As RVtravel.com reported in mid-April, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has autonomously declared its intent to impose radical changes to public land management regulations without congressional approval or oversight. The move has stirred controversy recently among federal land stakeholders, who have now had two months to analyze and dissect the BLM rulemaking push.
Page Contents
Background
The U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on March 30, 2023. A purported goal of the rule is to “put conservation on an equal footing with other uses.” It justifies, among other things, closing public lands as necessary for “mitigation and restoration.” The NPRM sets up a premise for leasing public lands to environmentalist organizations to sequester the land from other uses—a regulatory basis for restricting access to public lands for recreation, grazing, mining, logging, and legitimate uses as set forth in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
U.S. Federal land use policy mandates that public lands management “protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values.” The conservation mandate is already inherent in the current law passed by Congress in 1976.
The new rule, titled “Conservation and Landscape Health,” aims to prioritize ecosystem health and resilience on public lands, seeking to protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitats, and guide decisions based on scientific evidence. However, opponents argue that the rule would fundamentally alter public land management and limit access. Conspicuously missing is any congressional involvement in or intent to amend the FLPMA and congressional oversight going forward.
Conservation prioritized over other uses
The BLM asserts that the rule aligns with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, prioritizing healthy landscapes, wildlife habitat, and balanced decision-making. The rules also propose conservation leases on public lands, a new aspect that raises concerns regarding the possible limitations on grazing and other development access.
Critics say that the rules could curtail all economic use of public lands, including recreational activities. The rules would potentially disrupt various industries, including ranching, skiing, mining, and camping, fundamentally transforming public land management.
Further, there are worries that the rule could lack a factual basis for claiming no significant economic impact on small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has drawn attention to this matter, highlighting potential concerns for small businesses.
Limited oversight and greatly increased bureaucratic power
Perhaps the most significant point of contention is the lack of congressional oversight on the new rule. Critics argue that the rule excludes counties from the land designation process and grants the BLM the authority to approve conservation leases without acreage limitations.
Additionally, the BLM could manage lands designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) without an updated Resource Management Plan as required by the FLPMA. The broad authority ceded to the BLM under the proposal could lead to implications for vegetation and wildfire management and infrastructure maintenance.
Todd Devlin is a Prairie County, Montana, Commissioner and Chairman of the National Association of Counties (NACo) Public Lands Steering Committee. He testified before the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing titled “Examining the Biden Administration’s Efforts to Limit Access to Public Lands” on May 24, 2023:
The proposed rule from the BLM would fundamentally change the BLM’s multiple-use mandate under FLPMA without the necessary initial input from Congress, state and county governments, private industry, recreationists, and other impacted stakeholders. Additionally, this proposed rule would exclude counties from land designation processes, includes vague definitions, and empowers the agency to approve conservation leases without acreage limitations which could limit critical vegetation management and infrastructure maintenance projects on federal lands.
Devlin added that the BLM’s conservation rule must have cooperative agency status, go through the full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, and be an amendment to the Resource Management Plan. Devlin pointed out that the current BLM thrust “would be the only time in history that the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) would be rewritten without congressional action.”
The latter fact alone is cause for alarm among stakeholders committed to the multiple-use philosophy that has been the bedrock of public land management policy for more than a century. On top of that is the federal government’s statement about its proposed rule change in the Federal Register:
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has proposed new regulations to prioritize ecosystem health and resilience on public lands. The proposed rule emphasizes protecting intact landscapes, restoring degraded habitats, and science-based decision-making. It recognizes conservation as a use and aims to improve the designation and protection of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs).
A positive take
Despite the criticisms, the proposed rule has found support from various stakeholders. Organizations like the National Wildlife Federation; Hispanics Enjoying Camping, Hunting, and the Outdoors (HECHO); the Pew Trusts; and the Nevada Wildlife Federation view the rule positively, holding that it will benefit wildlife, rural economies, and Indigenous communities. They regard the shift towards conservation and climate resilience as necessary to rectify the past emphasis on resource extraction at the expense of ecosystems.
The downside
The controversy surrounding the BLM’s proposed rule underscores the challenge of balancing conservation efforts with economic and recreational uses of public lands. The BLM created a small window for public comment on the proposed rule. It announced on May 3, 2023, that it would hear public comments at only five scheduled events and that the comment period would end on June 20, 2023.
