Inside the fight to undo BLM’s planning overhaul

In latest skirmish of land wars, Congress supports mining and ranching.


This article was originally published on .

Republicans in Congress are enthusiastically using the to overturn regulations finalized during the last weeks of the Obama administration. One measure on their list is the Bureau of Land Management’s new , which is designed to improve BLM’s process for making decisions about ranching, energy development and other uses of public lands. The House has already , and the Senate is likely to follow.

As an environmental historian, I see this as the latest skirmish in a long-running battle over use of the quarter-million acres of public lands managed by BLM.

Historically, BLM has been dominated by commodity interests, especially ranchers and mining companies. But in the 1970s Congress passed several laws that increased public involvement in land management decisions. It also directed BLM to balance extractive uses such as mining, grazing and logging with other activities, such as wildlife conservation, recreation and preservation of wilderness areas. These laws shifted the agency into what has been called a “” toward greater environmental protection, even in the face of subsequent congressional gridlock.

This is not a simple Washington-versus-local struggle. Many westerners, including some Republican officials, support the idea of opening up the planning process and doing it across larger areas. Overturning Planning 2.0 exposes BLM to charges of ignoring science, collaboration and the public – criticisms that it has worked for decades to overcome. And it will probably lead to more of the lawsuits that inspired the rule in the first place.

Lazy B Ranch near Duncan, Arizona in 1945. The ranch was the childhood home of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and is on an active grazing allotment managed by BLM.
Bureau of Land Management/Flickr

The Bureau of Livestock and Mining

BLM’s makes it vulnerable to charges of not listening to a wide public. An agency of the Interior Department, it was created in 1946 through a merger of the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service. Government experts had found that 95 percent of rangelands in the public domain had declined since the turn of the century due to “,” or overgrazing.

However, BLM was so attentive to its main constituencies – ranchers and mineral companies – that it quickly became known as the Bureau of Livestock and Mining. In its early years, power rested almost entirely with grazing advisory boards, made up of local ranchers who assigned grazing permits on government rangelands. At one point these boards even helped pay BLM employee salaries.

Through the 1970s western land management was a classic example of what political scientists call an “,” in which tightly connected congressional committees, bureaucracies and interest groups enact policy. Such relationships typically favor the narrow self-interest of commodity groups.

According to early studies of BLM, such as Philip Foss’ 1960 book “,” the agency was “captured” by livestock interests. Political scientist Grant McConnell in 1966 that BLM’s decentralized structure was designed to allow “home rule on the range” – just what ranchers wanted.

Humbug Spires, on BLM land south of Butte, Montana, is an 11,175-acre zone under study for possible designations as a wilderness area.
Bob Wick, BLM California/Flickr

Gradual opening

In the 1970s BLM started to become more independent and manage land in a more way. This was partly due to the 1969 , which gave the public a new role in federal policy. Agencies proposing major projects were required to produce environmental impact statements that were subject to public review. This opened up federal agencies to greater scrutiny and allowed new voices to influence agency decisions. It also increased litigation and as more constituencies became involved.

The 1976 increased BLM’s power to regulate grazing and mining, and made wilderness a new priority in its multiple-use portfolio. Ranching and mining interests now had to compete and cooperate with wildlife advocates and other nonextractive users.

These new policies improved BLM decisions by enabling the agency to consider science, such as rangeland ecology and habitat protection for endangered species, and the noneconomic values of wilderness and wildlife. They also disrupted power balances. Many western stakeholders felt that national priorities were displacing local needs and traditions.

Their dissatisfaction spawned the Sagebrush Rebellion of the late 1970s and early 1980s and its . Ever since then, commodity interests have bristled at having to incorporate broadly environmental values in western land use decisions, instead of basing them strictly on economics that favored ranchers with and miners with .

Planning 2.0 in the crosshairs

The final , published on Dec. 16, 2016, is designed to fix some key flaws in western land use planning. Notably, BLM lands are intermingled with private lands and public lands managed by other federal agencies. Many issues, such as wildfire management and invasive species control, cross these boundaries.

Instead of planning at the local or site-specific scale, which does not address the environment’s interconnected nature, the rule directs BLM to plan at the landscape scale – that is, over large areas with “,” such as the . Landscape-scale planning necessarily involves federal, state, local and tribal governments.

The rule also requires BLM to seek public input before developing plans. This approach contrasts with NEPA, which requires agencies only to consult with the public . Environmentalists have repeatedly stalled BLM land use planning through lawsuits when they disagreed with agencies’ proposed alternatives. Planning 2.0 seeks to involve them earlier to help develop alternatives in hope of reducing litigation later.

