Title of Resource/Resource Use

Bureau of Land Management

US Department of Interior

Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment EIS

NEWSLETTER #3 - Preliminary Alternatives - Dec. 2014

Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument

BLM

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

We are seeking public comments on the preliminary alternatives for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument’s Livestock Grazing Monument Management Plan Amendment and Associated Environmental Impact 

Statement (MMP-A/EIS). Comments will be considered as we develop the Draft MMP-A/EIS that will replace existing 

grazing management decisions.

We requested comments during the scoping period in December 2013 and January 2014. The preliminary draft 

alternatives were developed using that public feedback, in close coordination with the State of Utah, Kane and 

Garfield Counties, and the National Park Service. The preliminary alternatives propose different scenarios for 

managing livestock and rangelands in the planning area. The five preliminary alternatives are briefly summarized 

here and more information is available on the Monument's Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment website at 

http://blm.gov/pgld. 

Requesting comments on the preliminary alternatives is an extra step to BLM's usual planning process. During 

scoping we heard many opinions related to livestock grazing from suggestions to close the entire area to grazing to 

making the entire area available for grazing. We are asking for your thoughts and ideas now to ensure that the 

range of alternatives in the Draft MMP-A/EIS include comprehensive livestock management options based on 

factors that are important to you, our stakeholders. 

Please submit comments on the preliminary alternatives by January 20, 2015.

We look forward to hearing from you. 

Sincerely,

Cynthia Staszak

Monument Manager

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

The BLM is an agency in the US Department of the Interior that manages approximately one-quarter billion acres – more than any other Federal agency. This 

land, known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. Approximately 27 million acres of BLM 

administered lands make up the collection of National Conservation Lands, also known as the National Landscape Conservation System. These include BLM 

National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, 

and National Scenic and Historic Trails. The mission of the National Conservation Lands is to 

conserve, protect, and restore these nationally significant landscapes that are recognized for 

their outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values.
The Planning Area and which GSENM has livestock grazing administration responsibility. 

The decision area does not include state, municipal, or private 

lands. Decision Area

The planning area includes all public lands within Grand Staircase- Cooperating Agencies Escalante National Monument (GSENM) and public lands for 

which GSENM has livestock grazing administration responsibility. The BLM invited eligible federal agencies, state and local 

governments, and Native American tribes to participate as This includes Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands within the 

cooperating agencies. These agencies were invited to participate Monument and additional lands within portions of the Kanab 

because they have jurisdiction by law or have special expertise. Field Office and the Arizona Strip Field Office as well as lands Five agencies agreed to serve as cooperating agencies: managed by the National Park Service (NPS) in Glen Canyon 

 NPS - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area National Recreation Area (Glen Canyon NRA). Small areas of 

 State of Utah additional state, municipal, and private lands also border or are 

 Garfield County contained within the planning area.

 Kane County 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service GSENM's decision area for this planning effort includes all BLM 

lands within the Monument and BLM lands for which the 

Monument has livestock grazing management responsibility. The The cooperating agencies have been actively involved in the 

decision area for NPS includes lands within Glen Canyon NRA for alternative development process.

Page 2 - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #3 - Preliminary Alternatives - Dec. 2014
Why Are We Amending 

the Management Plan?

BLM - GSENM is preparing a Livestock Grazing Monument 

Management Plan Amendment (Amendment or MMP‐A) and 

associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We are 

amending the MMP to integrate livestock grazing with the 

management of other resources on BLM‐managed lands in 

GSENM. We will also consider lands for which GSENM has 

administrative responsibility for livestock grazing in Glen Canyon 

NRA and the BLM Kanab and Arizona Strip Field Offices. NPS is 

participating as a Cooperating Agency to ensure the values and 

purposes for which Glen Canyon NRA was established are 

integrated into livestock management decisions.

