The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) is a 501(c)(3) national non-profit, all volunteer membership conservation organization founded in 1987.  Its mission is to advocate and work for the retention of America's public lands in public hands, professionally and sustainably managed for responsible common use and enjoyment.  PLF is an advocate for professional multiple use management and protection of the public lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). It is a fast-paced passionate, advocate organization keeping policy makers and the general public aware of what is happening to the public lands.  Most PLF members are retired former BLM employees, and the Board of Directors serve as volunteers without compensation.
 

Amid widespread continuing support for the goals of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), there is a broad-based concern that the implementation of the act is generally inefficient and has fallen far short of achieving all of its intended purposes. The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) believes the ESA must be amended, and Federal Regulations for implementation of the Act modified.  This must be done so that the Federal public land agencies can, with appropriate budget support and in cooperation with the States and public land users, efficiently and effectively manage the public lands and resources under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, which includes responsible care for endangered species and the ecosystems in which they exist.
 

Recreational shooting is a legitimate component of multiple-use on the National System of Public Lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).  For a variety of reasons, this use has not been a featured element in land use plans unless it was to prohibit recreational shooting.  The BLM Land Use Planning Process should identify potential shooting ranges or other areas of public land where concentrated recreational shooting activities are currently occurring and where such activities might be directed in the future. Recreational shooting on public lands should be restricted or prohibited by land management decisions only in public land areas where dangers to public safety exist or where restrictions or prohibitions on recreational shooting are needed to prevent damage to valuable resources.
 

The disposal of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered public lands by the land exchange process, where the federal lands are traded for private or State lands of equal value, has provided many benefits for Federal public land management—improved public access, management efficiencies, protection of environmental values—and to States and private landowners as well. However, controversy and criticism over land exchanges and land exchange appraisals have plagued the BLM for decades, primarily related to exchanges involving high-value public lands around fast growing urban areas in the western states.  The problem has become more acute in recent years as increased demand has ballooned the value of public lands suitable for urban development.

The issue is the BLM and the public are frequently shortchanged by the way the land exchange authority is being used for the disposal of high value public lands in urban areas. The land exchange process is flawed, and the problem will not be solved by trying to make better land appraisals.

Most of the BLM land exchange problems would be mitigated or eliminated if:

- disposals of BLM administered lands by exchange are confined to trades of lands of similar character and land use potential, and where it is clearly in the public's interest to acquire the non-federal land, and

- high value, developable BLM lands are sold at public auction under an authority such as the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of July 25, 2000, with the money from the sale being used to purchase non-federal lands needed for BLM programs.

The BLM and the Department of the Interior should develop new policies and guidelines for making land exchanges, and for selling high value lands at public auction to ensure that the full and fair value is received for the BLM lands, and that the money is used to acquire other lands that are needed for conservation purposes.  Priority should be given to meeting needs in the BLM’s National System of Public Lands.

The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act needs to be reauthorized by Congress to provide the Federal agencies with continued authority to sell public lands and use the monies to acquire other lands needed for conservation purposes.
 

The sage-grouse is the representative bird of the western United States sagebrush landscape. Significant declines in the populations of sage-grouse have occurred and they currently occupy only an estimated 56 percent of their historically occupied habitat.¹ More than half of the remaining sage grouse habitat is on public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In response to a growing pressure for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a major collaborative effort began several years ago to protect and restore sage-grouse habitats and to rebuild grouse populations. That effort includes the western state wildlife agencies, the Western Governors' Association, and the BLM, along with a full range of public land users and wildlife conservation interests.

On March 5, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that listing of the greater sage-grouse as an endangered species was warranted, but precluded by the need to complete other listing actions of higher priority.  The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) believes this decision, along with the focused and accelerated management efforts by BLM working hand-in-hand with western state wildlife agencies, non-profit organizations and private landowners, can facilitate needed development in the public interest and assure the maintenance of healthy and abundant sage-grouse populations as well as the ecological health of the western lands generally.

Any subsequent listing decision should be deferred until enough time has elapsed to adequately assess the efforts currently being made to reverse historic trends and to rebuild and restore productive sagebrush habitat and sage-grouse populations.
 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered public lands in the National System of Public Lands are a national asset, part of our heritage, which should remain in national public ownership so that current citizens and future generations can share in their beauty and bounty.
 

