SC 315 (The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934). Under those statutes a permit holder (an individual or corporation) can encumber the acreage with private loans.
The BLM administers nearly 18,000 permits and leases held by ranchers who graze their livestock, mostly cattle and sheep, at least part of the year on more than 21,000 allotments. Permits and leases generally cover a 10-year period and are renewable if the BLM determines that the terms and conditions of the expiring permit or lease are being met.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 155 million acres of public land for livestock grazing. This is about 25% of the nation's public land. The vast majority of those 21,000 allotments are encumbered by loans issued to the permit holder. What this means is 25 percent of public land is held, contractually as collateral by financial institutions.
Using the Taylor Grazing Act in this way creates a special class or elite, wealthy ranchers and livestock corporations. That privileged class is additionally supported by the rate the BLM charges for grazing.
The BLM charges allotment holders $1.35 per acre per month. That is far below the average national cost for livestock grazing. The BLM loses money with this arrangement. The Grazing Permit Program does not bring fair value for the government. Privileged access to loans using government property for collateral and bargain rates for grazing the BLM is fulfilling the agenda of the cattle lobby. These are business which are entitled in ways the average livestock operator cannot obtain.
Link to this and other complaints https://bit.ly/3RD6jcN
Failure to Conduct Environmental Assessments for Grazing Allotments on Public Lands
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) repeated failure to conduct Environmental Assessments (EAs) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for grazing allotments on public lands. This omission is a serious violation of environmental law and poses significant threats to the health of our public lands, ecosystems, and wildlife.
NEPA's Requirement for Environmental Assessments:
NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of their actions before making decisions. This includes issuing grazing permits for public lands. An EA is a crucial tool for identifying potential environmental harms, exploring alternatives, and ensuring public involvement in the decision-making process.
Evidence of BLM's Non-Compliance:
Please see this allotment map https://www.westernwatersheds.org/hma-domestic-grazing/
Consequences of the BLM's Failure to Conduct EAs:
The BLM's failure to conduct EAs for grazing allotments has numerous negative consequences. These include:
· Degradation of public lands: Overgrazing can lead to soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, and impaired water quality. Without proper assessments and mitigation measures, these harms go unchecked.
· Harm to wildlife and endangered species: Grazing can disturb sensitive habitat and threaten endangered species. EAs are essential for identifying and mitigating these impacts.
· Lack of public transparency and accountability: The public has a right to be informed about and participate in decisions that affect our shared resources. EAs provide a vital mechanism for this engagement.
Call to Action:
I urge you to take immediate action to address the BLM's failure to comply with NEPA. This includes:
· Immediately initiating thorough EAs for all existing grazing allotments that lack them.
· Developing clear and consistent guidelines for conducting EAs on grazing allotments.
· Ensuring public participation in the EA process and seriously considering all comments received.
· Holding the BLM accountable for its failure to comply with NEPA and environmental laws.
The health of our public lands and the future of our natural heritage depend on ensuring responsible management of grazing allotments. We cannot afford to allow the BLM to continue flouting NEPA and putting our precious resources at risk.
Link to this and other complaints https://bit.ly/3RD6jcN
Failure to Conduct NEPA assessments by the BLM regarding grazing allotment management
I am writing to express my deep concern and dissatisfaction regarding the apparent lapse in conducting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessments on grazing allotments under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). As a concerned citizen and advocate for responsible land management practices, I find it imperative to bring this matter to your attention.
It has come to my attention that NEPA environmental assessments, a critical process for evaluating the environmental impacts of federal actions, are not being consistently performed on grazing allotments managed by the BLM. This oversight raises serious questions about the Bureau's commitment to ensuring the ecological sustainability and long-term health of public lands.
The NEPA process is designed to involve the public in the decision-making process and provide a thorough analysis of the potential environmental consequences of proposed actions, such as grazing on public lands. By neglecting to conduct these assessments, the BLM is not only failing to fulfill its legal obligations but also undermining the principles of transparency, public participation, and informed decision-making.
