Bureau of Land Management

Socioeconomics Strategic Plan
Vision: 

Relevant and credible 

socioeconomic information 

and tools are used in resource 

management decisions to 

strengthen the effectiveness of 

BLM programs.
Bureau of Land Management

Socioeconomics Strategic Plan

May 2013
Acknowledgments:

Writing team: Rob Winthrop and Joel Larson, BLM socioeconomics program, Washington Office Division of Decision 

Support, Planning, and NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). Strategy development: Kathie Libby, facilitator, 

Washington Office Division of Evaluations and Management Services, and members of the Socioeconomic Oversight 

Committee (see appendix A). Production support: Linda Hill and Ethel Coontz, National Operations Center Publishing 

Services Section, and Sarah Howell, Washington Office Division of Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA. 

Suggested citation:

Bureau of Land Management. 2013. Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022. Division of 

Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, Washington, DC.

BLM/WO/GI-13/010+1131
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 iii

Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... 1

Section 1: The Changing Role of Socioeconomics in the Bureau of Land Management............... 5

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5

What Are the Social Sciences?.............................................................................................. 5

Legal Mandates.................................................................................................................... 7

The Changing Context of Resource Management................................................................ 8

Three Decades of Socioeconomics in the BLM..................................................................... 9

BLM Socioeconomics Program Accomplishments.............................................................. 16

Section 2: Needs and Responses ................................................................................................ 21

The BLM’s Emerging Socioeconomic Needs ...................................................................... 21

The BLM’s Strategic Responses .......................................................................................... 26

Section 3: Goals and Strategies.................................................................................................. 31

Goal 1................................................................................................................................ 33

Goal 2................................................................................................................................ 36

Goal 3................................................................................................................................ 39

Appendix A: Socioeconomic Oversight Committee................................................................... 43

Notes ......................................................................................................................................... 45

Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 1

Executive Summary

Until the 1970s, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) successfully pursued its mission by 

focusing on commodity production while striving for good stewardship of land, water, and 

habitat—an inherently natural resource focus. However, for the last several decades, the challenge 

of resource management has increasingly centered on weighing competing interests and public 

benefits regarding the use of and access to public lands and resources—an inherently social and 

economic focus. This socioeconomics strategic plan (SSP) addresses this changing emphasis and 

provides a roadmap to guide the BLM’s socioeconomics program now and for the next 10 years. 

Among the key questions it addresses are:

•	 What information on the socioeconomic context, costs, and benefits of proposed actions does the

BLM staff and the public need?

•	 How can the socioeconomics program most effectively support other management needs,

including emerging issues (climate change, the valuation of ecosystem services) and short-term 

demands for socioeconomic data and analysis?

•	 What socioeconomic capabilities, both internal and external, are required for the BLM to meet

these needs?

Socioeconomics—shorthand for the use of social science data, analysis, and interpretation—is 

particularly relevant to three sets of resource management issues:

•	 Describing communities and values (the concern of sociology and cultural anthropology).

•	 Analyzing goods, services, and choices (the concern of economics).

•	 Identifying the human uses of places and landscapes (the concern of geography).

Over the last 40 years, the American West has changed dramatically. The 2012 census showed that 

7 of the 12 western states—all with a large BLM presence—more than doubled their populations. 

During the same period, the economies and demographics of western towns diversified to include a 

wide range of perspectives about how the public lands should be managed.

To address these changes and provide a solid foundation for this SSP, the BLM contracted for an 

external assessment of its social science needs and capabilities. Among the key findings:
2 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

•	 BLM employees place a high value on socioeconomic

information but feel it is not used effectively.

•	 A large proportion of BLM employees have either

a degree or formal training in a social science, 

providing an important resource for building the 

Bureau’s capacity beyond its current small cadre of 

social science specialists.

•	 Most of the BLM’s resource advisory council

members felt that socioeconomic issues were 

important to consider during the BLM’s 

decisionmaking process. At the same time, many 

of those individuals did not think that the BLM 

adequately addressed the economic, social, and 

environmental justice effects of its decisions.

