PUBLIC LANDS FOUNDATION'S POSITION STATEMENTS ON VITAL ISSUES
| NEWS | |
PUBLIC LANDS FOUNDATION'S POSITION STATEMENTS ON VITAL ISSUES |
MAJOR ISSUES | |
| POSITIONS | SMALL TRACTS | |||
| PRESIDENT | PLF MEETING | |||
| MORE INFO | HOME | |||
| CONTACT US | FEATURES | |||
| MEMBERS | ARCHIVES | |||
| HISTORY | PublicLandDay | |||
| MEMORIAL | OTHER LINKS | |||
| AWARDS | MONITORING |
Editor - Glen Collins - glendone@aol.com
The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) is a non-profit organization that is an advocate for professional multiple use management and protection of the public lands administered by the US Bureau of Land Management. The following summarizes the PLF's positions on major land management issues affecting these public lands. You can see the full position statement by clicking on the title of the Position Paper. For more information about the position statements, please contct the Public Lands Foundation, PO Box 7226, Arlington, Virginia 22207.
The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) is a 501 (C)(3) non-profit national conservation organization founded in 1987. PLF’s mission is to foster the proper use, protection and management of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered lands. It is a fast-paced passionate, advocate organization keeping policy makers and the general public aware of what is happening to the public lands. All PLF members, most of who are retired former BLM employees, and its Board of Directors serve without compensation as volunteers.
33-08 PUBLIC LAND DISPOSAL THROUGH LEGISLATION
32-08 PUBLIC LANDS FOUNDATION POSITION STATEMENT ON RECREATIONAL SHOOTING ON BLM PUBLIC LANDS
31-07. The Role of Science in BLM Land Management Decisions
30-07. Implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
29-06. Public Lands Being Destroyed by Illegal Immigration
28-05. Forest Plan Revisions and a Future for O&C Forest
27-05. Endangered Species Act Amendments.
26-05. The Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
25-05. Restoration and Recovery of Federal Forests After Catastrophic Wildfires
24-04. Position Paper - Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation - September 17, 2004
23-04. WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
22-03. Voluntary Relinquishment of Grazing Privileges
21-02. COALBED METHANE -- A MAJOR NEW ENERGY SOURCE AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
20-01. WESTERN WILDLIFE AND RANCHLAND DAMAGED BY WEED EXPLOSION
19-01. OHV Use of the Public Lands
18-01. LAND EXCHANGES OF PUBLIC LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM
17-00. Recreation Use Fees on the Public Lands
16.99. Improve Ownership Pattern - An Alternative to Land Transfer
15-99. Private Property Rights and Takings Legislation
14-99. Western Oregon Forestry
13-00. Public Access to Public Lands
12-99. Water Rights on Public Lands
11-99. Wildland Fire Management
10-99. Mining Law of 1872
9-99. Surface Management Regulations for Mineral Development (3809 Regulations)
8-99. County Government Influences on the Uses of Public Lands
7-99. Biological Diversity
6.99. Reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act (Replaced by PLF 27-05 Endangered Species Act Amendment)
5-99. Livestock Grazing on Public Lands
4-99. Management of Riparian Areas and Wetlands
3-99. Wild and Free Roaming Horses and Burros
2-00. Place Public Lands into a National Public Lands System
1-99. Keep Public Lands in Public Hands
33-08 PUBLIC LAND DISPOSAL THROUGH LEGISLATION
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.
32-08 PUBLIC LANDS FOUNDATION POSITION STATEMENT ON RECREATIONAL SHOOTING ON BLM PUBLIC LANDS
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.
29-06 Public Lands Being Destroyed by Illegal Immigration
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 of a new, comprehensive immigration policy and allocation of sufficient resources to mitigate impacts resulting on lands administered by BLM.
28-05. Forest Plan Revisions and a Future for O&C Forests
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.
1-99. Keep Public Lands in Public Hands
The public lands are a national asset, part of our heritage, that should remain in national public ownership so that current citizens and future generations can share in their beauty and bounty.
2-00. Place Public Lands into a National Public Lands System
The PLF strongly believes that giving the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered public lands a distinctive name, “National Public Lands”, and placing them into a National Public Lands System will substantially enhance public support for the BLM’s multiple use management mission and will help keep these public lands in public hands
3-99. Wild and Free Roaming Horses and Burros
The growth and expansion of wild horse and burro herds are causing resource damage on the public lands, and excessive government expenditures on an animal adoption program that is not solving the problem. The PLF believes that:
- either the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 should be amended to provide for the establishment of National Wild Horse and Burro Ranges which will be managed primarily for maintaining healthy herds of wild horses and/or burros, and to provide for removing all feral horses and burros from the public lands outside these Ranges;
- or adequate funds and staff should be provided to implement the BLM's 1992 "Strategic Plan for the Management of Wild Horses and Burros on Public Lands" which places emphasis on habitat management and provides for managing the existing wild horse and burro herds as part of the existing multiple use mix, using such methods as selective gathers to enhance adoptability and fertility controls to keep herd numbers at appropriate levels.
