BLM Proposing Major Changes to Public Land Access and Multi Use Policies
By Garrett Christensen on Thursday, June 15th, 2023 in More Top Stories Northeastern Oregon News
OREGON – Within federal and local circles, a debate is raging about the needs of land conservation and protection vs public access and resource management. The Bureau of Land Management is proposing significant changes to its public land use policies, and the way in which land conservation is organized. This includes regulation updates to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and a reprioritization of land conservation, causing concern amongst some local Oregon groups. The Bureau of Land Management summarized these changes, and their intentions as follows:
“SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes new regulations that, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and other relevant authorities, would advance the BLM’s mission to manage the public lands for multiple use and sustained yield by prioritizing the health and resilience of ecosystems across those lands. To ensure that health and resilience, the proposed rule provides that the BLM will protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat, and make wise management decisions based on science and data. To support these activities, the proposed rule would apply land health standards to all BLM-managed public lands and uses, 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). The proposed rule would add to provide an overarching framework for multiple BLM programs to promote ecosystem resilience on public lands.
The full proposal calls for an extensive re-working of the FLPMA as it relates to modern conservation policies and priorities, though there are two primary facets that may have the greatest impact on public interests. These facets include the increased prioritization of conservation and restoration of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), and the establishment of a process to grant conservation leases to third party groups and organizations.
Regarding the prioritization of conservation, the BLM note throughout the proposal that other aspects of multi-use, such as agriculture usage and public access, will not be disregarded or deprioritized, but that conservation and restoration will simply be treated with the same level of priority as compared to previous practices, stating on Page 3 of the PDF version of the proposal:
“The proposed rule would require the BLM to plan for and consider conservation as a use on par with other uses under FLPMA’s multiple use framework and identify the practices that ensure conservation actions are effective in building resilient public lands. Conservation, in this proposed rule, includes management of renewable resources consistent with the fundamentals of land health (described below), designed to reach desired future conditions through protection, restoration, and other types of planning, permitting, and program decision making.
The sentiment is further reiterated on page 8:
“The proposed rule would clarify that conservation is a use on par with other uses of public lands under FLPMA’s multiple use framework. FLPMA directs the BLM to manage the public lands in a manner that protects the quality of ecological, wildlife, recreation, scenic, environmental, scientific, air, and water resources, among other resources and values, and that protects certain public lands in their natural condition. The BLM implements this mandate through land use plan designations, allocations, and other planning decisions that conserve public land resources and seek to balance conservation use with other uses such as energy development and recreation.”
How the change in priority may affect specific BLM districts in practice will likely be determined on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with the second major aspect. As stated on page 8, “The proposed rule would establish the process for applying for and granting conservation leases, terminating or suspending them, determining noncompliance, and setting bonding obligations. Conservation leases and ACECs could also provide opportunities for co-stewardship with federally recognized Tribes and additional protections for cultural resources.” In addition, section 6102.5–1(e) on page 13 states that BLM authorized officers may approved limited third party mitigation funds for entities granted land use authorizations by BLM.
The possibility of third-party oversight of lands currently directly overseen by the BLM has raised concerns among some groups. These concerns stem from the fear that third parties operating under the BLM conservation lease program would have the power to close off land currently available for public use, under the guise of land restoration, without the consent of the public. The BLM did clarify the potential issue of public access concerns on page 6, Section IV subsection 6101.4, stating:
“The proposed rule would define the term ‘‘casual use’’ so that, in reference to conservation leases, it would clarify that the existence of a conservation lease would not in and of itself preclude the public from accessing public lands for noncommercial activities such as recreation. Some public lands could be temporarily closed to public access for purposes authorized by conservation leases, such as restoration activities or habitat improvements. However, in general, public lands leased for conservation purposes under the proposed rule would continue to be open to public use.”
Some concerns, however, are still present over the alleged vagueness of the proposed rules, how the reprioritization will actually change multi use policies in practice and, pertaining to Oregon at least, the apparent lack of public inclusion thus far. Union County commissioner Paul Anders commented on the lack of official BLM outreach within Oregon, stating:
“There are a lot of unanswered questions and that’s why folks are up in arms about it. That’s problem number one, clarity. The other is the input. I want to say there were four meetings that they held and the closest one to us was in Reno, Nevada. When you start taking a look at Eastern Oregon and how much BLM ground is there, it seems to me that they would have wanted to do that closer to the source of the land.”
Union County itself hosts roughly one hundred and eighty-eight thousand acres of BLM land, though some of it is overseen by the U.S. Forest Service. Anders further raised concerns that some of the current, traditional uses of this land may be deprioritized under the new BLM rules.Beyond the major changes to priority and public access, the proposed rule changes heavily focus on reorganizing conservation efforts by increasing focus of lands currently in environmental distress, establishing a system to organize regular priority restoration projects, and increasing the ability of the BLM to gather up to date information on ACECs. The full text of the proposal, including the PDF version, can be found at Regulations.gov. For those that would like to voice concerns or support for the changes, public comments are being accepted for consideration until June 20 and can be made at the posted link. After June 20, public comments may still be submitted, though there will be no obligation for BLM to take them into consideration.