Currently, livestock grazing is guided by four Management 

Framework Plans that were completed in the 1980s. In the years 

since, the Monument Management Plan became effective, new 

information has become available, new policies have been 

established, and existing policies have been revised. We are 

amending the Monument Management Plan to address these 

changes, along with emerging concerns and changing 

circumstances. Some of these changes are:

 Establishment of GSENM in 1996

 Acquisition by BLM of thousands of acres of land in the 

GSENM boundary as part of the exchange with the State of 

Utah in 1998

 Issuance of new BLM policy and guidance for National 

Conservation Lands

 Establishment of the Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

 BLM emphasizing the use of science as a basis for land 

management 

 Spread of invasive species

 Substantial and continuing increases in visitation to GSENM 

and the surrounding BLM and National Park Service managed 

lands

This newsletter briefly describes the preliminary alternatives that 

were developed after we heard from you during scoping last year. 

The preliminary alternatives 

propose different means for 

integrating livestock grazing with 

management of other resources. 

What Will the 

Amendment 

Do?

This plan amendment will provide for the comprehensive 

management of livestock grazing in and around GSENM. The 

amendment will identify all lands where GSENM administers 

livestock grazing as available or unavailable for that use. The 

amendment will also include guidelines and criteria for future 

allotment-specific adjustments in the amount of forage available 

for livestock, season of use, or other grazing management 

practices, as required by the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook.

This amendment will also provide flexibility to adapt to new and 

emerging issues and opportunities through adaptive management 

of both landscape‐scale decisions and implementation‐level 

decisions for livestock grazing based on new information and 

monitoring.

 Common Acronyms

BLM - Bureau of Land Management

NPS - National Park Service

GSENM - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

Glen Canyon NRA - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

MMP - Monument Management Plan

MMP-A - Monument Management Plan Amendment

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #3 - Preliminary Alternatives - Dec. 2014 - Page 3
Why are Alternatives the 

Heart of the EIS? 

Alternatives are the heart of the EIS because they provide the 

greatest amount of information for decision making. The range of

alternatives includes various options for meeting the purpose and 

need for the action and, together with the analysis of impacts of 

each alternative, provides a basis for choice among options by the 

decision maker and the public. The decision made at the end of the 

planning process is derived from the range of alternatives. 

Once the BLM has obtained input on the range of alternatives 

described here and decides which alternatives to analyze in detail 

in the EIS, these alternatives will be studied equally to assess 

impacts and effective mitigation measures. 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) was adopted 

to ensure that environmental and social impacts of actions carried 

out, approved, or funded by the federal government are carefully 

examined. The NEPA requires that federal agencies develop a range 

of reasonable alternatives that “must be rigorously explored and 

objectively evaluated” in environmental studies. What constitutes

a range of reasonable alternatives depends on the nature of the 

proposal and the facts in each case. A “No Action” alternative must 

be included in the range to be studied. In this case, the No Action 

alternative would mean no change from current management 

direction or level of management intensity.

Each preliminary alternative includes desired outcomes (goals and 

objectives) and the allowable uses and actions anticipated to 

achieve those outcomes. Considering a range of alternatives helps

the BLM and its stakeholders understand the various ways of 

addressing the planning issues and different scenarios for 

managing livestock grazing in the planning area. Some alternatives, 

including the No Action alternative, may be developed for detailed

study, while others are considered but not analyzed in detail. 

Reasonable alternatives analyzed in detail meet the purpose and 

need for action and can be feasibly carried out based on estimated 

cost, logistics, technology, and social and environmental factors.

What Determined the 

Range of Alternatives?

Many people have an interest in how livestock grazing is managed 

in this region. Some of their opinions are similar and some are 

completely opposite. For example, the BLM received suggestions 

to do everything from closing the entire area to grazing to opening 

the entire area to grazing. Some stakeholders believe that grazing 

enhances the diversity and productivity of the natural 

environment, while others believe it is destructive to natural 

resources. Because livestock grazing is a practice that has been 

central to the local economy for more than one hundred years, 

some people feel very strongly that it should continue 

uninterrupted, while other interests think that the environmental 

values for which GSENM was established should take precedence 

over livestock grazing.