The BLM faces several challenges in its decisionmaking 

that can be informed by socioeconomic information 

and analysis. As communities grow and diversify, 

they become increasingly involved in public lands 

management. Communities of place (such as small 

settlements, growing towns, and large metropolitan 

areas) and communities of interest (such as ranchers, 

off-road vehicle users, and wilderness advocates) 

continue to play an important role in providing 

public perspectives and input for the BLM’s staff and 

managers to consider in the decisionmaking process.

In addition, the BLM is challenged by new conditions 

and resource demands that cannot be addressed 

effectively within the boundaries of a single field office. 

The emphasis on landscape-level assessments challenges 

the BLM’s use of socioeconomics, which until recently 

operated with little reference to the models, data, and 

research objectives of other disciplines and programs. 

In the future, many of the most important problems 

for science and policy at the BLM will involve the 

interaction of social, economic, and geographic factors 

with biophysical processes.

Finally, resource management involves weighing the 

competing sets of values that distinctive groups place 

on landscapes, resources, and activities. Socioeconomic 

methods and tools can be used to assess the variety 

of market, nonmarket, social, and ecosystem services 

values that are produced by public lands across the 

West, and these analyses can help inform the BLM’s 

short- and long-term management decisions.

The socioeconomics program has been working on a 

variety of projects to help address these needs. The 

BLM’s “Land Use Planning Handbook” includes an 

appendix to help employees and managers evaluate the 

social, economic, and environmental justice impacts of 

their planning decisions. There are also several training 

courses in development that are designed to help 

nonspecialists understand the role of socioeconomics in 

their decisionmaking. In addition, the socioeconomics 

program is contributing to several Bureau- and 

governmentwide initiatives, such as examining the 

human benefits received from healthy ecosystems, 

understanding the economic impacts of environmental 

restoration projects, and modeling community growth 

across the West. These actions are only a start to better 

incorporating social science data, tools, and analysis 

into the BLM’s decisionmaking.

There are several broad ways that socioeconomics can 

contribute to land management. First, there are four 

core socioeconomic workloads across the Bureau:

•	 Conducting regular socioeconomic analyses, which

examine the social and economic impacts of BLM 

actions through the National Environmental Policy 

Act and the Bureau’s planning process.

•	 Applying methods and tools to address new

challenges, including BLM and Department of the 

Interior initiatives.

•	 Providing socioeconomic support for immediate

management concerns, including questions from 

managers and employees that require very short 

turnaround times.
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 3

•	 Addressing program- or state-specific socioeconomic

priorities, such as determining coal valuations in 

Wyoming and identifying subsistence use areas and 

resources used by Alaskan villages.

Second, the need for additional socioeconomic 

support can be met through the Bureau’s most valuable 

resource: its people. As budgets permit, the BLM’s 

professional socioeconomic expertise should be 

strengthened through recruitment of well-qualified 

individuals with interests and skills relevant to new 

management challenges. In addition, other BLM 

employees whose programs need socioeconomic 

information and analyses should have access to clear 

guidance, effective web-based and instructor-led 

training, and useful decision-support tools. The 

BLM’s need for socioeconomic information and 

support cannot be met solely through internal staffing, 

however. The socioeconomics program can leverage its 

partnerships with other federal agencies, universities, 

nonprofits, and contractors, as well as tribal, state, 

and local governments.

Third, an effective socioeconomics program requires 

appropriate procedures for identifying workload 

priorities, developing needed guidance and tools, and 

assuring the quality of work products.

These broad approaches can be implemented through 

specific goals, strategies, and actions, which are outlined 

in the SSP. The goals are:

•	 Goal 1: Ensure that the BLM’s socioeconomic

capabilities support legal mandates, management 

priorities, and program needs. This goal includes 

strategies to meet socioeconomic needs of BLM 

managers, consult with and respond to external 

constituencies, and provide socioeconomic support 

for legal mandates.