The Public Lands Foundation (PLF), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the public recognize that there is a need to obtain or improve public access to many public land areas within the National System of Public Lands for public recreation and management and protection of resources, but inadequate funding, staffing and priority is given to solving access problems. PLF believes that a national database should be developed by the BLM to define the scope of the access issue. It should include data on acreage of public lands unavailable for public use; number of easements needed and estimated costs of easements.  This database should then be used to obtain adequate funding and acquire needed access to public lands. Additionally, BLM land use plans need to specifically identify access needs.
 

Smuggling of controlled substances and people into the United States from Mexico has caused significant impacts to lands and resources managed by the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Tribal and State governments and private citizens along the southwest border of the United States.  The impacts imperil designated Wilderness Areas, National Conservation Areas, National Monuments and other public lands.  These impacts are so severe that immediate action by the Administration and Congress is required, including enactment and enforcement of a new immigration policy and allocation of sufficient resources to mitigate impacts resulting on lands within the National System of Public Lands administered by BLM.
 

The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) supports the collection of fees for recreational uses of the National System of Public Lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Fees should be collected at recreational facilities provided by BLM, but not for casual use of the land. Fees so collected should be returned to the Bureau for use in maintenance of the recreation facilities.
 

The general public in the urban areas of the rapidly growing West view the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered lands in the National System of Public Lands as their open space and outdoor enjoyment areas.  Over 57 million people now live within 25 miles of these Public Lands.  Managing outdoor recreation activities is a major mission of the BLM.  The recreating public is potentially a strong advocate for the National System of Public Lands.

The Public Lands managed by the BLM have many times been viewed as a storehouse of natural and cultural resources that need to be protected from overuse by the public.  Land use planning has often focused on the impacts of public recreation uses, rather than promoting public use and enjoyment as a value derived from the land.  BLM now has a new “public” who wants to enjoy their public lands.  There are opportunities for BLM to build partnerships with the broad spectrum of public land users who want their public lands kept in public ownership, and managed for the types and levels of uses that will sustain the recreation attractions they want to enjoy.  BLM, in its planning and managing actions, should emphasize managing public lands for sustainable public values, which include enjoyment of recreational activities, within the land’s capability to maintain its natural life support functions. 

Giving distinctive names and boundaries to the major blocks of Public Lands would make it easier for the public to find, use, and enjoy their public lands; it would strengthen the BLM’s ability to manage the lands and the land uses; and it would help ensure the permanence of this national outdoor recreation asset.
 

Water Rights on the National System of Public Lands

The Courts have determined that the States have the authority to allocate the rights to unappropriated waters on the National System of Public Lands. The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) advocates public ownership of the rights to waters on public lands to ensure that the water will remain on the land for livestock, wildlife and the other multiple uses that occur within the National System of Public Lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) should actively pursue a program of acquiring the rights to waters on public lands by filing applications with the appropriate state water agencies, and through negotiations with the holders of existing water rights on the National Public Lands.
 

Sustainability and Management Policy for the National System of Public Lands

The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) asserts that the lands and resources managed by the Bureau of Land Management, now known as the National System of Public Lands, can best be—and must be—sustainably managed for the American people under the conservation mandate set forth in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield direction laid down in FLPMA requires competent, objective, professional management, and informed responsible public land users.  This is no simple task.  It involves a multitude of resources, uses, and issues, all with major environmental, social and economic consequences and a history of conflict.

Therefore the PLF, in this Position Statement has set forth four broad principles, which we believe should guide BLM.  These four principles: Renewability, Adaptability, Stewardship, and Equity, if diligently adhered to in the promulgation of policy, development of plans, and daily on-the-ground decision making in conformity with the FLPMA mandate, will result in the lands and resources of the National System of Public Lands being truly sustainable.
 

Biological Diversity and the National System of Public Lands

The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) strongly supports the conservation of biological diversity on public lands and waters within the National System of Public Lands and encourages BLM managers to maintain current levels while restoring, where feasible and appropriate, biological diversity on the lands and water they administer. It is neither practical nor possible to conserve or restore every element of biodiversity. Priority must be placed on assuring that opportunities for future decisions based on advanced science are not thoughtlessly foregone, while recognizing that legally and socially mandated uses of public lands should and will continue.
 

