Friday, June 23, 2023

BLM 3.0 - SEISMIC SHIFT IN BLM PUBLIC LAND POLICY

BLM's Fort Sage OHV Area - Special Recreation Management Area
Eagle Lake Field Office, Susanville, CA

OPINION

 By Don Amador

 June 23, 2023

  

BLM 3.0 - SEISMIC SHIFT IN BLM PUBLIC LAND POLICY

 

 Nobody in the OHV public land policy arena supports conservation of federal lands to protect natural resources - while still providing access to environmentally sound multiple-use recreation – more than I.  A lot of that support includes active participation on trail stewardship, restoration of lands damaged by illegal OHV use, and pre-fire fuel reduction and post-fire recovery projects.

 

Most, if not all, of those projects are done in collaboration with the Forest Service, BLM, agency partners, and volunteers with grant support from the powersports industry and the California State Parks OHV Grant Program.

 

The proposed 2023 BLM planning rule redefines the term Conservation, creates Conservation leases managed by private sector interests, and emphasizes Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) as the sole designation for protecting important natural, cultural, and scenic resources.

Current Restoration Project at Fort Sage OHV Area


Conservation is a key element of land management today that protects natural resources and also provides sustainable recreation for OHV and other activities that families enjoy.  Traditional Conservation includes maintaining trails to reduce soil loss, restoration, and post-fire recovery.   However, under this rule proposal Conservation efforts would be restricted to “protection” and “restoration.”

 

The proposed rule would direct BLM staff to identify and mitigate “disturbances” and restore the land to its natural state.  Authorized officers would be required to avoid authorizing any use of the public lands that permanently impairs ecosystem resilience.  Staff would also be directed to review and mitigate OHV and other recreation uses at designated intensive use areas such as the BLM Fort Sage OHV Area in California and the BLM Knolls OHV Area in Utah.


Current Post Wildfire Conservation Project
Fort Sage OHV Area


The new mitigation hierarchy would be to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts to all public land resources.

 

The new concept of private sector managed Conservation leases on BLM lands is also troubling for OHV access since the strict prohibition of OHV activity is a core tenet of most, if not all, private, state, and federal conservation lease plans and programs.

 

Many recreation and other multiple-use interests objected to the BLM’s 2017 2.0 Planning Rule because it created a vague set of hard to follow or implement standards that would have resulted in confusion, chaos and a loss of OHV access for casual use and permitted events such as amateur competition and club rides.  For those and other reasons, Congress and the President repealed the rule.

 

If this new rule is enacted it will also create confusion and chaos.  Agency staff will no longer have time to authorize permitted OHV events or do travel plans.  Designated OHV sites would most likely see a loss of opportunity including entire areas being closed due to new definitions.

 

I believe the agency should redraw this proposal that appears to have been crafted behind closed doors with little if any substantive input from diverse multi-use stakeholders.  The public, partners, and agency staff that we work with deserve better.

 

LINK to BLM PROPOSED PLANNING RULE – Public Comments Due by July 5, 2023

https://www.regulations.gov/document/BLM-2023-0001-0001

 

 

 

 

  

5 comments:

  1. Dear U.S. Dept of Interior,
    I am writing to express my strongest objection to the recently proposed Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) rule for “Conservation and Landscape Health”. This proposed rule, if adopted, would fundamentally alter the future management of BLM lands to the detriment of millions of Americans including those involved in recreation, livestock grazing, mineral extraction, renewable energy production, and other common uses on BLM lands. If adopted this proposal would negatively impact a wide range of stakeholders including myself who enjoy using public lands responsibly. Furthermore, it would undo years of hard work, cooperation, and compromise by a wide variety of stakeholders to achieve a balanced use plan.
    I oppose the proposed rule and urge the BLM to start over, withdraw its current proposal, and instead focus its efforts on working closely with states, local governments, and stakeholders on rulemaking that will truly enhance active management and actual conservation of BLM lands within the framework of multiple use and sustained yield. The healthy condition of BLM land in much of the western United States gives credit to the ranchers, hunters, recreationists, and others who use BLM lands responsibly and sustainably, often working to leave the landscape in better condition for future users.
    In closing, I would ask you to remember the BLM’s mandate is to accommodate a variety of uses for the public’s benefit.
    Respectfully,

    Brandon Baldwin
    bdog66y@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brandon, thanks as always for your support of responsible OHV recreation and for answering this call to action!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I strongly oppose any further restrictions on public lands use. Politicians need to be reminded that this great country is for the people by the people. So people’s use of public lands should not be extremely limited. I doubt very much if government regulators have ever walked or driven the land they are trying to limit access to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To whom it may concern, BLM officials please listen to the people that actually use this land. Pretty sure the majority will have the respect and support to help nature and respect the land they use as well. So let’s work together so all living things can enjoy this planet we all share. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  5. am writing to express my strongest objection to the recently proposed Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) rule for “Conservation and Landscape Health”. This proposed rule, if adopted, would fundamentally alter the future management of BLM lands to the detriment of millions of Americans including those involved in recreation, livestock grazing, mineral extraction, renewable energy production, and other common uses on BLM lands. If adopted this proposal would negatively impact a wide range of stakeholders including myself who enjoy using public lands responsibly. Furthermore, it would undo years of hard work, cooperation, and compromise by a wide variety of stakeholders to achieve a balanced use plan.
    I oppose the proposed rule and urge the BLM to start over, withdraw its current proposal, and instead focus its efforts on working closely with states, local governments, and stakeholders on rulemaking that will truly enhance active management and actual conservation of BLM lands within the framework of multiple use and sustained yield. The healthy condition of BLM land in much of the western United States gives credit to the ranchers, hunters, recreationists, and others who use BLM lands responsibly and sustainably, often working to leave the landscape in better condition for future users.
    In closing, I would ask you to remember the BLM’s mandate is to accommodate a variety of uses for the public’s benefit.
    Respectfully,

    ReplyDelete