The BLM has used this framework to create a range of alternatives 

that reflect a range of approaches to address the issues related to 

grazing management. Some early suggestions for alternatives were 

considered not reasonable and are not proposed to be studied 

further in the EIS. In addition to the issues concerning the public, 

the BLM is required by law to consider the many uses of the land 

and ways they interact with each other. The need to balance 

livestock grazing with other uses is reflected in the proposed range 

of preliminary alternatives.

Page 4 - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #3 - Preliminary Alternatives - Dec. 2014
What did BLM Hear 

During Scoping?

Public scoping meetings and workshops were held in December 

2013 and January 2014, during which the BLM asked for ideas 

from the public. A scoping report was prepared (available on the 

project website at http://blm.gov/pgld) that summarizes what 

people told us. After scoping, the BLM began creating alternatives 

to consider in the EIS. Based on the comments received, the BLM, 

along with the cooperating agencies, developed a range of 

preliminary alternatives that include different ways of managing 

livestock and rangelands in the decision area.

During the public scoping process, people offered many 

suggestions on things that should be considered in evaluating how 

the GSENM, Glen Canyon NRA, and surrounding areas should be 

managed for livestock grazing in the future. In some cases, 

different people had widely different views about how these issues 

should be addressed. The BLM has considered the range of 

comments received during scoping in developing the proposed 

range of alternatives.

Understandably, the BLM received the most comments directly

related to livestock grazing management practices and forage

availability. Some of the other most frequently‐heard concerns 

included impacts on soils, effects on the local economy and

lifestyle of long‐time ranchers, compatibility of grazing with area 

recreation, and concerns about natural, biological, and cultural 

resources. 

Other concerns identified by the public included impacts or 

conflicts associated with air quality, fire management, GSENM 

Objects and Values, Glen Canyon NRA 

Values and Purposes, noxious weeds and 

nonnative invasive plants, paleontological 

resources, public health and safety, special 

designation areas, tribal interests and 

Native American religious concerns, and 

visual resources. 

Two alternatives were submitted by 

stakeholders for consideration. Both of 

these alternatives included similar 

concepts such as protecting biological soil 

crusts, establishing ungrazed reference areas, restoring native 

ecosystems, and conducting science on the Monument. Additional 

information provided by commenters, such as scientific studies, 

will assist in the documentation of the affected environment and 

effects analysis in the EIS. 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #3 - Preliminary Alternatives - Dec. 2014 - Page 5
What Do the Preliminary Alternatives Include?

Brief summaries and maps of each alternative are provided below. For more detailed information, please see http://blm.gov/pgld. 

 Alternative A 

Alternative A is the No Action alternative 

and is a continuation of current 

management direction contained in the 

2000 Monument Management Plan, the 

four BLM Management Framework Plans, 

and the 1999 Grazing Management Plan for 

the Glen Canyon NRA. Livestock grazing 

would continue at current permitted levels. 

Areas currently closed to livestock grazing 

would remain unavailable to grazing. BLM 

must consider this alternative. 

 Alternative B

Alternative B was developed in response to 

comments that suggested that most or all of 

GSENM and Glen Canyon NRA be closed to 

grazing due to impacts on natural 

ecosystems, cultural and historic resources, 

and recreation. Under Alternative B, 

livestock grazing would be discontinued in 

GSENM and Glen Canyon NRA. Permittees 

would receive a 2-year notification that 

livestock grazing would be discontinued. 

Permittees would be provided compensation 

for improvements. Areas in the Kanab and 

Arizona Strip Field Offices would remain 

available for grazing.