Climate Change and the National System of Public Lands

The preponderance of evidence indicates that significant changes in climate are occurring.  However, the causes of these changes and what changes should be made in public land management are less clear and there are still many questions remaining to be answered. 

Whether climate changes are human-influenced or natural, the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) focus should be to understand the impacts of climate change and to manage these impacts by continuing and expanding the implementation of adaptive management practices on the National System of Public Lands.  More needs to be done to re-establish baselines for judging changes in natural resource conditions; ensure collaborative, continuous, scientifically valid monitoring; obtain the tools, training and authorities needed to address impacts of changes in natural resource conditions; increase cooperation among agencies, states, counties, public land users and organizations; and manage using a “whole system approach.”
 

Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Management on Public Land Administered by the Bureau of Land Management

Nearly 40 years after passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, there continues to be an expensive and contentious struggle to adequately meet the requirements of the Act to the satisfaction of interested parties.  The Act has served to assure the presence of wild horses and burros as part of the Western landscape with there being 37,000 animals on the land today, another 36,000 in holding facilities and 225,000 having been adopted.  Budgets have increased from less than $1 million to a request for $75.7 million for 2011, the majority of which is to operate facilities to care for animals for which there is no adoption demand.

The Public Lands Foundation’s position is that major changes need to be made in the 1971 Act and in the way that wild horses and burros are maintained as an integral part of the public lands.  PLF wants the horse, livestock and wildlife interests to work out an acceptable solution to the current dissatisfaction that they share.  These interests should seek agreement on the number of wild horses and burros that should be the focus of the federal management requirement in a system of legislatively established Ranges dedicated to wild horses/burros and wildlife.  And, all wild horses and burros should be removed from public lands outside the established Ranges.
 

Special Congressional legislation – some passed and some under consideration – is directing the U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell large blocks of public land in Nevada, Idaho and Utah.  The legislation provides direction on such issues as what lands will be sold, for what uses, who will get the lands, and for what purposes.   The BLM administered public lands are a national asset and a national “public land system” that should be retained in public hands for use and enjoyment by the American people and that should not be viewed as a source of funding for local projects, programs or purposes. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 provides that the BLM public lands are to “be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest.” The Public Lands Foundation opposes special land disposal legislation which transfers large blocks of public land out of federal ownership and gives special privileges to local interests without regard to the requirements of existing statutes like the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Congress has equipped the BLM with adequate authorities to dispose of federal public lands where needed for local development and uses, and special land disposal legislation is, in most cases, unnecessary.
 

Recreational shooting is a legitimate component of multiple-use of BLM public lands.  For a variety of reasons, this use has not been a featured element in land use plans unless it was to prohibit recreational shooting.  The BLM Land Use Planning Process should identify public land areas where dispersed recreational shooting can continue, along with sites and ranges for current and/or future more concentrated recreational shooting activities. Recreational shooting on public lands should be restricted or prohibited by land management decisions only in public land areas where dangers to public safety exist or where restrictions or prohibitions on recreational shooting are needed to prevent damage to valuable resources.
 

In August 2003, a settlement agreement was entered into between the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC), the Association of O&C Counties, and the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture requiring the BLM to revise its land use plans to meet the mandated requirements of the O&C Act.  The Bureau of Land Management, along with a number of cooperating federal, state and local governmental agencies, is now in the process of revising six land use plans in Western Oregon All plans must be completed by December of 2008.  The vast majority of the public lands in the planning area are Revested Oregon and California (O&C) and Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) lands and are managed under the statutory authority of the Oregon and California Revested Railroad Lands Act of 1937. (O&C Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405).

The Public Lands Foundation recommends that planning decisions for these lands must meet all the mandated requirements of the O&C Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air and Water Acts, the National Environmental Policy Act and other associated regulatory acts.  Revised plans must provide direction for (1) ensuring permanent timber production on a sustained yield basis, (2) providing for the conservation and recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act and (3) for meeting clean air and water standards.
 

