Andy Kerr - New Name & Mission for BLM

By Andy Kerr and Mark Salvo

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) does not get much respect. Unfortunately, the BLM was not nicknamed the “Bureau of Large Mistakes,” “Bureau of Livestock and Mining,” or “Bureau of Lumbering and Mining” without justification. Born in 1947 out of a merger of the General Land Office and the federal Grazing Service, the BLM still shows its parentage as either partner or handmaiden to exploiter interests.

For most of its history the BLM has been a mere custodian of the federal public lands left over from the great historic giveaways to homesteaders, railroads, loggers, and miners, and after the creation of the national forests, wildlife refuges, parks and military reservations. However, since passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ^[1] in 1976 (FLPMA) the BLM has been charged with being the steward of public lands not claimed by pilgrims or profiteers. But it has not done the job that must be done.

The BLM's stewardship failings can be attributed to a lack of funding, vision, purpose and leadership. The BLM manages more land with less money than any other federal land agency. This makes it difficult for the agency to inventory and monitor, and conserve and restore its holdings. While money's not everything, it's something.

Vision, purpose and leadership are more difficult to achieve. The BLM has been developing better leaders of late. The Clinton administration provided for better leadership by creating the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) in 2000. The NLCS draws together national conservation areas and other BLM reservations, including Wilderness, Wild and Scenic rivers, national monuments, national historic trails, the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area and the California Desert Conservation Area into a loose conservation system. An associate director was promoted to manage a small NLCS office in Washington, D.C., to develop guidance and policy for the NLCS. Although the agency promises to develop no new legal protections or restrictions for NLCS units, the system will be fertile ground to develop progressive BLM leaders and strengthen the conservation ethic within the agency. It remains to be seen whether the second Bush administration will kill the new system, if for no other reason that it was established under the Clinton administration.

BLM's stewardship record is slowly improving, albeit in fits and starts, and with some backsliding. For example, the BLM has officially (at least) renounced its bias toward timber in Western Oregon. The bureau is also finally admitting that livestock grazing is not a desirable land use on every acre of arid public land. The agency's actions are still lagging behind its public policy statements, but that is not unusual for any government agency. Again, citizens will have to wait and see whether George Bush the younger seeks to change BLM's course.

Even with the passage of FLPMA (which ended the policy of disposing of public lands), BLM lands are managed especially for resource use. Perhaps due to the aridity of most BLM lands, which some find less interesting and thus less worthy of protection, Congress directed that greater levels of exploitation be allowed on BLM holdings than other public lands. ^[2]

Congress has also never afforded BLM lands the same status as other federal lands. The Forest Service manages the National Forest System, the Park Service the National Park System, and the Fish and Wildlife Service the National Wildlife Refuge System. All of these systems are easily found on road maps and atlases, but not BLM lands because they are not part of a formal protective system. Even today, one can drive across the American West and be viewing BLM lands and not know it. Fortunately, the BLM has started to put up some signs.

It is time for the BLM to have its own land protection system: the National Desert and Grassland System. Congress should place appropriate BLM lands into a system of national deserts and grasslands similar to national forests. Readers might recall that we already have designated National Grasslands. Indeed (and strangely) the Forest Service manages several National Grasslands as part of the National Forest System. These should be transferred to the successor to BLM.

In addition to upgrading the status of BLM lands, it is also time for Congress to upgrade the status of the agency by giving it a new vision, mission and name. BLM has a second rate name among the federal land management agencies. The others employ personnel in service to the nation, while the BLM has bureaucrats. Congress should enact a new legislative charter for BLM lands so they have a conservation mandate comparable to other federal lands. Congress should also give BLM a new name: the U.S. Desert and Grassland Service. Both morale and professional standards within the agency would improve and result in better land stewardship.

The new USDGS should be structured as the Forest Service with a National Desert and Grassland System branch dedicated to managing these unique landscapes, and a scientific research branch dedicated to the understanding and function and recovery of desert and grassland ecosystems everywhere. It also needs a third branch similar to the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry branch to reach out to non-federal desert and grassland owners and assist them with conservation and restoration of deserts and grasslands.

Those BLM lands that do not qualify as national deserts or grasslands should be transferred to other federal land management agencies. The agency' vast holdings in Alaska should become wildlife refuges, parks or national forests. BLM's remaining coastal lands are best made part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Congress should transfer the remaining BLM forestlands in western Oregon to the Forest Service and the National Forest System. This would consolidate land types for each agency where their expertise will lead to better management of these ecosystems.

Andy Kerr is a freelance conservationist who, through The Larch Company, writes and agitates for the wild from his home in the Upper Rogue Valley of Oregon. He may be reached at andykerr@andykerr.net. This article is adapted and expanded from his first book: Oregon Desert Guide: 70 Hikes.

Mark Salvo serves as Grasslands Advocate for American Lands Alliance in Portland, Oregon. He may be reached at mark@sagegrouse.org.

____________

Footnotes

^[1] 43 U.S.C. ¤¤ 1701-1784 (2000).

^[2] Compare conservation mandates for the Park Service (National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, 16 U.S.C. ¤ 1), the Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1996, 16 U.S.C. ¤ 668dd), the Forest Service (National Forest Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. ¤ 1600) (NFMA) and BLM (FLPMA; 43 U.S.C. ¤ 1701(a)). Not surprisingly, the first two statutes prioritize conservation on national parks and refuges; there are no multiple use provisions as in NFMA and FLPMA. However, even NFMA provides better protection for national forests than FLPMA affords BLM lands. Regulations promulgated under NFMA requires the Forest Service to identify, monitor and manage for “focal species” in forest management plans (36 C.F.R. ¤ 219.20); FLPMA contains no such mandate. Also, FLPMA still allows the Secretary of Interior to dispose of public lands without Congressional approval (43 U.S.C. ¤ 1713), whereas only Congress can direct when lands will be sold from the national forest, park and refuge systems.