| Federal Land Policy and Management Act |
|
|
|
|
The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) is the principal law governing how the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages public lands. It guides the BLM in management, protection, development, and enhancement of the public lands. FLPMA specifically requires the agency to manage for the multiple use and sustained yield of public land resources for both present and future generations
Federal Land Policy and Management Act
Key Concepts Public Lands or the Public Domain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) FLPMA Policy Process Essentials: Public Land Uses and Values Grazing Energy and Minerals Recreation Conservation Wilderness Withdrawal Authority Process Essentials: Public Participation Planning NEPA Advisory Councils and Boards Appeals Processes Controversies Wilderness Management New Grazing Regulations RS 2477 Roads Collaboration in Action Pending Legislation of the 110th Congress Links Key ConceptsPublic Lands or the Public Domain"Public lands" or "the public domain" mean different things to different people. Many people refer to all lands managed by the Forest Service and other federal agencies as public lands, since these lands are owned by the public. In the context of FLPMA, however, the public domain, often simply known as the public lands, refers to all those lands that the United States acquired from other nations or from Indian tribes, and which have not been sold off or set aside as national forests, national parks, military reservations, and so on. Today, these lands, which total over 260 million acres, comprise 12 percent of the United States, nearly 20 percent of the land between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Ocean, and nearly 40 percent of all federally owned land. They are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).Bureau of Land Management (BLM)The BLM is an agency within the Department of the Interior (DOI), formed in 1946 through consolidation of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service.The Secretary of the Interior and Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management provide program oversight and guidance to the agency. The BLM Director manages the agency from the Washington office along with a staff of assistant directors. BLM state directors in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, who report to the BLM Director, manage public lands in these states and minor areas in adjacent states. There is also a state director for all of the eastern states based in Virginia. States are subdivided into local field offices. Local field managers have primary responsibility for day-to-day management. In addition to managing surface uses of over 260 million acres of land, the BLM manages the mineral resources underlying an additional 440 million acres.
For additional information on the BLM and its management of the public lands, see Links: BLM General Information at the end of the FLPMA section. For other BLM officials and their contact information, see the BLM Organizational Chart.To find contact information for state directors or field managers,see our state directories .
DOI's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Plan
Interior's GPRA Plan sets out specific goals for its four mission responsibilities:
management initiatives.During 2007-2011, DOI will pay particular attention to issues with far-reaching consequences to the Nation's natural resources, economic well being, and management capabilities:
FLPMA PolicyFor many years, the BLM managed public lands under a number of different, and sometimes conflicting, statutes. Passage of the FLPMA in1976 was very important because it created a single, unified statutory scheme for management of these lands. FLPMA guides BLM management of the public lands with several statements of general policy.Federal OwnershipAfter a century or more of disposing of public lands to promote everything from homesteading to the construction of railroads, FLPMA established a policy that for the most part, the remaining public lands would be retained in federal ownership. FLPMA still allows for land exchanges and even for the sale of discrete tracts of land, but the overarching policy is to retain lands in federal ownership.
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000
FLPMA also allows for acquisition of in holdings, but in 2000, Title 2 of Public Law 106-248 linked public land sales and acquisitions by making the money from sales available to BLM for land acquisitions. Through 2010, P.L. 106-248 allows BLM to sell lands classified for disposal under resource management plans and keep the proceeds in a special fund. BLM can then use fund proceeds to purchase inholdings and other lands from willing sellers. In 2006, the Bush administration pushed a controversial proposal to amend this act to shift 70% of the proceeds of these sales to the Treasury to reduce the federal deficit. For text of P.L. 106-248, go to the Thomas web site and choose 106-248 under "Public Laws" For a discussion of a controversial land disposal plan for Wyoming, see "BLM criticized for Wyoming land disposal plan." For a 2008 GAO analysis of FLTFA transactions, see Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions.