Federal land management agencies have a major responsibility in ensuring the recovery and reforestation of the forest after a catastrophic event such as a wildfire. The agencies should treat these activities as an emergency situation and aggressively pursue all restoration actions necessary to help promote the healing and restoration of the lands to desired conditions as prescribed in land use plans. Forest management activities should include prescriptions for (1) salvage that will capture economic values: (2) the planting of tree seedlings; and (3) a vegetative control and maintenance program to reduce the risk of recurring large scale fires and shrub encroachment. All these activities need to be initiated as quickly as possible after a wildfire.
 

This document updates the Public Lands Foundation’s position paper that was written after the disastrous 1994 South Canyon Fire in Colorado, which killed 14 fire fighters. Since that time some dramatic changes have occurred. Record fires in 2000, in the Northern Rockies, 2002 in Florida, Colorado and New Mexico, and 2003 in California have caused tremendous property damage, and loss of human life. These events caused Congress to recognize that wild land fire fighting programs were not part time jobs, and that funding was inadequate and not managed by the agencies in an accountable manner. It also indicated that federal agencies were not effectively utilizing the other fire fighting resources of the states, counties, and municipalities in an effective manner.  They also recognized that land management practices needed to be accelerated to prevent large fires; and improve the health of the land; such as, use of prescribed fire, thinning practices, and reducing urban interface problems.  A large and new funding process was created, and led to a National Fire Plan.  Protecting human life, fire fighter safety, homes and critical national resources are still the fire program priorities the Bureau of Land Management must emphasize.
 

Coalbed methane (CBM) is methane gas that can be extracted from coal beds. Large quantities of CBM are available from coal beds beneath public lands in the western states, with most of the current development in the Powder River Basin of eastern Wyoming and Montana. CBM production is a new and major onshore source of natural gas for the Nation, but with it comes a new set of major environmental problems.

The principle environmental issue associated with the development of the Powder River Basin CBM is how to dispose of the huge quantities of low quality groundwater that are produced along with the CBM. The water has limited suitability for domestic and animal consumption; its high saline and sodium content make it unsuitable for agriculture; and it has the potential to damage wildlife habitat and surface water supplies. Alternative solutions involve releasing the water into natural stream beds, and reinjecting it back into the coal beds.

PLF strongly recommends that the CBM water be reinjected back into the coal beds. Reinjection is not only viable, but it will also mitigate or solve most of the difficult water quality and ecosystem problems that will be caused if this water remains on the surface. The quality of the existing rivers and streams in the Powder River Basin must be maintained at their pre-CBM development conditions, and not allowed to deteriorate.
 

A biological disaster is in the making on the Public Lands of the West. It is a disaster that is also damaging private lands, and it poses potentially staggering losses to economic values as well as to wildlife resources and the productive biological diversity of the Public Lands. The impact is coming from a quietly insidious explosion of invasive non-native weeds that are spreading at alarming rates across public and private lands in the West, replacing native vegetation; destroying land productivity and wildlife habitat; endangering plant and animal species; and changing diverse ecosystems into permanently degraded monocultures of weeds that, in many cases, remain biological wastelands.

Spotted knapweed infestations in Montana and Idaho reduce elk forage on winter ranges from 50 to 90 percent. Today, there are about five million acres of knapweed-infested lands, and the weed is also expanding rapidly in Oregon and California. Leafy spurge causes severe eye irritation and possible blindness in humans, is poisonous to cattle, and eliminates wildlife forage. Leafy spurge has dropped the value of some ranches in Oregon by 60 to 80 percent. Yellow starthistle, which infests the habitat of sage grouse, chukar, and many native birds and small mammals, now covers more than 20 million acres of private and public land in California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho. There are many other introduced weed species, like rush skeletonweed and salt cedar, that are out of control throughout the West.

The impacts of these invasive weeds are extensive and severe. Wildlife habitat deteriorates, forest regeneration and production are impaired, grazing capacity is commonly reduced dramatically, recreation opportunities are reduced, water quantity and quality decrease, and biological diversity diminishes.

Unlike wildfires, which are dramatic events that generate huge public concern and immediate government suppression action, weed invasions are quiet, slow motion explosions that, historically, neither the public nor the government have recognized until it is too late and too expensive to control or manage the problem.

