On August 8, 2024 a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) news release shared that the agency was planning to begin a Federal Advisory Committee to engage the public and to assist in informing BLM on their implementation of the Public Lands Rule that the agency created and authorized to change the federal laws which were oriented to multiple use
(blm.gov/press-release/blm-announces-next-steps-implement-public-lands-rule).
Their insertion of management practices which aren’t related to use and then making those non-use practices as equal to all other multiple uses that Congress spelled out seem quite Orwellian in nature.
The news release also outlined and provided links to connect official documents into the government-speak of calling something – something else and incorporating that into Memorandum Instructions, Information Bulletins and Manuals for implementation. These sets of initial documents are being issued to support clear and consistent implementation of the agency’s rule across the 12 state and 175 field offices, according to the news release.
One of the Instruction Memorandums of priority in our mind was labeled as the “Development and Revision of Land Health Standards.” Because of the nature of where this approach will fit into the overall structure and operations of management activities on lands currently under BLM’s authority will be key.
In explaining the purpose of the rule that the agency created and authorized, taking effect on June 10, 2024, the Instruction Memorandum for the development and revision of Land Health Standards stated:
“The Public Lands Rule will help safeguard the health of our public lands for current and future generations by ensuring we:
- Protect the most intact, functioning landscapes;
- Restore degraded habitats and ecosystems; and
- Use science and data, including Indigenous Knowledge, as the foundation for management decisions across all plans and programs.”
Until the new range health standards are established, there are currently only standards which were developed in the mid-1990ies for livestock grazing. These were established under the direction of Rangeland Reform ’94, regulations promoted by then Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt.
The existing standards were developed by local Resource Advisory Councils (RAC). Nevada had three RACs and these grassroots units brought forward unique standards which fit local conditions.
As envisioned by the current administration, creating this generation of Land Health Standards will be carried out through a national interdisciplinary group of government experts who are formed through the authority of the Directorate of Resources and Planning at the national headquarters. These responsible persons will be labeled as a steering committee and an interdisciplinary team. The national standards are also intended to be mostly a one-size fits all and be submitted to the BLM Director for approval within 18 months of the enactment of this provision.
A State BLM Director is afforded the opportunity to supplement the national land health standards with the minimum additional state or regional standards to address unique habitats, ecosystem dynamics, or unique resources of concern, such as permafrost.
There is also a notation covering the direction to the steering committee and interdisciplinary team. In their work they will coordinate with BLM subject matter experts in their assignment, especially for identifying additional nationally consistent “ecosystem indicators,” which are indicators that are appropriate for evaluating each standard in major ecosystem types and habitats managed by BLM.
We will need to see how it will be carried out, but the steering committee, in coordination with BLM leadership, are supposed to consult and coordinate with Federal, Tribal and State agencies, RACs, other partners, stakeholders and the public. Under the same provision we are promised that this entire process will be done so in a manner which ensures transparency for the public.
In projecting the intended results of these national land health standards and indicators, the hierarchy have directed though the Instruction Memorandum that the end results need to cover details “that consistently address land health fundamentals, habitat condition, connectivity, intactness and changing environmental conditions.”
The six national standards will be developed to address:
- Upland hydrologic function…
- Riparian, wetland and aquatic hydrologic function…
- Upland ecological processes and biotic communities, including connectivity and intactness of native plants and animal habitats…
- Riparian, wetland and aquatic ecological processes and biotic communities, including condition, connectivity and intactness of native plant and animal habitats…
- Water quality, including compliance with State water quality standards and BLM management objectives (e.g. wildlife needs)…
- Habitat condition, connectivity and intactness for Federally threatened and endangered species, Federally proposed or candidate threatened and endangered species and other special status species….
Beyond the Instruction Memorandum for Land Health Standards, there were other guidance documents which were part of the group covered in the August 8th news release. These additional topics cover:
- An Instruction Memorandum for Restoration Prioritization & Planning
- An Instruction Memorandum for Watershed Condition Assessment
- An Instruction Memorandum for Restoration and Mitigation Leasing
- A Manual for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
- A Manual for Inventory & Monitoring of Ecological Resources
- An Information Bulletin regarding Land Use Planning Requirements
While the agency is working to bring their Public Lands Rule into operation impacted ranchers, Farm Bureau and other interest organizations are involved with a lawsuit to challenge BLM’s Public Lands Rule. The states of Utah and Wyoming have also initiated a lawsuit to push back against the agency going forward with their rule. It is hoped that through this litigation, court action will derail the implementation process by BLM.
At the heart of the conflict over the BLM rule are the questions of the process used to bring forward their proposed rule as well as the authority for creating a new multiple use (conservation) and bureaucratically plugging this “use” into the list of multiple uses that were clearly spelled out by Congress with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
Additional unresolved issues involve the potential of conflicts of actual uses that are covered as a Congressional direction in the “equal” treatment of non-use established by BLM either as a multiple use or through the practices like expanded designations of ACECs and conservation leases.
By Doug Busselman | NFB Executive Vice President