Beware of promises in agency land use plans:
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Norton v. SUWA (June 2004), that a land use plan is generally a statement of priorities; it guides and restrains actions, but does not prescribe them. Implementation of plans is subject to available appropriations and citizens can only compel an agency to take a discrete action that it is required to take. People cannot generally compel the agency to implement discretionary actions or pursue its stated goals. Planning for Multiple use—Sustained YieldFLPMA directed the BLM to establish a planning process that resembles that used by other federal agencies. Under FLPMA, the BLM must periodically inventory public lands and their resources and develop resource management plans (RMPs). In doing so, FLPMA requires the BLM to manage the public lands using the same principles of multiple use and sustained yield that the Forest Service applies to national forests and grasslands. This means that resources must be used in a combination that will best meet the needs of the American people, taking into account the long-term needs of future generations. In managing its lands, BLM must consider the relative value of resources without necessarily promoting the uses with the greatest economic return or greatest unit output, and must not permanently impair the productivity of the land. In managing for multiple use, the BLM does not need to accommodate every use on every parcel of land.For more information, see Process Essentials: Public Participation. UUD and Other StandardsThe basic standard for managing public lands is called "UUD." FLPMA requires BLM to take any actions that are necessary to prevent "unnecessary or undue degradation" of the public lands. However, the statute does not define "unnecessary and undue degradation," and interpretation of this requirement has been very controversial, especially with respect to mining. Beyond UUD, FLPMA requires the BLM to manage some public lands in a more restrictive way when Congress dedicates those lands to specific uses under other laws. For example, BLM must manage its wilderness areas and wilderness study areas so as not to impair the wilderness characteristics of these lands.Process Essentials: Public Land Uses and ValuesIn managing for multiple uses, the BLM takes into account three major categories of use: commercial activities, public recreation, and conservation. Livestock grazing and minerals extraction are the principal commercial uses, although the BLM issues permits for everything from beehives to electrical transmission lines. Public lands also provide a wide range of recreation opportunities, including fishing, boating, hunting, hiking, biking, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel. Conservation of biological, archaeological, historical, and cultural resources is the third important use of the public lands.For more information on any of these topics, see Links: BLM General Information at the end of the FLPMA section. Grazing
Prior to FLPMA, there was considerable national concern over declining productivity of the public rangelands. Although FLPMA includes a subchapter on range management, it made relatively few changes to grazing management.FLPMA required BLM and the U.S. Forest Service to do a joint study on the value of grazing with an eye towards revising the fee structure for federal land grazing, but the cost to permittees or lessees of an AUM has not changed much. Both FLPMA and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA), which modified FLPMA in 1978, did enhance BLM's authority to control grazing to protect rangelands. FLPMA sets the basic term of grazing permits and leases to 10 years, subject to terms and conditions set by the BLM. Recent court cases have confirmed that:
For text of existing grazing regulations see www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/4100-Proposed/4100p.html. For additional information on the proposed grazing regulations, see the link for BLM Grazing or Controversies: New Grazing Regulations. For pending legislation that may impact grazing allotments in the Cascades-Siskiyou National Monument see S2379. Energy and MineralsThe BLM manages commercial energy and mineral resources of both the public lands and other federal lands. The BLM is responsible for leasing federal oil and gas and geothermal energy resources, and for supervising the exploration, development, and production operations of these resources on both federal and Indian lands. The BLM is also responsible for solid mineral resources, including coal and non-energy leasable minerals (like potash), hardrock minerals, sometimes called "locatable minerals" (like gold, copper, and molybdenum), and salable minerals (like sand and gravel).