Today, nearly 10 percent of the BLM lands and their resources in the West, excluding Alaska, is affected by invasive weeds. In some cases of massive infestation, containment is the best that can be hoped for, but, in many places, new and spreading infestations can be controlled and stopped - if sufficient efforts are put in place quickly.

BLM is a large landowner in the West that has the land base, the mission, the organization and management structure, and the potential funding to do something about the problem, but funding and priority for BLM's weed control efforts is lagging behind what is needed. Other public agencies, both Federal and State are undertaking weed control efforts. Cooperative Weed Management Areas have been formed in some areas, and substantial State and private funding has been used to good effect in some localities. But weed control can only be effective when all land owners work together, and BLM must play a larger role in this effort if there is any hope of controlling this "biological wildfire" before millions more acres are infested and wildlife values lost.

The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) strongly endorses the BLM's "Partners Against Weeds" action plan for bringing together Federal, State and local governments, private land owners, public land interest groups and volunteers to help prevent the spread of invasive weeds. The program objectives are to recognize and quickly eliminate new weed infestations; concentrate on removal of small patches and isolated infestations; and attempt to contain heavily infested areas. BLM needs to be able to lead, encourage and assist local governments and local publics, since they are the ones that can best mobilize and sustain the efforts of controlling and eliminating invasive, non-native weeds.

A Presidential Executive Order was signed in February 1999, calling for increased national attention and coordination on the control of invasive weeds. Congress is considering urgently needed legislation, House Bill 1492, the "Harmful Nonnative Weed Control Act of 2001."

PLF urges the Department of the Interior and the Congress to take action while there is still time, and urges other public land interest organizations and user groups to join with PLF in supporting aggressive action on invasive weed prevention and control programs.
 

Historic use of the public lands for recreation and for the search, exploration and development of natural resources has resulted in a system of roads and trails that is, in most cases, adequate for reasonable public access for both recreational use and authorized resource uses. Existing roads and trails should remain open for public use unless the continued use of a specific road or trail is determined to be a significant threat to an endangered species, or cultural resources or damaging to important wildlife habitat, vegetation or soils on the land which the road or trail traverses. Closure of existing roads or trails should be done in the context of the BLM land use planning process with full public involvement, and appropriate closures should be visibly signed "on the ground" and marked on public land maps.

Vehicle operation off existing roads or trails may be approved as appropriate for permittees and lessees as necessary to exercise their authorized activities; for resource managers to conduct management activities such as resource studies or project work; for emergency activitiess such as rescue and wildfire fighting; and for handicapped access. New roads authorized in connection with such resource uses as timber harvest and mineral development should be closed and reclaimed when operations are finished, unless the BLM determines that the roads are appropriate for inclusion into the public access or transportation plan for the area.

The BLM's National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use of Public Lands, issued January 19, 2001, provides new emphasis on managing OHV use and a framework for planning and managing OHV use on public lands in coordination with local publics and local government and in cooperation with OHV user groups. PLF recommends that this Strategy be implemented.
 

The PLF believes that the basic statues that provide for the sustained yield management of the public land forest are sound , but that there needs to be changes in timber harvest methods to help maintain forest ecosystems and protect wildlife and other resources, while continuing to sustain local economies dependent upon forest resources. Forest areas, which are critical for the protection of such resources as fish and wildlife (especially endangered and threatened species), protection of watersheds and stands of old-growth forests, wild and scenic rivers and intensive outdoor recreation areas, need to be managed in ways that protect these values.  Representative reserved stands of old-growth forest should be established throughout the northwest. In orders to promote community stability, the annual timber sale levels should be established at the biological timber growing capacity of the forest land available for harvest consistent with multiple use and other management objectives.  Decisions on the allowable harvest need to be made for enough in advance to enable dependent communities to plan for their future.  BLM should use a variety of forest harvesting methods that best fit the sites, placing a priority on uneven aged practices and limiting clearcutting.  
 

The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) advocates the reform of the 1872 Mining Law to eliminate some of the exclusive ownership and use rights that are granted to mining claimants, to substitute some mechanism other than patenting to provide appropriate tenure for mine development, to obtain fair return of royalties to the public and to reclaim the land to the extent possible so that other uses may be made of the land.