Page 6 - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #3 - Preliminary Alternatives - Dec. 2014
Alternative C 

Alternative C was developed primarily in 

response to the Sustainable Grazing 

Alternative received during scoping. This 

alternative reduces the acres available for 

livestock grazing and the amount of forage 

allocated to livestock compared with current 

management. Alternative C establishes large

ungrazed ‘reference areas’ over time; these 

areas can be used to enhance scientific study, 

especially the study of natural recovery in the 

absence of livestock grazing and the study of 

effects of livestock grazing compared to 

similar areas that are not grazed. This 

alternative emphasizes management that 

prioritizes native species diversity. Existing 

rangeland seedings would be restored for the 

purpose of ecosystem health with a 

preference for using locally derived native 

species. Areas that are currently unavailable 

and unallotted would remain unavailable to 

livestock grazing. This alternative seeks to resolve some areas of vegetation and/or water quality resources. livestock/recreation conflict by closing a few high use recreation 

areas to livestock grazing.  Riparian areas, springs, and hanging gardens that have 

potential to be impacted or are currently impacted by Alternative C includes an objective to establish a variety of ungrazed 

livestock grazing. reference areas across 20 percent of the decision area; over time the 

acres identified as unavailable will increase to an estimated 451,300  Moderate to high recreation values that are compromised by 

acres while available acres would be reduced to an estimated livestock grazing.

1,805,300 acres.

 Populations or habitat for special status species.

To achieve this objective, GSENM or Glen Canyon NRA allotments or 

pastures that are voluntarily relinquished or otherwise retired, may 

be put into non-use considering any of the following or 

combinations of the following criteria:

 Areas that would serve as valuable reference areas.

 Vegetation types that are either not represented or are 

underrepresented in the decision area that are ungrazed.

 Monument objects that are not compatible with or are 

impacted by livestock grazing (e.g., biological soil crust, riparian 

areas, declining native plant or wildlife species).

 Significant cultural resources, such as districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, and objects.

 Significant opportunities to conserve or restore historical, 

cultural, soil health, biological soil crust, fish, wildlife, riparian, 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #3 - Preliminary Alternatives - Dec. 2014 - Page 7
Alternative D 

Alternative D recognizes the historic and 

cultural importance of the livestock industry 

while emphasizing healthy landscapes to 

support multiple uses. It is designed to be 

consistent with State and County 

ordinances and plans. Livestock 

management actively promotes rangeland 

health through adaptive management 

principles. This would be accomplished by 

restoring existing rangeland seedings using 

a variety of treatment methods and doing 

additional range improvements to increase 

forage. More acres are available for 

livestock grazing and more forage is 

allocated to livestock compared with 

current management. Alternative D also

prioritizes livestock grazing management 

over recreation in certain zones in GSENM, 

but prioritizes recreational use over

livestock in other zones in GSENM. 

Comments that discussed the importance of 

grazing to local communities helped guide

the development of this alternative. 

 Alternative E

Alternative E emphasizes sustainable use 

through livestock management designed 

to ensure rangeland health standards are 

achieved and land health is improved. 

Most closed areas remain unavailable; 

two areas would be made available. Some 

unalloted areas would be made 

unavailable. Slightly fewer acres are 

available for grazing and less forage is 

allocated to livestock compared with 

current management. Existing seedings 

would be restored for the purposes of 

ecosystem health and for forage 

production. Some livestock/recreation

conflicts would be reduced by changing 

the season of use for livestock grazing or 

limiting access by livestock. Comments 

that influenced this alternative include 

suggestions that grazing should continue 

but that changes in management practices 

were needed to promote land health and 

improve user experiences.

Page 8 - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #3 - Preliminary Alternatives - Dec. 2014
Comparison of Alternatives

 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Theme Continue current 

management direction. 

Livestock grazing 

continues at current 

permitted levels. 

Areas currently closed 

remain unavailable for 

grazing.

Discontinue livestock 

grazing on GSENM and 

Glen Canyon NRA with 

two-year notification. 

Permittes provided 

compensation for 

improvements. 

Areas in Kanab and 

Arizona Strip Field 

Emphasize restoring 

native species diversity. 

Livestock grazing 

managed to ensure little 

to no impact to 

resources. 

Changes in grazing 

systems (e.g. season of 

use, intensity, rotation) 

considered before 

Recognize historic and 

cultural importance of 

the livestock industry 

while emphasizing 

healthy landscapes to 

support multiple uses. 