The BLM's responsibility for energy and mineral resource development includes all minerals on the public lands, certain resources on other federal lands (such as the leasing of oil and gas resources or development of hardrock minerals on national forests), and energy resources (such as oil, gas and coal) on split estate lands (which are defined as privately owned lands where the federal government owns the underlying subsurface minerals). For additional information on oil and gas development, see Oil and Gas Resource Development. RecreationComprehensive Travel and Transportation ManagementBLM is responsible for providing reasonable and varied transportation routes for a variety of motorized and non-motorized recreation as well as the many other multiple uses of the public lands. Details of the BLM's Travel Management Program, including plans, laws and regulations, are available on BLM's website. In its statement of national policy in FLPMA, Congress specified that the BLM manage the public lands to provide for outdoor recreation. In addition, FLPMA specifically mentions recreation as one of the "multiple uses" for the public lands. The public lands provide an array of recreational opportunities, including hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, boating, off-highway vehicle driving, mountain biking, birding, and visiting natural and cultural heritage sites. The BLM administers hundreds of thousands of miles of fishable streams, and acres of lakes and reservoirs, as well as thousands of miles of floatable rivers and scenic, historical, and recreational trails. Over the past several decades, recreation has become one of the most significant uses of the public lands as indicated by the estimated 54 million visits during fiscal year 2000. For more information on public land recreational opportunities or specific BLM-managed areas, see Links: BLM General Information at the end of the FLPMA section. Conservation
WildernessAs part of its conservation mandate, FLPMA made the Wilderness Act of1964 applicable to the public lands. FLPMA required the BLM to review roadless areas of more than 5,000 acres for the presence of wilderness characteristics and to make recommendations to the president for areas to be designated as wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act.Wilderness characteristics include having a natural or primeval character without permanent improvements or human habitation, and having outstanding opportunities for solitude or for primitive and unconfined recreation. The president can then make recommendations to Congress for wilderness area designation, but only Congress can formally establish a wilderness area. While an area is under review and until Congress acts, the BLM must manage such areas, termed wilderness study areas (WSAs), so as to protect their wilderness values. Mining, grazing, and mineral leasing is allowed to continue in WSAs to the degree that it existed prior to passage of FLPMA, provided such uses can be carried out without undue or unnecessary degradation of the lands and resources. As of July 2005, BLM manages 610 WSAs encompassing 14.3 million acres and 175 wilderness areas encompassing 7.2 million acres.For information on wilderness, see the Wilderness Act summary. For recent changes in Department of the Interior policies on WSAs, see the Controversies section. Withdrawal AuthorityPrior to enactment of FLPMA, the president often withdrew public lands from specific uses or from sale, for example, to:
FLPMA provides detailed procedures for:
Congress can act directly to withdraw public lands from particular uses. One recent example is an effort to protect the Wyoming Range through a withdrawal from mineral leasing. See Wyoming governor to speak for land protection bill, Most withdrawals are limited to 20 years, which means that Congress or the president must eventually act to permanently protect withdrawn lands. For withdrawals over 5,000 acres, the Department of the Interior must provide both the House of Representatives and the Senate with extensive information on the withdrawal, including information on hearings and other public involvement concerning the withdrawal. Process Essentials: Public ParticipationThere are a number of ways in which FLPMA provides for the public to participate in management of the public lands.PlanningThe BLM uses its land use planning process to designate uses of the public lands and plan for development of some resources while protecting others. Prior to FLPMA, BLM prepared Management Framework Plans (MFPs). While a few of these are still in use, post-FLPMA planning documents are called Resource Management Plans (RMPs). The agency currently has 162 RMPs and is in the process of updating several of the plans.The planning process is critical to ensuring a coordinated, consistent approach to managing the land. In developing and revising plans, FLPMA requires the BLM to do many things, including these:
It all sounds good, but...
In particular, FLPMA requires the BLM to give state and local governments and the public opportunities to participate in planning. Requirements for planning are outlined in FLPMA, detailed in BLM's planning regulations (43 CFR 1600), and guided by the BLM Manual and Land Use Planning Handbook, which provide detailed guidance for preparing and amending plans.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Norton v. SUWA (June 2004), that a land use plan is only a statement of priorities.People cannot generally compel the agency to implement discretionary actions or pursue goals in their plans. Handbooks and manuals are generally only internal guidelines for the agency - the public cannot force the agency to follow its own guidelines (see TWS v. Norton).