•	 Goal 2: Manage the BLM’s internal and external

socioeconomic capabilities to provide sound and costeffective support for offices and programs. This goal 

includes strategies to enhance the BLM’s internal and 

external capacity to meet its socioeconomic needs.

•	 Goal 3: Ensure that BLM employees can obtain and

apply sound socioeconomic information relevant 

to their programs. This goal identifies actions to 

help field and program staffs understand and use 

socioeconomic information in their day-to-day work. 

These goals reflect four broad principles: 

•	 Increase socioeconomic awareness and integrate

capabilities across all programs. 

•	 Build on existing socioeconomic understanding and

expertise within all levels of the organization.

•	 Use flexible and cost-effective approaches in

workforce planning to optimize the balance of BLM 

and external socioeconomic capabilities.

•	 Wherever feasible, make socioeconomic tools and

data accessible and useful for nonspecialists.

Although the SSP was produced at a specific point in 

time, it is intended to be a living roadmap that evolves 

as the needs and resources of the BLM change. These 

goals and strategies lay out an ambitious agenda that 

cannot be achieved in a single year. These actions will 

be prioritized through annual work plans.

The American West will continue to change; the 

expectations placed on the BLM in managing resources 

will evolve with corresponding speed. A strong 

socioeconomics program will allow the BLM to address 

these challenges now and in the future.

Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 5

Section 1: The Changing Role of Socioeconomics 

in the Bureau of Land Management

Introduction

As the BLM fulfills its mission both to sustain and to use the lands and resources under its 

stewardship, how should human values and interests be considered? What information about the 

human context and consequences of the BLM’s activities does our staff need to make informed and 

effective decisions? What information about socioeconomic benefits and costs of proposed actions 

do our constituents need? Finally, what socioeconomic capabilities, internal and external, does the 

BLM require to provide such information?

The BLM’s socioeconomics strategic plan (SSP) provides direction for answering these questions, 

considering both well-established program activities and newly emerging challenges. Because the 

BLM’s current social science capabilities fall well short of meeting these needs, the SSP outlines 

a realistic and cost-effective approach for achieving the vision and principles of a functional and 

effective socioeconomics program.

The SSP is intended for several audiences. For the BLM’s Washington Office and state office 

leaders, the strategy is intended to outline a cost-effective approach to meet established and 

emerging workloads. For BLM field managers and program staffs who have little familiarity 

with the use of the social sciences in resource management, it provides necessary background 

information and some specific applications to the BLM’s work. For governmental partners and 

interest groups concerned with the economic and social consequences of the BLM’s decisions and 

the adequacy of our analyses, it provides an opportunity to see the steps we are taking to strengthen 

our capabilities and respond to their concerns. Finally, for social scientists at the BLM and those 

colleagues from other organizations who work with the BLM, the SSP offers a roadmap for 

building a relevant, sound, and innovative socioeconomics program.

What Are the Social Sciences?

Throughout this document, the term socioeconomics refers to the data collection, analysis, and 

interpretation provided by the social sciences and used by the BLM in a variety of ways.1 These 

activities do not equate to economics or any other single field or discipline. The challenges of 

resource management involve understanding and negotiating competing human interests regarding 

public lands and resources. The capabilities of socioeconomics are particularly relevant to three sets 

of resource management issues:
6 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

•	 Describing communities and values (the concern of

sociology and cultural anthropology).

•	 Analyzing goods, services, and choices (the concern

of economics).

•	 Identifying the human uses of places and landscapes

(the concern of geography).

The BLM’s socioeconomics program uses knowledge 

and tools from the following four disciplines, and 

for certain applications, draws on other social 

sciences as well. Each discipline has distinctive 

methods and theories and specific areas of relevance 

for resource management:

•	 Sociology focuses on the organization and values of 

social groups. It includes analyzing communities of 

place and communities of interest and determining 

differential impacts across stakeholder groups. 