Whatever the outcome, these issues strike at the heart of our national dialogue about the role and fate of public lands. They raise fundamental questions about who has a say in their management, how we balance competing interests, and how we ensure the health and resilience of these lands for future generations.
##RVT1108b
Makes one yearn for the bygone Era when representatives of the people, elected by the people, had power over the Beaurocracy. A time when congress could request information from an agency and get it so they could oversee what those unelected employees were doing. A time when the FBI answered to the people, thru congressional oversight. A time when the CIA and Intelligence officials faced consequences for lying to the Senate intelligence Comitee. Yes, the good old days. A time when law and order ruled our streets, our neighborhoods and our justice department. A time unelected employees of the BLM, EPA, DOJ, DHS, NEA, FDA, DHS, and varius other mobsters in the acronyn mafia, could not make laws but could make suggestions for representatives to then make into laws. Ah yes, the days of peace and prosperity.
You mean when women and brown people had now rights, and white men ruled everything?
Outside of that, your conservative narrative never existed.
2 weeks in a row you bring up race in a reply to a post where nothing racial exists.
Only a rascist sees rascism everywhere and in everything. Get a life.
Exactly!!!!!!!
OK boomer, your fox news news narrative of lies is showing.
The world you describe never existed. Only a story white power tells its adherents.
OK victim, your AL Sharpton narrative of lies is showing.
It’s 2023.
Hey Cancel…., if you stop turning topics into your political soapbox you might not get the reaction you do. Or maybe you like the reaction. Okay, I’ll play. You are right, it is 2023 and white males are still making the rules for the rest of us.
Hey Cee, are you referring the white males that are taking the first place podiums at women’s swim meets, women’s track meets and women’s shot put competitions? Those white males? Or possibly yiur referring to the white males like Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Clarence Thomas and Vivek Ramaswamy? Those white males?
It’s 2023. Let all forms of victimhood die the death they deserve. Take it off life support. Go women go. Let women be women and only let women be women.
The fate of women has always been in the hands of white males. We are smart enough to make our own rules but that glass ceiling has been so hard to break through on a consistent basis. But hold on to your butts… we won’t stop trying.
Margaret Thatcher. Angella Merkel. Nikki Haley. Ophra Winfrey. Lisa Vanderpump. Queen Victoria. Queen Elizabeth 1st and 2nd, JK Rowling, Serena Williams, Martina Navratilova,
Taylor Swift, Tina Turner, Sandra Bullock, just to name a few women that don’t live in a state of denial. Women that succeeded through effort, not through equity.
Please keep trying to make a valid case for your position of victimhood though.
The truth is, Transwomen/men in dresses are taking away women’s opportunities, not men in pants. Think about it. Why would any woman be OK taking 2nd place and lose a scholarship, to a dude in a dress on a golf course? Tell me how you square that circle, please. This crazy men in women’s sports thing is a vile disrespect towards women. It is misogyny of the highest form. It puts women’s rights back 50 years. It ends Equality in the name of equity. It is hatred towards women.
Cont. for Cee,
My point is that I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you or any woman, fighting for women, women’s rights and equality. I won’t fight for men taking opportunities away from women.FYI: The General manager at my construction company is a woman because I have never found a man that could do what she does better than her. If I could find a man that could do it better then I may change that up, on merit, but in the last 20 years, she is the best, period, full stop and has the job based on merit, not on equity.
Going to the tired Trans argument is a red herring meant to get everyone else to not notice that the people using that argument have no plan – just fear mongering. It’s apparently working with you.
You got it!
Marco Rubio and many other Hispanic people would not agree with you that they’re not white. That’s why when you check the box that you are white it will then ask (on official paperwork) if you are Hispanic.
Yes, those were the good days. The people can change it back with solidarity but a lot of people just want their rose colored glasses on, head in the sand and if it doesn’t directly affect them at this particular moment then I’m not going to worry about it attitude…well, the regrets will flow when it’s too late.
Anyone that enjoys dispersed camping (aka boondocking) or other motorized based recreational on public lands can join the fight against restricted public access by joining the Blue Ribbon Coalition at https://www.sharetrails.org/ If left unchecked public land will only be available to a select few.