To view a schedule and obtain documents for current planning processes, go to the BLM Planning webpage and choose your state of interest.
NEPAFLPMA does not say much about the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but NEPA itself requires that BLM evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts of every major action with significant impacts on the human environment. Depending on the action it intends to take, BLM may:
BLM Actions Normally Requiring an EIS:
In early 2008, the Department of the Interior proposed major changes to its NEPA regulations. The proposed regulations would change the definition of 'cumulative effects' to limit what Interior agencies need to consider in a NEPA analysis and would formalize the use of adaptive management. The preamble to the proposed rule provides a summary of Interior Department NEPA revisions over the past several years and discusses the Department's reasons for incorporating their proposal into new regulations (43 CFR Part 46) rather than amending the Departmental Manual. For more information on EISs, EAs and categorical exclusions, see the NEPA section. Advisory Councils and BoardsFLPMA originally provided for formal public participation in public land management through two types of committees operated in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Advisory councils were to furnish advice on a wide range of issues, including land use planning, management, and disposal of the public lands. Grazing advisory boards were to provide advice and make recommendations on grazing allotment management plans and other grazing-related issues. The grazing advisory boards, which were limited in membership to grazing lessees and permittees, were only authorized through 1985 and no longer operate.In 1995, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt rejuvenated the advisory councils though the creation of Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) that provide advice and recommendations to the BLM and the Department of Interior on management of the public lands. Twenty-three RACs are currently active in the western states. Each RAC includes local residents who represent three major stakeholder groups:
For more information on existing RACs, see Links: BLM Resource Advisory Councils at the end of the FLPMA section. Appeals ProcessesFLPMA says almost nothing about appeals of agency decisions, but the Department of the Interior (DOI) has detailed rules for appealing a wide array of agency decisions. There are several possible steps to an appeal, depending on the issue being appealed. Some appeals, like grazing appeals, start in the agency office that made the decision and are forwarded to Interior's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OH&A), which represents the Secretary of the Interior in most appeals. A few appeals, for example for oil and gas projects, are reviewed by the state director before going to the OH&A. When BLM sends an appeal to the OH&A, it can request that the OH&A immediately dismiss the appeal. If the appeal is not immediately dismissed, an administrative law judge (ALJ) typically holds a hearing and renders a decision. The ALJ's decision can then be appealed to one of several boards of law judges. The best known of these is the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), which hears appeals related to the use and disposition of public lands and their resources. Certain decisions, for example those related to mining, can be appealed directly to the IBLA.IBLA decisions are considered "final agency actions," unless the Secretary of the Interior chooses to become directly involved. IBLA decisions are not binding on the Secretary, and he or she has the authority to preempt the IBLA and render a final decision or to reverse IBLA decisions. The Secretary's final decision is ordinarily binding on his or her successors and ordinarily cannot be reversed or reopened by the department. But regardless of whether the "final" decision is made by the IBLA or the Secretary, a dissatisfied party can still take the issue to federal court for judicial review. To access DOI appeals regulations, see Links: BLM Appeals Regulations at the end of the FLPMA section. ControversiesWilderness ManagementIn April 2003, the Department of the Interior (DOI) entered into a controversial settlement agreement with the State of Utah after Utah and others challenged the BLM's authority to conduct wilderness inventories on an ongoing basis. Until this agreement, Utah and other state BLM offices had continued to designate areas as wilderness study areas (WSAs) in their land use plans. Often these designations were based on recommendations of citizen groups.In the 2003 agreement, the DOI concluded that the BLM's authority to review areas for wilderness expired in 1993. After that time, the agreement states, the BLM no longer has the legal authority to designate lands as WSAs in its planning process—or to manage them according to the "non-impairment" standard required for existing WSAs. In the agreement, the DOI recognized that it still has authority to inventory public land resources and values, and can accord special management protection for special values through the land-use planning process. Lands with wilderness characteristics may be managed to protect those characteristics. This may include preserving certain lands in their natural condition or providing opportunities for solitude, or primitive and unconfined types of recreation. The settlement agreement does not affect management of existing wilderness areas, nor does it immediately affect management of existing WSAs. It does, however, prevent new areas from being designated WSAs and it increases the potential for removing WSA status and the protection that it provides. Following the settlement agreement, DOI issued guidelines reminding BLM state offices that they can make a variety of land use plan decisions to protect wilderness characteristics, such as adjusting the placement of roads, trails, and other facilities; attaching conditions to permits, leases, and other authorizations in order to protect resources; and designating lands as open, closed, or limited to Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs.) The DOI also reminded BLM state directors that they have authority to designate Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) where special management attention is required to protect important cultural, historic, or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources; or other natural systems or processes. Conservationists are trying to overturn the settlement agreement through litigation and won a small victory in 2005 when the U.S. District Court Judge in charge of the case withdrew his approval of the settlement. While the judge's action does not change DOI policy, it clears the way for future policy changes. New Grazing Regulations
Proposed Regulations On-Hold Pending Further Agency Analysis
The Department of the Interior issued the first set of grazing regulations in order to implement the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, and has periodically revised and updated them. Secretary of the Interior Babbitt issued major revisions in 1995. In early 2003, the Bush administration announced its"Sustaining Working Landscapes" initiative to give grazing permittees the conservation latitude and incentives to help the BLM meet its conservation responsibilities. That initiative, with a goal of economically sound and ecologically healthy landscapes, included proposals to:
In June 2007, the federal District Court in Idaho issued an injunction to prevent implementation of the regulations until the BLM consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on potential impacts under the Endangered Species Act and takes a hard look at all potential impacts of the regulations as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
For more details on Sustaining Working Landscapes, click here. For text of the proposed regulations, final EIS and information on status of the supplemental EIS and final regulations, see BLM's grazing web page. For criticism of the proposed regulations and EIS, see text of the Western Watershed Project complaint. For details of the Judge's ruling, including summaries of the proposed changes in the new regulations and criticism of their limitations on public participation in grazing issues, see the District Court decision. RS 2477 Roads
RS 2477 Language
The words "RS 2477" raise blood pressure and hackles on conservationists, county commissioners, and public land users alike. Revised Statute 2477 was a simple provision in an 1866 mining law designed to promote settlement of the West. The provision authorized rights of way for construction of roads over public lands. While the statute itself was repealed by FLPMA in 1976, FLPMA preserved those rights of way that had already been established. Today the main controversy is over what constitutes "construction of a highway" and what local governments can do to maintain or improve them. "And be it further enacted, that the right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." The provision was relatively uncontroversial through most of the 1970s and 1980s, but became very contentious in the 1990s as conservationists pushed for protection of more public lands as roadless wilderness and western counties and states pushed for greater vehicle access and local control of public lands. In the last few years, the Department of the Interior has published regulations on RS 2477 roads, Congress has thwarted their implementation, and the BLM has issued new guidance for circumventing Congress and processing road claims by "disclaiming interest" in them. In September 2005, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decided some of the major RS2477 issues in SUWA v. BLM.