I urge the Bureau of Land Management to promptly address this issue by taking the following actions:
Initiate Immediate NEPA Assessments: Conduct thorough NEPA environmental assessments on all grazing allotments where such assessments have been neglected. This includes a comprehensive evaluation of the potential impacts on soil, water, wildlife, and other ecological factors.
Enhance Public Engagement: Ensure that the public is actively involved in the decision-making process by providing timely and accessible information about upcoming NEPA assessments. Foster an environment that encourages public input and collaboration.
Review and Strengthen Internal Procedures: Conduct an internal review of BLM procedures related to NEPA compliance. Identify and rectify any systemic issues that may have contributed to the lack of assessments on grazing allotments.
Transparent Reporting: Enhance transparency by providing clear and accessible documentation of NEPA assessments, their findings, and any resulting decisions. This will contribute to building trust and accountability within the community.
I believe that addressing these concerns promptly will not only uphold the BLM's commitment to responsible land management but also foster a collaborative and informed approach to grazing practices on public lands. I appreciate your attention to this matter and trust that the Bureau of Land Management will take the necessary steps to rectify the situation.
Link to this and other complaints https://bit.ly/3RD6jcN
Filing against the BLM Dept. Per millions of tax dollars the BLM in their wild horse roundups and sinister adoption program. I am asking for a full investigation on the BLM and their wild horse holding facilities. Along with the contracts to private contractors using helicopters to run them down. The budget allowed and the upkeep for holding horses hostage in a permanent pen is costly and cruel.
The only reason these round ups happen is the lobbyist for ranchers. Wanting to graze on public land for mere pennies. It is a proven fact that wild horses enhance the lands and is a vital part of the ecological system. The argument is there are too many. Well nature takes its course as they have natural predators. Mountain lions and bears lose wild horses. They lose a major food source. Who are we to interfere with natural lands and wildlife?
This culling on our American wild mustangs is a slap to the face of taxpayers. Ranchers and the BLM are not the sole owner of the public lands.
The BLM has gone rogue with little to no oversight.
If congress and senate would take a moment to look into this, instead of wasting time on stupid political investigations. We might save a lot of money here so we can pull back and save the taxpayers money. How about doing more scientific research on wild horses and the benefits of grazing on the public lands?
The money is there to be used on better things. There is no viable reason to be capturing horses in the wild. Then throwing them in kill pens so kill buyers can scoop them up for $25 a head and ship them to Mexico or Canada slaughter. We the taxpayers are making these contractors and kill buyers very rich.
If you need hard facts let me know. If you look into this, you will see the taxpayer waste in less than 30 min. doing an investigation. Deb Haaland is from ranchers and is in their pockets. She needs to be fired. Tracy Manning Stone another waste of payroll.
I implore you to do your own research and you will indeed see how this whole dept. is fleecing America. Please return your feedback and thoughts. Thank you. \
Link to this and other complaints https://bit.ly/3RD6jcN
Curtailment of DOI BLM Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Incentive Program
Overview The Adoption Incentive Program operated by the BLM Wild Horse and Burro section is a failed attempt to reduce the number of animals under the care of the agency. Participants in the program regularly abuse the contract terms, resulting in neglect of the animals and creating a highly profitable industry for disposal. Adopters sign a contract agreeing to provide adequate care, which the agency is not enforcing.
Budget Annually the Bureau misrepresents the effectiveness of the program in its annual budget request. The result of the program is a negative revenue stream. Costs to conduct the program outweigh income by 3-4 times the claims made by the agency.
Body Reporting enumeration varies from one BLM data source to the other. Even with FOIA requests it is impossible to obtain solid data. The program fails to identify individuals who break the contract and dispose of the animal upon receipt of payment. Program participants are shown to adopt dozens of animals annually for the payout and then quickly dump them on the various disposal markets. The animals are often starved and sold to slaughter rather than cared for as specified by the contract. The BLM does not validate adopter performance nor track repeat contract offenders. Few offenders are identified and banned from the program.