4-99. Management of Riparian Areas and Wetlands
Riparian and wetland areas are essential to the rangeland and forest ecosystems. PLF strongly supports BLM's "Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990s" and its plans for restoring riparian and wetland areas on the public lands.
The Foundation urges BLM to monitor management practices and uses in individual watersheds, to cooperate with public and private interests on management practices and projects that will restore and maintain healthy riparian and wetland areas, and to not tolerate uses and practices on public lands that degrade the long term quality and condition of riparian and wetland areas.
5-99. Livestock Grazing on Public Lands
Domestic livestock grazing is one of the traditional uses of the public lands and should continue to be authorized subject to grazing management practices that maintain or enhance the sustainability of the soil, water and vegetation on the land, and where the use is compatible with other resources.
6-99. Reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act (Replaced by PLF 27-05 Endangered Species Act Amendment)
7-99. Biological Diversity
The PLF strongly supports the conservation of biological diversity on the public lands and waters, 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.
8-99. County Government Influences on the Uses of Public Lands
Congress, through federal agencies like BLM, has the exclusive right to administer the public lands to carry out Federal uses and purposes. The role of the County governments is not to attempt to dictate land use on public lands, but to regulate private uses of public lands to protect public health, safety and welfare in the same manner as on private lands. Constructive participation by County governments in the BLM's land use decision making process is one of the best ways to ensure that local concerns and desires are adequately considered. In implementing the changes that are required by land use decisions, BLM should take into consideration the impact on existing public land users and local economies, and look for ways to ease the transition to new levels or types of uses.
9-99. Surface Management Regulations for Mineral Development (3809 Regulations)
The PLF fully supports mineral exploration and development on the public lands to enable private industry to help the Federal government evaluate the mineral resources of the public lands. However, the BLM should have the authority to restrict or deny mineral exploration activities in areas where critical and/or significant surface resources would be destroyed by such activities. A permitting system in tandem with the mining claim system is appropriate and necessary to ensure that reasonable surface protection and reclamation occurs. The level of BLM effort and review of proposed exploration and mining plans should be commensurate with the size and potential of the proposed operations, and the significance of the surface resources.
10-99. Mining Law of 1872
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.
11-99. Wildland Fire Management
Years of wildfire suppression have allowed fuel build-up in many areas in a manner that threatens human life and can cause major ecosystem change. Wildfires and prescribed fires can improve ecosystem health and reduce hazards if they occur in situations described in fire management plans, and if public and firefighter safety is not at risk. Fire management planning is an essential component of the land management planning process. The BLM needs to make sure that fire management planning is done, and that all suppression and prescription plans reflect a commitment to public and firefighter safety as a first priority.
12-99. Water Rights on Public Lands
The Courts have determined that the States have the authority to allocate the rights to unappropriated waters on public lands. The 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 of the public lands. The 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 public lands.
13-00. Public Access to Public Lands
The PLF, the BLM and the public recognize that there is a need to obtain or improve public access to many public land areas 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 data base 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. PLF could help with inventorying and prioritizing access needs, and in generating public and local government support and funding to help BLM resolve at least some of the access problems.
14-99. Western Oregon Forestry
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.
15-99. Private Property Rights and Takings Legislation
Private property rights and takings legislation is unnecessary and will create costly burdens for government and more controversy in public land management. The public lands managed by the BLM are publicly owned and must not be appropriated by private interests. Such long standing uses of the public lands as livestock grazing, timber harvest, prospecting, and outdoor recreation are legitimate activities on the public lands. These uses are subject to modification by the BLM to protect the resources, and are not private property rights that require compensation if curtailed or terminated, but implementation of changes should be done in ways that take into consideration the impact on the users. Private lands and property rights within public land areas must be respected and the owners compensated if their property is taken for public uses or purposes
16.99. Improve Ownership Pattern - An Alternative to Land Transfer
Due to the nature of settlement and other public land disposals and reserves over the past two hundred years, the lands under BLM stewardship are more an accident of history than an orderly system of land tenure. The resulting pattern of the public land ownership in many areas of the western states is scattered. The need to reposition this ownership grows daily and is elementary to efficient management of all land ownerships. The PLF proposes a 10 year program of proactive land exchanges to trade scattered tracts of public land for private land in-holdings.
17-00. Recreation Use Fees on the Public Lands
The PLF supports the collection of fees for recreational uses of the public lands administered by BLM. Fees should be collected at recreational facilities provided by BLM and not for casual use. Fees so collected should be returned to the Bureau for use in maintenance of the recreation facilities.
18-01. LAND EXCHANGES OF PUBLIC LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM
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 land owners as well.
However, controversy and criticism over land exchanges and land 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 lands suitable for urban development.
At issue is the fact that the BLM and the public are being 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.
The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) believes that 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 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 with the money from the sale being used to purchase non-federal lands needed for BLM programs. The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), passed in 2000, provides new authority for these types of transactions.