"Construction" activities which require consultation with the agency, include:
In deciding whether there is a pre-1976 right of way in Utah, the court found that:
For discussion of RS 2477 issues and for a variety of documents related to these road claims, see The Wilderness Society RS 2477 web page. For information on BLM processing of road claims, see their Disclaimer of Interest Rulemaking or the GAO opinion on this and other issues. For a guidance memo explaining the appeals court decision and its implications for BLM, see the Secretary of the Interior's March 22, 2006 order. Collaboration in ActionPublic lands of the West have a wide variety of resource values and, consequently, resource conflicts. Collaboratives dealing with these BLM managed lands are grappling with their unique problems and situations in some innovative ways.In southern Arizona, the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership (SVPP) works to protect both public and private open spaces near an urban area while allowing sustainable grazing and recreational use on public lands. In the late 1980s, BLM acquired 35,000 acres of a former ranch that had been slated for development (in the 1960s) in exchange for scattered federal lands closer to Tucson. Early agency management planning efforts were contentious, but in the mid-1990s, the SVPP formed to promote community-wide participation in area public land management. The adjunct Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum (SCFF) also brought stakeholders together to consider management of the private lands in the Sonoita Valley. Hard work of the collaborative and designation of the valley as a National Conservation Area in 2000 eventually culminated in a comprehensive landscape-scale planning process covering the entire valley. The challenge continues today in seeing the plan implemented to the satisfaction of both those that participated in the collaboration and those that did not. A much newer effort involving BLM—with similarly contentious issues—is the Northwest Colorado Stewardship(NWCOS). The agency has recently partnered with Moffat County to encourage the participation of a wide range of stakeholders and empower them to identify federal land stewardship priorities and methods to implement identified priorities. Issues that the group is just beginning to tackle include fire, wilderness and grazing. A new twist on collaborative groups is exemplified in the Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition(ENLC), based in Ely, Nevada. The coalition, working to restore the dynamic and diverse landscapes of the Great Basin, includes BLM, environmentalists, ranchers, miners, local business leaders, university scientists, and tribal representatives. ENLC rose from the ashes of the catastrophic wildfires that scorched more than three million acres of sagebrush and pinon-juniper forest in 1999. The coalition operates under an "assistance agreement" with BLM, which formally allows the group to help with agency projects and raise funds to support restoration efforts on public lands. The group also works with private landowners interested in enhancing ecological values on their lands. In an unusual move among collaborative groups, the coalition has set up a science committee, comprised of university-based, BLM and private sector scientists. Every proposed project must pass muster with the science committee, which may make suggestions for improvement or recommend against it. Pending Legislation of the 110th CongressThe bills listed below are a small sampling of the most important public lands legislation in the 110th Congress. For a more complete list of forestry-related public laws and House and Senate bills from the 110th Congress, see American Forests’ Legislation Tracker.H2016/S1139 National Landscape Conservation System ActH2016/S1139 would officially establish the National Landscape Conservation System created by the BLM in 2000. The system would include many types of land currently protected by the BLM or Congress, such as national monuments and wilderness study areas, with the goal of conserving the unique values of these lands.
H308 R.S. 2477 Rights-Of-Way Recognition ActH308 would clarify Congressional intent with regard to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way and outline protocols for maintenance and repair of such rights-of-way. The bill also declares certain rights-of-way vested in state and local governments under R.S. 2477 and disclaims any federal interest in those rights-of-way.
S390/H1210 Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2007S390/H1210 would require the Secretary of the Interior to exchange specified federal land in Utah for specified non-federal land in Utah. The bill also outlines management provisions for both parcels.
S278 National Heritage Areas Partnership ActS278 would establish a system of National Heritage Areas and require the Secretary of the Interior to offer financial and technical assistance to maintain the National Heritage Areas. The bill would also establish designation and management guidelines for the national heritage areas and prohibit local authorities involved with the national heritage areas from using funds from the bill to acquire any interest in real property.
S2231 Cooperative Conservation Enhancement ActS2231 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to fund, either directly or through reimbursements to project partners, "necessary administrative services, governance activities, and information dissemination activities" related to landscape projects. The bill would also describe requirements for new conservation banks, authorize the Secretary to enter into partnerships with other governmental and non-governmental entities, and describe mechanisms for facilitating such partnerships.
S2229 Wyoming Range Legacy Act of 2007S2229 would withdraw certain federal land in the Wyoming Range from leasing and provide an opportunity to retire certain leases in the Wyoming Range.
S2379 S2379 would authorize the Secretary of Interior to cancel certain grazing leases on land in Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument that are voluntarily waived by the lessees, to provide for the exchange of certain Monument land in exchange for private land, to designate certain Monument land as wilderness, and for other purposes. |
|||||||||||||||||
| Last Updated ( Thursday, 06 March 2008 ) | |||||||||||||||||