Payback By curtailing this flawed program, funds and staff resources can be reallocated to support more thorough Environmental Impact studies. More than 80 percent of BLM lands have not been reviewed for current environmental impacts. This results in making planning decisions and taking actions without adequate information. Funding enhanced environmental protection should be a priority.
Link to this and other complaints https://bit.ly/3RD6jcN
Budget allocated to Calculating AML (Appropriate Management Level) is wasted and should be re-allocated
The methodology used by the Wild Horse and Burro program does not use simple science nor does it account for current data in its execution. AML levels established for wild horses and burros on public lands does not properly use scientific method to determine management practices.
The current calculation misrepresents the true capacity of these lands for grazing, leading to overpopulation and detrimental consequences for both the horses and the ecosystems they inhabit.
Our concerns are as follows:
• Lack of transparency and scientific rigor: The BLM's methodology for determining AMLs remains largely opaque and lacks sufficient scientific backing. Key factors influencing grazing capacity, such as plant community composition, soil health, and water availability, are often inadequately addressed or oversimplified in the calculations. This lack of transparency and thoroughness raises serious concerns about the accuracy and objectivity of the resulting AMLs.
• Overestimated grazing capacity: The current system often overestimates the grazing capacity of public lands, failing to account for the cumulative impact of wild horses alongside other permitted uses like livestock grazing and recreational activities. This overestimation leads to unsustainable herd sizes and contributes to rangeland degradation, ecosystem imbalance, and threats to sensitive species.
• Negative consequences for horses and ecosystems: Overpopulated herds result in competition for scarce resources, leading to malnutrition, foal mortality, and increased susceptibility to disease among horses. Additionally, overgrazing can damage vegetation, deplete soil quality, and disrupt natural ecological processes, harming other wildlife and plant species.
We urge the House Budget Committee and Fiscal Accountability Committee to investigate these concerns and take steps to ensure that the DOI BLM Wild Horse Program operates with transparency, scientific integrity, and accountability. Specifically, we recommend:
• Conducting a comprehensive review of the current AML methodology. This review should be conducted by independent experts and address all aspects of the calculation, including data collection, modeling techniques, and the consideration of key ecological factors.
• Developing a more transparent and evidence-based approach to setting AMLs. This approach should prioritize scientific data, incorporate stakeholder input, and ensure long-term sustainability for both horses and ecosystems.
• Improving accountability for the BLM's management of wild horses and burros. This includes implementing rigorous monitoring protocols to track herd populations and rangeland health, as well as establishing clear performance metrics and consequences for mismanagement.
We believe that these actions are necessary to ensure the responsible and sustainable management of wild horses and burros on public lands. We appreciate your attention to this critical issue and urge you to take swift action to address the concerns we have raised.
link to this and other complaints https://bit.ly/3RD6jcN
Misallocation of funding within the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wild Horse and Burro Program.
We believe that current budgetary practices prioritize the interests of a select few, namely privileged corporations and ranchers, over the vital need to preserve the fragile ecosystems entrusted to the BLM's care.
Our concerns can be summarized as follows:
Budgetary bias towards commercial interests: The BLM's budget disproportionately favors commercial uses of public lands like livestock grazing and resource extraction, often at the expense of wild horse and burro populations and the health of ecosystems. This is evident in the allocation of resources for activities like predator control, which benefit ranchers seeking to protect livestock, while neglecting the need for sustainable herd management and habitat restoration.
Inadequate focus on environmental preservation: The program's current budget prioritizes the economic interests of certain sectors over the essential task of safeguarding vital ecosystems. This lack of focus on environmental preservation leads to overgrazing, rangeland degradation, and disruptions to crucial ecological processes, ultimately harming not only wild horses and burros but also a vast array of plant and animal species.
Lack of transparency and accountability: The decision-making process behind budget allocation within the BLM remains opaque, making it difficult to hold the agency accountable for its priorities. This lack of transparency fosters suspicions of favoritism towards certain special interests and hinders the public's ability to advocate for responsible land management practices.
We urge the House Budget Committee and Fiscal Responsibility Committee to investigate these concerns and take immediate action to reform the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program's budget and operations. Specifically, we recommend:
Conducting a rigorous audit of the program's budget allocation. This audit should analyze the distribution of resources and identify areas where funding can be reassigned to prioritize environmental protection and sustainable wild horse management.