It is designed to be 

consistent with State 

and County ordinances 

and plans. 

Emphasize 

sustainable use 

through livestock 

management 

designed to ensure 

rangeland health 

standards are 

achieved and land 

health is improved. 

Most areas Offices remain available 

for grazing. implementing range 

improvements. 

Areas currently 

unavailable and 

unallotted remain 

unavailable. 

Additional areas 

identified as unavailable 

for grazing.

Livestock management 

actively promotes 

rangeland health 

through adaptive 

management principles 

and innovative livestock 

practices. 

Some suspended AUMS 

and unavailable 

allotments returned to 

active use as conditions 

improve.

unavailable remain 

unavailable; two 

areas would be 

made available. 

Some unalloted 

areas would be 

made unavailable.

Area (acres) and AUMs Available for Grazing

Total 

Available:

2,102,900 67,800 1,935,400 2,137,000 2,068,500

(no

Available 

 restrictions):

2,088,300 67,800 1,920,100 2,122,400 2,032,400

Forage 

Reserve:

14,600 0 0 14,600 20,700

Trailing Only: 0 0 0 0 15,300

AUMs: 106,202 (76,957 active/ 

29,245 suspended)

3,125 ~40,000 - 45,000 ~106,000 ~75,000

Area (acres) Unavailable for Grazing

Total 

Unavailable:

139,400 2,174,400 306,900 105,400 173,800

GCNRA 

unavailable:

88,600 

(Harveys Fear, 

Navajo Bench, 

Spencer Bench, 

Escalante River)

318,900 129,600 

(Harveys Fear, 

Lake, Navajo Bench, 

Spencer Bench, 

Escalante River, 

Rock Creek Mudholes, 

Lower Warm Creek, 

Fortymile Ridge)

 

88,300 

(Harveys Fear, 

Navajo Bench, 

Spencer Bench, 

Escalante River)

109,900 

(Harveys Fear, Lake, 

Navajo Bench, 

Spencer Bench, 

Escalante River, 

Fortymile Ridge)

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #3 - Preliminary Alternatives - Dec. 2014 - Page 9
How Do the Alternatives 

Address the Issues Identified 

During Scoping?

Each alternative is a different approach to addressing the scoping 

issues. The alternatives vary in the acres available for livestock 

grazing, forage allocated for livestock, the approach to managing 

existing rangeland seedings, opportunities for future range 

improvements, and the approach to reducing conflicts between 

livestock grazing and other uses in the decision area. These 

variations in management approaches would have a corresponding 

variety of impacts on GSENM Objects and Values and Glen Canyon 

NRA Values and Purposes, local custom and culture, the area’s 

economy, and the ability of the BLM to sustain the level of use 

when confronted with climate change and drought.

All alternatives must follow applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies. The existing MMP includes information relevant to 

livestock grazing that would not be changed by any alternative (see 

the Detailed Narrative of Alternatives). The existing Glen Canyon 

Grazing Management Plan also includes goals, objectives, and 

actions that would not be modified by any alternative. A

description of features common to all alternatives is included in 

the Detailed Narrative of Alternatives found on the project 

website: http://blm.gov/pgld. 

How Will BLM Evaluate 

the Alternatives?

In coordination with the cooperating agencies, the BLM team will

assess the physical, biological, economic, and social effects of 

implementing each alternative considered in detail, including the 

No Action alternative. The assessment will include scientific data, 

comparative research, technical expertise and experience, 

professional judgment, and socioeconomic information provided 

by stakeholders. 

During the scoping process, we heard many comments related to 

analyzing the effects of the alternatives. The BLM heard that they 

should carefully study the effects of livestock grazing on:

 GSENM proclamation‐identified scientific and historic objects 

and values

 resources and values for which Glen Canyon NRA was

established (public outdoor recreation use and

enjoyment, scenic, scientific and historic features)

 vegetation, including riparian vegetation, noxious weeds or 

nonnative plants

 soils, including biological soil crusts

 local custom and culture

 regional economy

 recreation

 public health and safety

The BLM also heard that the impacts of climate change and

drought on forage availability should be considered. The BLM will 

also assess impacts on water resources, air quality, fish and 

wildlife, special status species, paleontological resources, visual 

resources, wild and scenic rivers, tribal interests, and BLM 

wilderness study areas and NPS proposed wilderness. The analysis 

will look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of each 

alternative on these resources. The results of these studies will be 

described in the Draft EIS.