Sociological methods emphasize quantitative data 

and are well suited to profiling the communities 

affected by a plan or project or conducting a survey of 

attitudes regarding the uses of adjacent public lands.

•	 Cultural anthropology examines social life as guided 

by distinctive systems of meaning—culture. Though 

its uses overlap those of sociology, anthropology 

emphasizes ethnographic (qualitative) methods 

such as open-ended interviews and participant 

observation, which are well suited to problems 

involving distinctive ways of life, occupational 

practices, or local knowledge. Examples of 

applications include identifying the subsistence 

hunting harvests of Alaska Native communities or the 

vulnerability of Arizona ranchers to climate change.2

•	 Economics studies the choices society makes in 

managing its scarce resources—investigating both 

the factors leading to outcomes and the outcomes 

themselves. For example, economics may investigate 

outcomes in terms of the jobs and income to be 

generated under alternative land use allocations 

or the fair market value of a proposed coal lease. 

Economics may also explore development strategies 

or incentives that encourage greater diversification 

of resource uses with the goal of building resilient 

economic outcomes. Environmental economics 

expands the consideration of benefits and costs to 

include ecosystem services, which are environmental 

goods not traded in markets, such as the value of a 

whitewater rafting experience or the human benefits 

from terrestrial carbon sequestration.

•	 Human geography considers how the characteristics of 

land and resources shape human activity, from local 

to global scales. Examples of resource management 

issues appropriate for geography include modeling the 

pace and direction of urban growth affecting public 

lands 3 and using participatory techniques to map 

the associations of places and values in a landscape 

affected by proposed development.4

History and archaeology are two other social science 

disciplines integral to the activities of the BLM. 

Because these disciplines are organized through 

the BLM’s cultural resources program, they are not 

examined in this SSP. Nonetheless, in many contexts—

particularly land use planning—an account of the past 

human use of an area documented through history 

and archaeology is a necessary complement to the 

information on contemporary social and economic life 

provided through the disciplines examined here.

Political science and decision science are also social 

science fields relevant to the BLM’s programs, though 

expertise in those fields is generally more appropriately 

obtained through external sources. Political science is 

concerned with systems of governance, authority, and 

decisionmaking. Political science can, for example, 

identify more effective strategies for intergovernmental 

cooperation on cross-jurisdictional issues such as 

growth and wildfire risk. Decision science is an 

interdisciplinary subject, drawing on psychology, 

economics, and operations research, that develops tools 

and procedures to structure defensible decisionmaking, 

typically involving complex criteria under conditions 
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 7

of uncertainty. There are, for example, several 

decision tools to conserve biodiversity benefits while 

maximizing other resource management objectives in 

land use planning.5

Legal Mandates

Using socioeconomics to understand the human 

context and consequences of the BLM’s activities not 

only makes good management sense, it is also required 

by law. Several legal mandates are relevant:

•	 Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA). FLPMA directs managers to pursue 

multiple-use management while balancing a range 

of environmental and social values, including 

consistency with state, local, and tribal government 

plans. FLPMA requires the BLM to integrate 

“physical, biological, economic, and other sciences,” 

and by regulation to consider “social, economic and 

institutional data” in developing land-use plans.6

•	 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA 

states that “it is the continuing policy of the Federal 

Government . . . to foster and promote the general 

welfare, to create and maintain conditions under 

which man and nature can exist in productive 

harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future generations of 

Americans.”7

 In addition, NEPA directs the BLM to 

“insure the integrated use of the natural and social 

sciences . . . in planning and decision-making.”8

 

The Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA 

regulations specify that the human environment 

“shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the 

natural and physical environment and the relationship 

of people with that environment” (emphasis added).9

•	 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). 

GPRA requires the BLM to identify program 

objectives and to collect “information about 

program results and service quality.”10 A variety of 

socioeconomic techniques can support these goals, 

including economic analyses of cost-effectiveness 

and the systematic collection of information on the 

public’s satisfaction with the BLM’s programs.