Shifting budgetary priorities towards ecological sustainability. The program's budget should prioritize activities that promote healthy ecosystems and ensure the long-term well-being of wild horses and burros, such as habitat restoration, humane population management strategies, and public education on responsible land-use practices.
Implementing greater transparency and accountability. The BLM must clearly communicate its budgetary decision-making process and establish measurable performance metrics to track the program's effectiveness in achieving its environmental goals. This will promote public trust and allow for informed scrutiny of the program's actions.
We believe that these reforms are crucial to ensure that the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program fulfills its mandate of protecting public lands while ensuring the welfare of the iconic wild horses and burros that call these lands home. We urge you to act swiftly and decisively to address these critical concerns and prioritize the health of our ecosystems for the benefit of all Americans, not just a select few.
Link to this and other complaints https://bit.ly/3RD6jcN
The DOI BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program budget request for fiscal year 2024 significantly misinterprets environmental data regarding livestock damage to the environment.
Specifically, the budget heavily emphasizes the supposed ecological harm caused by wild horses (Equus caballus) while drastically downplaying the impact of livestock under the grazing allotment program. This discrepancy not only distorts the true picture of environmental degradation on public lands but also misdirects valuable resources away from addressing more pressing and demonstrably damaging activities.
Misrepresentation of Wild Horse Impact:
The budget request attributes significant environmental damage to wild horses, often relying on outdated or contested data. This focus ignores, or even minimizes, the well-documented ecological harms caused by livestock grazing. Research demonstrates that livestock, due to their higher stocking rates and selective grazing habits, contribute significantly to:
Soil erosion and compaction: Their concentrated grazing patterns lead to vegetation loss and exposed soil, increasing erosion and reducing land productivity.
Loss of biodiversity: Grazing pressure disrupts plant communities, impacting native plant species and the wildlife that depend on them.
Water quality degradation: Livestock waste contaminates waterways and affects aquatic ecosystems.
Downplaying Livestock Impact:
Despite the overwhelming evidence, the budget request fails to adequately address the environmental impact of livestock under the grazing allotment program. This downplaying is achieved through tactics such as:
Minimizing the number of animals considered: The focus is often on Animal Unit Months (AUMs), a misleading metric that does not account for the actual number and ecological impact of different animals.
Ignoring scientific data: Research on the negative ecological effects of livestock grazing is either ignored or dismissed as irrelevant.
Shifting blame to wild horses: By exaggerating the impact of wild horses, the budget implicitly suggests that they are the primary cause of environmental problems, deflecting attention from the demonstrably harmful practice of livestock grazing.
Consequences of Misrepresentation:
This misrepresentation of environmental impact has serious consequences:
Misallocation of resources: The exaggerated focus on wild horses leads to the allocation of disproportionate resources for their management, even when more effective and cost-efficient solutions exist for addressing actual environmental concerns.
Reduced public trust: The public loses trust in government agencies when they perceive data manipulation and biased agendas.
Harm to ecosystems: By failing to address the true sources of environmental damage, we continue to degrade our public lands and endanger critical biodiversity.
Call to Action:
Therefore, I urge you to:
Conduct a thorough review of the DOI BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program budget request, critically examining the data used to justify funding allocations and ensuring a balanced representation of all environmental impacts.
Demand transparency and accountability from the BLM regarding their data collection and analysis methods, particularly as they relate to the environmental impact of both wild horses and livestock.
Prioritize resource allocation based on demonstrably harmful activities, ensuring that funding addresses the most pressing ecological concerns on public lands, regardless of the source.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I believe that by recognizing and addressing the misrepresentation of environmental impact in the DOI BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program budget, we can move towards a more responsible and sustainable management of our public lands.
Link to this and other complaints https://bit.ly/3RD6jcN
Complaint 11
Overview
Budget
Body
Payback
etc....
Link to this and other complaints https://bit.ly/3RD6jcN
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse