Bureau of Land Management
• Manages 264 million acres
• Mostly arid lands in the west although some very productive, and
biologically important forestlands
• Arid lands also important! Desert ecosystems, shrub steppe, tall grass
and short grass prairies, riparian ecosystems, etc.
– Some habitat types have become exceedingly rare; others are highly
impacted by grazing
– Report: Endangered Ecosystems of the U.S. by Reed Noss (1995)
• Less than 1% of native prairies left
• 90% of remaining shrub-steppe severely impacted by grazing
• 30% of arid and semi-arid lands have been severely desertified and 60%
slightly desertified
– Riparian management on BLM lands is a major issue
– Exotic species invasion on rangelands also a major issue
Bureau of Land Management
• Very different history from USFS or NPS
– Lands not from reserves, but what was left over.
• As settlers moved west, water became scare
– Farming shifted to grazing, rangers needed more grazing land – so
federal lands became grazing commons
– Resulted in large problem of over grazing
• Taylor Grazing Act 1934 (amended 1939)
– Set up gazing districts with advisory boards
– Established fee for grazing on fed lands
• 1946 Truman reorganization plan – created BLM
– Responsible for grazing districts and mineral leasing
– Decentralized – more and more a “captive” agency
– Tried to consider multiple use, but no specific authority
Federal Lands Protection and Management Act
•
•
1976 Organic Act for the BLM – similar to the U.S. Forest Service’s NFMA
FLPMA is called the BLM Organic Act because it consolidated and articulated BLM's management
responsibilities. Many land and resource management authorities were established, amended, or repealed
by FLPMA, including provisions on Federal land withdrawals, land acquisitions and exchanges, rights-ofway, advisory groups, range management, and the general organization and administration of BLM and the
public lands. FLPMA also established BLM as a multiple-use agency — meaning that management would
be accomplished on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law — and
provided that:
. . . the national interest will be best realized if the public lands and their resources are periodically and
systematically inventoried and their present and future use is projected through a land use planning process
coordinated with other Federal and State planning efforts . . . FLPMA also specified that the United States
receive fair market value for the use of the public lands and their resources unless otherwise provided for
by statute, and that:
. . . the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical,
ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where
appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food
and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and
human occupancy and use
. . . In short, FLPMA proclaimed multiple use, sustained yield, and environmental protection as the guiding
principles for public land management. Thanks to FLPMA, BLM manages public lands so that they are
utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people for
renewable and non-renewable natural resources.
BLM lands today
•
•
•
•
•
•
More and more attractive as recreational lands
Wilderness Study Areas
ORV use huge! Also non-motorized recreation
>60 million visitor days per year
Leading to conflicts with traditional uses
BLM now conducting planning under new
ecosystem management guidelines.
• BLM is trying to manage for ecosystem integrity,
but faces legal and political challenges to this
approach. e.g. Nye county in Nevada.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Evolution of management philosophy:
– Emphasis shifted from migratory birds to
Endangered species to whole ecosystems
• How does this compare to the evolution of
thinking within the U.S. Forest Service and the
National Park Service?
Controversy over who should regulate fish and
wildlife – states or federal government – began in
the 19th century and has continued to this day.
Outcome:
resident fish and wildlife – property of state
Migratory fish and wildlife – property of federal government
Endangered species – regulated differently following the ESA
• Need to protect wildlife came from rampant
market hunting during the mid to late 19th century
– Extinction of passenger pigeon
– Severe declines in bison, beaver, deer, elk, turkey, water
fowl, wading birds
– No bag limits
– Sportsman’s groups active in protection
– State’s started passing laws
• 1900 Lacey Act – prohibits interstate transport of
game killed in violation of state law.
• States began to limit fishing in inland waters also
How could the fed. gov. regulate fish and wildlife?
1.
Could ban hunting on its land (e.g. Yellowstone NP in
1894)
2.
Responsible for migratory fish and wildlife – could
regulate interstate commerce
3.
Could establish federal refuges – first refuges established
under the Antiquities Act of 1906
• National Bison Range 1908
• National Elk Range 1912
Early, but important,
statutes
•
•
•
•
Migratory Bird Act 1913
– Federal treaty making powers to conserve migratory waterfowl
– Few explicit powers though
Migratory Bird Conservation Act
– U.S. Dept. of the Interior to purchase lands to refuges
– Wetland conservation
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 1934
– Hunters required to purchase “duck stamps”
– Funds dedicated to purchase migratory bird habitat – about 2 million acres
purchased under this program
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 1934
– Federal responsibility for evaluating effects of federal projects on fish and
wildlife or its habitat
National Refuge System
• 1966 National Refuge System Administration Act
– More refuges
– Combined game refuges, wildlife refuges, waterfowl
sanctuaries and management areas into one National
Wildlife Refuge System
– Unlike the Organic Acts for FS, BLM, or PS, it did not
specify objectives for system
• Each refuge has its own mandates
• Lots of uses “grand fathered” in
– Called “compatible uses”: agriculture, livestock
grazing, recreation, timber harvest, mining
– No guidance on how to balance uses
Silvio Conte
Today:
•93,604,626 acres in the
National Wildlife Refuge
System
•86% of the lands are in Alaska
•560 units
•32,700 acres in Vermont plus
Nulhegan
•5,800 in New Hampshire
•28,400 in New York
•54,600 in Maine
Previous FWS management objectives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Perpetuality of migratory bird resources
Preserving natural diversity: flora and fauna on refuges
Preserving, restoring, and enhancing endangered and threatened
species
Providing refuge visitors with opportunities to learn about fish and
wildlife ecology
Providing wildlife-oriented recreation experiences
New, additional FWS management
objectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
perpetuation of natural communities of plants and animals;
maintenance of naturally-occurring structural and genetic diversity;
needs of rare and ecologically important species;
minimization of habitat fragmentation;
maintenance of uncontaminated land and water;
continued role of natural processes (e.g., fire, floods);
control of undesirable exotic species; and
maintenance of compatible, sustainable human activities.
 So major shirt to ecosystems as focus for management
Endangered Species Act
•
Previous legislation:
–
1966 – called for listing and saving endangered wildlife
–
Reflected growing awareness of species loss: since 1500s, and
estimated 500 species had disappeared in the U.S.
–
Environmental movement called for shift away from the
preoccupation with game species – challenged the “captive
agency” approach
•
ESA passed in 1973 (amended in 1978)
Key provisions:
1. Put responsibility for endangered species in hands of federal
government
2. Set up a process for study of candidate species and subsequent
listing as threatened or endangered
3. All federal agencies required to conserve and restore listed
species
4. Emphasized habitat protection: designation of critical habitat
Threatened = Any species or subspecies
that is likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range
Endangered = Any species or subspecies
that is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range
“Take”
“Take”= killing, harming, or harassing.
Courts have defined this to include
habitat destruction
Has the ESA worked?
Success stories: gray whale, bald eagle, perhaps wolves
Often highly contentious: e.g. grizzlies
Positive aspects of the ESA
1. ESA is the only legislation protecting imperiled species and habitats; Canada does not even
have one!
2.
ESA is clear and concise; goals are achievable
3.
Act is flexible
4.
ESA is good example for rest of the world
5.
Act protects an important public resource
6.
Despite act, 12 species have gone extinct. Many more would have without the ESA.
7.
1973 – 109 listed species;
1995 - >900 listed species in US.;
>500 international species
But 3,700 candidate species
Original list mostly vertebrates; now adding mostly invertebrates and plants
Criticisms of the ESA
1.
Emergency room conservation
2.
Ecosystem-level habitat protection better
3.
Lack of clearly defined thresholds for listing
4.
How to define a viable population
5.
Metapopulations not adequately protected
6. Habitat reserves not protected adequately to sustain “recovered”
populations
7.
FWS discounts uncertainty and long-term threats
 Perhaps we need an “Endangered Ecosystems Act”
Habitat Conservation Plans – an
increasingly used tool allowed under the
ESA
- Long-term landowner certainty in
exchange for habitat conservation standards
Negotiated with the FWS
National Environmental Policy Act
•
Passed in 1969, Amended in 1970

OFTEN DRIVES HOW ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
PROJECTS ARE DONE
NEPA Key Provisions
• Created CEQ – Council on Environmental
Quality
• Requires EA or EIS for federal actions
– Environmental Assessment (EA)
– Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Environmental Assessment
• More concise -- for actions of more limited
scope – must include a discussion of the
proposal, alternatives, and environmental
impacts of both
• EA is followed by one of two conclusions:
1.Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with supporting presentation of reasons why no
impact expected
2.Decision to prepare an EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
• Intent –
–
to provide full and fair discussion of significant
environmental impacts
to inform decision makers and the public of the
reasonable alternatives
• Process –
–
–
–
NOI – Notice of Intent
Scoping
Draft EIS, Final EIS
ROD – Record of Decision
A New Policy and Legal
Framework for Ecosystem
Management
Does our current legal and administrative
framework facilitate ecosystem management?
Management functions are separated in different agencies:
•
•
•
U.S. Forest Service – Responsible for forests, wildlife on national forests
Fish and Wildlife Service – Responsible (with the States) for biodiversity (plants,
wildlife, etc.); plants and animals depend on clean air and water …but…
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – responsible for clean air and water, also
hazardous and solid waste regulation
Federal agencies driven by their authorizing legislation:
• Statutes not written with interagency cooperation in mind
• Ecosystem management requires cooperation
• Individual agencies view desired ecosystem conditions narrowly – within the
context of their mandates
• Traditionally, agencies have not had interdisciplinary expertise, although that is
changing
Ecosystem management now a core
responsibility under new agency policies
What should the agencies do differently?
• Must work within ecosystem boundaries, not administrative
boundaries
• Cross-agency management – comprehensive management of
ecosystems involving all levels of government and the public
• Public involvement  adapt to changing societal
expectations and values
• Work proactively!!!
Examples of inter-agency
cooperation and
comprehensive management
Northern Forest
Lands Study:
• Governors of
4 states
• U.S. Forest
Service
• Industry
• Environmental
Groups
• Local
government
Chesapeake
Bay Program
• Initiated by
federal
legislation
• 7 States
• Key federal
agencies
Northwest Forest Plan
• U.S. Forest Service
• Bureau of Land Management
• Additional involvement by U.S.
EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Park
Service
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Federally
Owned Lands within the Assessment Area
National Estuary Program
and Coastal Zone
Management
U.S. EPA
National Oceans and
Atmospheric Agency (NOAA)
State agencies
Citizen groups