I’m retired from a Federal agency’s headquarters in Washington, DC. My experience is once an agency’s Administrator or other agency head decides some rule will become law an NPRM is only a formality.
Thank you for following this so closely, and for keeping us informed. As a former federal employee, I have great reservations about new federal initiatives, particularly by agencies with regulatory power. My observation is that the federal government is best equipped to solve problems of the past, rarely those of the present, and never those of the future. However, its gargantuan size makes it extremely capable of creating problems that last for generations.
Missing from this excellent article is any suggestion or link for what an average person can do to protest this power grab by the radical environmentalist bureaucracy. If comment ends on 6/23…we have 10 days to react…where and how???
The BLM main page pertaining to this is at https://www.blm.gov/public-lands-rule . At the bottom of that page is a link to a different page where they say you can make comments. I did not give you that link because going there from BLM’s page should make it easier to be able to comment on their proposed rule.
Thanks, Neal! 👍 Have a great day. 😀 –Diane at RVtravel.com
Hi, Cam. Sorry that wasn’t specifically spelled out in the post, although it is included at the bottom of the page that’s linked regarding the five meetings. But here’s the link to the info regarding making comments: https://www.regulations.gov/document/BLM-2023-0001-0001 Good luck. 😀 –Diane at RVtravel.com
The abbreviated comment period is a clear indication that the BLM is not serious about eliciting citizen comments. It might therefore be better to address comments to your congressman, who should already be questioning why the BLM is acting to subvert legislative jurisdiction over the federal land management agency.
Many of us don’t know how to make proper public comments, myself included. Nor do we know what to say to our congresspeople, if they are even the correct people to reach. I read some of the comments submitted on the “Browse all comments” tab of the page provided, but half of them I don’t understand. Does anyone have any deeper information with a list of who to contact, a sample letter to submit to congresspeople or the BLM, etc.?
I completely understand. Let me give some thought to how you might be able to get help with this.
Is this an attack by earth worshippers to prevent snowbirds from boon docking in the Arizona and California deserts??
I am surprised that any group with “hunting” or “camping” as part of their group’s objective is in support of these proposed rules. What is to stop Earth First, PETA, or other radical extremist environmental or animal rights organizations from taking huge leases and closing access completely?
No one in Government should ever have absolute authority. Even if you like the current administration and believe they will do no harm, administrations and times continually change. You might not like the next one or the one after that and what they do with their ultimate power.
Exactly
Amazing we can’t have 2 qualified candidates make it through the duopoly and corporate backed selection process for us to vote for. Not looking forward to 24’s political process.
💯 agree. I would prefer to see Vivek Ramaswamy and RFK have a debate. In politics pro-choice = pro-democracy. Maybe see DeSantis and Gavin Newsom or Marianne Williamson debate. We’re heading off a cliff with the closed out, frozen out process of the DNC and of the RNC if not all candidates are involved. Deep state actors and puppeteers choosing for us.
RFK Jr’s father and uncles are rolling in their graves at the positions he has taken with dubious and discredited claims. He’s possibly trying to be a spoiler so the right is talking him up hoping to split the left and the left is just hoping that he doesn’t decide to run as a 3rd party candidate like Ralph Nader and Ross Pirot.
It’s our public lands for our public enjoyment. This most incompetent administration along with the most incompetent congress is the death of our nation. Everyday these lousy politicians are trying to usurp and bypass the constitution . It’s time to say No more no more.
Absolutely true, the old saying “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it” applies to a lot of things these days.
Exactly right, Lazy!
We are all whistling in the wind .. Pandora’s box was opened in 2016 and the lid blew away. BLM, Department of the Interior including USFS were all basically dismembered and sold to corporate interests by the likes of Ryan Zinke, Rick Perry (secretary of energy) and their ilk.
The camping experience was forever changed when the whole system was gifted to recreation.gov, California Land Management and other reservation and campground management companies in my opinion.
I partially agree. We’re all whistling in the wind….. until we dismantle the permanent Washington regulatory deep state. The ones than regulate without the need of elected people to legislate. Regulations without Representation of our elected representatives input. Dismantle the deep state.
Legislate versus Regulate.