•	 Environmental Justice. The 1994 Executive order on 

environmental justice requires each federal agency 

to identify and address “disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects 

of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations.”11 The 

BLM uses socioeconomic methods and data to 

incorporate environmental justice considerations 

into its resource management decisions. The 

Department of the Interior (DOI) has prepared a 

revised environmental justice strategic plan to guide 

implementation of these principles and establish 

performance measures.12

•	 Subsistence resource rights. Federal obligations to 

tribes regarding access to resources are based in treaty, 

statute, and case law.13 Beyond the governmentto-government relationship, many issues involving 

consultation with tribal governments, such as 

balancing tribal access to subsistence resources with 

proposed energy development, require ethnographic 

or other socioeconomic information to identify 

workable solutions. In addition, the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act specifies additional 

requirements for ensuring the opportunity for 

subsistence use by rural Alaskans.14
8 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

The Changing Context of Resource 

Management

Until the 1970s, the BLM could successfully pursue 

its mission by focusing on commodity production 

while striving for good stewardship of land, water, 

and habitat. The passage of NEPA in 1970 and 

the Endangered Species Act in 1973 focused public 

awareness on federal environmental responsibilities and 

contributed to increasingly polarized public attitudes 

regarding the appropriate management of federal lands 

and resources. These circumstances have strengthened 

the need for sound information on the environmental 

and socioeconomic interests and values of the BLM’s 

varied constituencies.

Over the past 40 years, the West has changed 

dramatically. Seven of the 12 western states—all 

with a large BLM presence—have more than doubled 

their populations. Nevada grew by more than 

450 percent and Arizona by more than 260 percent 

in this period, while the U.S. population increased 

by only 52 percent.15 The footprint of many western 

cities expanded dramatically to accommodate growth, 

pushing residential development to the boundaries of 

federal lands and producing many land use conflicts at 

the wildland-urban interface. Once an overwhelmingly 

rural agency, the BLM must now consider both the 

social and economic conditions of small communities 

and the growing demand for recreation and other 

services by urban and suburban populations.

During the same period, the economies of western 

towns diversified. Globalization helped undermine 

the role of agriculture across much of the West.16 New 

communications technologies made it feasible for 

firms to do business on a national or international 

scale while based in small but amenity-rich western 

communities. In many rural counties of the “New 

West,” the stewardship of public and private lands 

has created a culture and environment that attracts 

retirees and the service economy. Today in many of 

those communities, the economic value of services 
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 9

and transfer payments to retirees far outstrip that of 

traditional commodity sectors such as ranching.17

Yet energy and mining remain major economic 

drivers for many rural western counties. The West has 

experienced several booms in fossil energy production, 

including one from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s 

and the current boom, which started in the late-1990s. 

Rapid energy development has many socioeconomic 

consequences, including increased employment, greater 

demand for housing and public services, and a two-tier 

local wage structure.18 For example, in 2010, miningrelated jobs in Garfield County, Colorado, earned an 

average of $78,000 per year, while nonmining jobs 

earned $40,000 annually.19 Large-scale wind, solar, and 

geothermal generation projects represent a more recent 

trend in western energy development, posing distinctive 

management challenges and socioeconomic effects.

The United States has also become more racially and 

ethnically diverse. For example, while many racial 

and ethnic groups use and value the public lands, 

Hispanics and Latinos form a particularly significant 

new public for the BLM. According to U.S. Census 

data, from 2000 to 2010, America’s Hispanic and 

Latino population grew 43 percent to more than 

50 million.20 This population is disproportionately 

located in the West.21 As a result, the BLM must learn 

to serve not only a larger population but also a more 

diverse population with more varied needs, interests, 

and values regarding the public lands.

Native American rights and interests also gained 

greater political prominence over the past 40 years. 

Examples include laws preserving access to American 

Indian sacred sites and protecting rural Alaskan 

subsistence uses.22 Such changes have required resource 

management that is better informed regarding the 

rights, values, and ways of life of American Indian and 

Alaska Native communities. 