Page 10 - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #3 - Preliminary Alternatives - Dec. 2014
Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment Process Timeline

What’s Next?

When the Draft MMP-A/EIS is published, GSENM will announce 

After deciding which alternatives will be analyzed in detail in its availability for public review and comment. After announcing 

the Draft EIS, the BLM will begin assessing the impacts of the Draft MMP-A/EIS is ready for review, GSENM will host 

alternatives. Based on public comments received and an public meetings to answer your questions, discuss the contents 

analysis of the alternatives’ impacts, a preferred alternative of the Draft MMP-A/EIS, and accept comments. You will have at 

will then be selected. The analysis of the alternatives, including least 90 days to provide comments. The Draft MMP-A/EIS is 

the preferred one, will be included in the Draft MMP-A/EIS. slated to be published in 2015. 

Notice of Intent to prepare the Monument Management Plan 

Amendment (MMP-A)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Conduct Scoping

Analyze the Management Situation

Formulate Preliminary Alternatives

Public Review of Preliminary Alternatives

Analyze Effects of Alternatives

Prepare Draft MMP-A/EIS

Prepare Proposed MMP-A and Final EIS

30-day Protest Period

Prepare Records of Decision and Approved MMP-A

November 4, 2013—Issued NOI

Spring – Winter 2014

Summer—Fall 2014

Spring—Summer 2015

Fall 2014

Spring—Fall 2016

Fall 2016

Fall 2015

Fall 2016

June 2014—Issued Scoping Report

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #3 Preliminary Alternatives - Dec. 2014 - Page 11
NEWSLETTER #3 - Preliminary 

Alternatives - NOV 2014

For more information, please visit the 

GSENM Livestock Grazing Plan 

Amendment Webpage:

http://blm.gov/pgld

You can email, fax, or mail your comments.

Email: BLM_UT_GS_EIS@blm.gov

Fax: (435) 644-1250

Mail: Bureau of Land Management

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

669 S. HWY 89-A

Kanab, UT 84741

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address,

or other personal identifying information in your comment,

be advised that your entire comment, including personal

identifying information, may be made publicly available at

any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal

identifying information from public review, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Please provide comments

by January 20, 2015.

When are Comments Due?

The BLM is requesting that comments on the preliminary You don’t need to be an expert to have an impact on decisions. 

alternatives be submitted by January 20, 2015. You can still The public brings a different dimension to the BLM’s 

submit comments at any time during the planning process, but assessment of alternatives that science does not. The things 

comments received by January 20 will be reviewed and used to that are valued by stakeholders and the community must be 

revise the preliminary alternatives to ensure the alternatives considered in developing a preferred alternative. You can help 

that are analyzed capture the wide variation in stakeholder us most by letting us know which parts of these alternatives 

values. best meet your needs and concerns, and which parts are least 

important to you. We welcome any and all comments. The BLM will review comments received during the preliminary 

alternatives scoping period and use them to refine the Please reference “GSENM Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment” 

alternatives that will be studied in detail in the Draft EIS. The when submitting comments.

BLM has not made a decision about a preferred alternative. Plan Amendment EIS

The BLM is an agency in the US Department of the Interior that manages approximately one-quarter billion acres – more than any other Federal agency. This land, known as 

the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. Approximately 27 million acres of BLM administered lands make up the 

collection of National Conservation Lands, also known as the National Landscape Conservation System. These include BLM National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, 

Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and National Scenic and Historic Trails. The mission of the National 

Conservation Lands is to conserve, protect, and restore these nationally significant landscapes that are 

recognized for their outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values.