Many westerners who opposed the rule raised classic federal-versus-state arguments against it. Tom Jankovsky, a Republican commissioner in Garfield County, Colorado, “the first step to a totalitarian government, having bureaucrat planners making legislation through administrative process.” The complained that it was an “overreach of federal authority” beyond what FLPMA allowed and prioritized conservation over multiple use.

But other western stakeholders found merit in Planning 2.0. , along with other , want seats at the table in land use decisions. Some wildlife advocates see the new rules as a great improvement and to ratify Planning 2.0 rather than repeal it. Park County, Colorado’s three Republican commissioners for allowing the public to influence plans rather than just react to them.

One step forward, two steps back

In my view, many critics who have urged Congress to strike down Planning 2.0 want to return to the era when mining companies and ranchers wrote the rules and did so for a narrow range of interests. This strategy is consistent with the Republican Party’s general to facilitate business. But repealing the rule is unlikely to have that effect.

Laws like NEPA and FLPMA have brought other interests to the planning table, and Planning 2.0 would get them there earlier to help prevent costly delays that frustrate everyone involved. By excluding their voices, Congress will guarantee the status quo: lengthy court battles after planning decisions are issued. And once a rule is vacated under the Congressional Review Act, agencies ” unless Congress passes a law authorizing them to do so. The result will be more gridlock and unsound multiple-use management of western public lands.

is a professor of history at the .

The Conversation

NewTowncarShare News Classifieds
  • New Mexico Land Conservancy (Santa Fe, NM), Stewardship Coordinator - Seeking highly motivated individual with excellent interpersonal skills to coordinate stewardship activities and support conservation...
  • One-of-a-kind gem borders public lands/West Elk Wilderness. Privacy, creek, spring, irrigation, access. $270,000. Info at or call 970-683-0588 or 970-261-5928.
  • Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is seeking a dynamic, organized, and creative person with great people skills to be our Recruitment & Hiring Manager to recruit...
  • Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is looking for a variety of positions around the West with our Clean Energy Program. Currently we are hiring a Staff...
  • We are seeking an experienced dynamic leader for a growing conservation organization; $65,000-75,000 salary plus benefits; job description and apply at
  • Friends of the Inyo is excited to post our seasonal job offerings for the summer of 2019! We are hiring Trail Ambassadors, Stewardship Crew Members,...
  • This position is responsible for the identification and qualification of major and planned gift prospects and assists in cultivating and soliciting donors through meetings, trips,...
  • Keeping Washington Clean and Evergreen Protecting Washington State's environment for current and future generations is what we do every day at Ecology. We are a...
  • Keeping Washington Clean and Evergreen Our Water Quality Program is looking to hire a Senior Stormwater Engineer at our Headquarters building in Lacey, WA This...
  • Do you enjoy rural living, wild places, family farms, challenging politics, and big conservation opportunities? Do you have leadership abilities, experience with rural land protection,...
  • University of Wyoming Foundation Haub School of ENR, Biodiversity Institute, Environmental/Natural Resource Programs
  • The Montana Land Steward develops, manages, and advances conservation programs, plans, and methods related to TNC's property interest portfolio in Montana. For more information and...
  • POSITION DESCRIPTION: RAISER'S EDGE DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR The Raiser's Edge Database Administrator ensures the integrity and effectiveness of the member/donor database by developing systems and processes...
  • We are hiring a Director of Development Full time, competitive pay and benefits. Location: Bozeman,MT Visit for details GYC is an equal opportunity employer
  • Kaniksu Land Trust, a community-supported non-profit land trust serving north Idaho and northwest Montana, is in search of a new executive director. The ideal candidate...
  • The Arizona Wildlife Federation seeks an energetic Marketing and Communications Director. Please see the full job description at
  • Mountain Studies Inst (MSI) in Durango and Silverton, CO is hiring 3 staff: Please visit for Assoc Director, Dev and Engagement Director, and Forest...
  • The Center for Collaborative Conservation is hiring a full-time, permanent Director. Applications are due on March 31. Description can be found at No phone...
  • Program and Outreach Coordinator - Dolores River Boating Advocates, a conservation and recreation minded non-profit based in Dolores, CO, is hiring a 20 hour/week Program...
  • Friends of Cedar Mesa seeks a skilled non-profit leader to play a crucial role in protecting the greater Bears Ears landscape. Experience working with government...

Предлагаем недорого с доставкой.