The PLF asks the Secretary of the Interior to develop policies and guidelines for making land exchanges and for selling high value lands at public auction to ensure that the full and fair value of BLM lands is used to acquire other lands needed for conservation purposes.
19-01. OHV Use of the Public Lands
Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is an established use of the BLM administered public lands. As with any public land use, OHV use must be managed in a manner consistent with the capability of the land to sustain the use, with due consideration for the impact of OHV use on the land, the resources and other land users.
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.
20-01. WESTERN WILDLIFE AND RANCHLAND DAMAGED BY WEED EXPLOSION
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.
PRIORITY ACTION BY CONGRESS AND THE BLM IS URGENTLY NEEDED!
21-02. COALBED METHANE -- A MAJOR NEW ENERGY SOURCE AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
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.
22-03. Voluntary Relinquishment of Grazing Privileges
The concept of allowing federal grazing permittees/lessees to voluntarily relinquish and waive their grazing permits/leases to the managing agency (the Bureau of Land Management - BLM) can be an effective management tool in response to the Sustained Working Landscape concept. Actual compensation must be based on an agreement between the willing buyer and seller. The BLM would not be the "purchaser" but rather the recipient of total relinquishment and waiver of grazing permits/leases and related or associated interests, such as interests in range improvements. There shall be no existing contingencies. The decision to prohibit or allow and facilitate voluntary relinquishment of grazing permits/leases must ultimately be based on resource values, conflicts, and uses in accordance with current resource management plans. New legislation to allow voluntary relinquishments is unnecessary; however, current policies and procedures must be clarified to ensure an effective process. Grazing is a valuable tool for the management of the public lands, and the flexibility and authority to use or not use the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must retain it. All relinquishment decisions must be made in accordance with the Land-Use Plans (LUPs)/NEPA process.
23-04. WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
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.
24-04. Position Paper - Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation - September 17, 2004
The sage grouse is the representative bird of the western United States sagebrush landscape. Significant declines in the populations of sage grouse and a better than 50 percent reduction in productive grouse habitat have led to the possibility of listing the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). More than half of the remaining sage grouse habitat is on public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In response to the growing pressure for ESA listing, a major collaborative effort is under way 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. The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) strongly supports this sage grouse habitat conservation effort and, so long as it continues and proves successful on the ground, recommends that sage grouse not be listed either as threatened or endangered.
25-05. Restoration and Recovery of Federal Forests After Catastrophic Wildfires
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.
26-05. The Healthy Forest Initiative and the Healthy Forest Rehabilitation Act (Draft)
In 2003, at the height of one of the worst fire seasons the nation has ever experienced, the President established the Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI), which gave the BLM important administrative authority to work on restoration projects. Congress provided additional administrative tools needed to fully implement the HFI by passing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) on November 21, 2003. These two national new programs contain a comprehensive approach to providing the land managers with the ability to effectively reduce the accumulation of hazardous fuels and restore wildfire-damaged areas in a timely manner. The Public Lands Foundation supports these new programs and further recommends (1) that BLM incorporate those categorical exclusions that the Forest Service has adopted, (2) that BLM include an element in their planning system entitled “Catastrophic Planning” and (3) that Congress expand the principles in HFRA to public land areas outside Wildland Urban Interfaces (WUI)
27-05. Endangered Species Act Amendments.
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 an inefficient, frustrating, expensive failure. 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. Nine specific recommendations are made.
28-05. Forest Plan Revisions and a Future for O&C Forests
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.
30-07. Implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 can help make the United States energy-independent. Expediting the processing of oil and gas authorizations on federal public lands and establishing a network of transportation and transmission corridors are important components of energy independence. It is equally important that implementation of the Act be accomplished in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and other environmental laws and in a manner that minimizes impacts on other uses of federal public lands.
The Energy Policy Act has resulted in increased workloads in processing applications, inspecting and enforcing permits, designating corridors and addressing environmental concerns. As it has done historically, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has shown that it is up to the challenge and that it is committed to taking on these new responsibilities without reservation. However, the Public Lands Foundation (PLF) considers it extremely important that BLM receive new and additional funding and other resources so that it can carry out all of its mandates and responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner. Additionally, PLF encourages full public and industry participation in the identification of corridors and the development and implementation of land use plans so that the delivery of energy resources can be ensured.
31-07. The Role of Science in BLM Land Management Decisions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Science is important for supporting land management decisions and helping to outline their consequences. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must state clearly the role of science in resource management decision-making and act accordingly. The use of science within BLM has received critical media attention. Recent media debates about perceived conflicts between scientists, policy makers and political appointees have led the public to question public policy decisions, and have eroded the public trust. The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) believes BLM needs to reinforce its institutional commitment to the application of science to land management decisions. Also, BLM would benefit from increased partnerships with public and private science providers in making informed resource management decisions. The use of the best available science is critical when developing public land policy. A clearly understood and transparent relationship between scientists and policy makers can be highly productive and beneficial to BLM and the public.