The Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, landlord of the federal government’s massive ownership of 615 million surface and subsurface acres, mostly in the West, is proposing a major change in focus. The BLM proposal would update its interpretation of the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to emphasize conservation and protection of the federal lands, rather than a history of economic development.
Interior has titled its policy proposal “Strengthening the Stewardship of America’s Public Lands.”
The formal proposal, published Apr. 3 in the Federal Register, would “clarify that conservation is a ‘use’ within FLPMA’s multiple-use framework, and revise existing regulations to better meet FLPMA’s requirement that the BLM prioritize designating and protecting Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs).” In a press release, BLM said, “The proposed Public Lands Rule provides tools for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to improve the resilience of public lands in the face of a changing climate; conserve important wildlife habitat and intact landscapes; plan for development; and better recognize unique cultural and natural resources on public lands.”
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said, “It is our responsibility to use the best tools available to restore wildlife habitat, plan for smart development, and conserve the most important places for the benefit of the generations to come. As we welcome millions of visitors to hunt, fish and recreate on our public lands each year, now is the time to improve the health and management of special places.”
Geoff Webb, a former BLM deputy director in the Clinton administration, described the proposed rule as the agency “catching up” with the promise of FLPMA, which has not been fulfilled in the almost 50 years since its enactment. Webb highlighted the wording in the start of the proposal: “Public lands are increasingly degraded and fragmented. Increased disturbances such as invasive species, drought, and wildfire, and increased habitat fragmentation are all impacting the health and resilience of public lands and making it more challenging to support multiple use and the sustained yield of renewable resources.”
“This has the potential to be significant, even if decades late,” Webb told The Quad Report. He added that it could lead to “consistency” in administering BLM programs. The agency’s management is largely driven by its state directors, who tend to respond to the interests and politics of their state, and not always in the best interests of the overall public lands.
U.S. policy toward its western land (largely stolen from native tribes) has its roots in the 19th Century, with the 1862 Homestead Act, which gave away federal lands in 160-acre grants, and the 1872 General Mining Act, aimed at minerals extraction. In 1934, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act, giving ranchers priority access, through allotments, to federal lands. Over more than a century, mining, logging, farming, and grazing, often directly and indirectly subsidized by Interior Department and federal policy and law, dominated the government’s lands.
In 1976, the 94th Congress enacted FLPMA attempting to balance exploitation with protection of the land and its cultural values, including conservation. Part of the political context was the rise in the Western U.S. of the “sagebrush rebellion,” when intrenched economic interests push to oust the federal government as a landlord. FLPMA preserved federal ownership, calling for “multiple use” of the land, including preservation. In practice, conservation and preservation got lip service, when ranchers, farmers, loggers, and miners continued to dominate the use of the federal land, often degrading the land. The new BLM proposal aims to change that equation.
Enacting the new BLM policy may not be easy. The economic interests often dominate the politics of the states where the federal government is the largest landlord. Uncle Sam owns 80% of the acreage of Nevada, 63% of Utah, 62% of Idaho, 61% of Alaska, and 52% of Oregon, according to the Congressional Research Service. Those local interests, long effective factors in management of the federal lands, will likely mount a political and legal challenge to the new rule.
Opposition has surfaced quickly. Agdaily.com, which reports on farming and grazing topics, quickly reported that the new policy would result in “upending multi-use mandates that jeopardize the agency’s ability to partner with ranchers who have been managing millions of acres across the West for generations.” The Fence Post magazine, representing ranchers, commented that the BLM proposal “has been denounced by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council, saying it would ‘upend BLM’s multiple-use mandate and jeopardizes the agency’s ability to be a good partner to the ranchers who manage millions of acres across the West.’”
The BLM proposal has supporters, particularly among anglers and hunters. Field & Stream magazine noted that the plan has “endorsements from both Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA) and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP).” TRCP’s Joel Webster said, “We plan to roll up our sleeves to ensure that the BLM’s Conservation and Landscape Health Rule improves management of our public lands to benefit sportsmen and sportswomen.”
BLM insists that it is not challenging multiple use of public lands. In a fact sheet, the agency says, “The proposal does not change the BLM’s multiple use mission – indeed, it will ensure the BLM’s ability to deliver it in the future. Energy development, mining, grazing, timber, outdoor recreation, and other uses will continue. The proposal does not undermine any existing valid rights or require the use of conservation leasing.”
The comment period on the BLM draft rule closes on June 20.
–Kennedy Maize
To subscribe to The Quad Report, use the email address and type “subscribe” in the subject line. To comment, use the email address.