Finally, over the past decade, state and local 

governments have taken a stronger role in informing 

the development of the BLM’s plans and environmental 

impact statements (EISs) by becoming more formally 

and actively involved as cooperating agencies.23 State 

and local governments have strong interests in the 

socioeconomic effects of federal decisions on their 

jurisdictions, resulting in greater scrutiny of the 

socioeconomic analyses contributing to the BLM’s 

resource management decisions. 

Three Decades of Socioeconomics in 

the BLM

Staffing Trends

Beginning in the late 1970s, rapid, large-scale energy 

development, particularly of coal and natural gas, 

created concern for the adequacy of the BLM’s 

socioeconomic analyses. The energy boom, combined 

with new policy emphases on integrated planning 

under FLPMA and impact assessment under NEPA, 

prompted a wave of social science hiring. By 1981, the 

BLM had a sizeable socioeconomics staff, estimated 

at 40 economists and 15 sociologists.24 That level of 

staffing included at least one economist in every state 

office, economists in many district offices, sociologists 

in 11 of 12 state offices, and socioeconomics staffs at 

the Washington Office and the Denver Service Center 

(now known as the National Operations Center).
10 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

Budget priorities shifted significantly over the next 

decade. By 1987, only two sociologist positions 

remained; economist positions also dwindled. In some 

cases, this reduction could have been due to a mismatch 

between the professional background of social scientists 

and the Bureau’s socioeconomic needs. Many of the 

sociologists hired in the late-1970s and early-1980s were 

trained in an urban sociology and social work tradition 

and may not have been familiar with the assessment 

of social impacts in land and resource management.25 

By 2011, there were 14 individuals on the BLM’s 

socioeconomics staff—9 economists and 5 other social 

scientists (in sociology, anthropology, and geography)—

but only 10.6 full-time equivalents.26

Previous Social Science Plans 

and Reports

This document is not the first effort to craft a strategy 

for the social sciences at the BLM; the socioeconomics 

staff prepared action plans and reports in the 1980s 

and 1990s. Some key findings from earlier efforts 

provide a context for the current strategy and suggest 

areas of both continuity and change in the use of 

socioeconomics across the Bureau.

Social and Economic Policy and Action 

Plan (1981)

The 1981 action plan proposed a major role for 

socioeconomics within the BLM and called for 

“including social and economic concerns on an equal 

basis with other resource considerations.”27 The plan 

identified three broad goals: 

•	 First, to integrate socioeconomic analysis into the

BLM’s decisions, it mandated improved policy and 

guidance on preparing benefit-cost analyses and 

incorporating social and economic analyses into plans 

and environmental impact assessments.28

•	 Second, it called for improved technical capabilities,

acknowledging that “comprehensive . . . and 

professional” socioeconomic analysis was still far 

from being achieved. It stated that analyses were “of 

uneven quality” and that “the Bureau lacks quality 

data.”29 The action plan recognized the need to 

value not only market commodities, but also the 

“nonmarket values of all goods and services produced 

on public lands.”30

•	 Third, it included a strong statement on

socioeconomic mitigation. The BLM was responsible 

not only for identifying the adverse human impacts 

of a proposed action, but also for working with other 

parties to reduce them.31

As a snapshot of social science at the BLM in 1981, 

the action plan suggests both some important strengths 

and some significant weaknesses. On the positive 

side, this plan and other programmatic efforts of the 

period reflect extensive technical expertise by the BLM’s 

economists and sociologists, a critical awareness of 

shortcomings, and thoughtful ideas for programmatic 

improvements. On the negative side, the action plan 

also refers to a “communication gap” between the BLM’s 

socioeconomics staff and its managers. Socioeconomic 

findings “have been couched in terms that are 

incomprehensible.”32 Three years later, a followup report 

noted: “The perception is that managers do not know 

what social scientists can do or what they do, and that 

social scientists perceive managers as not being able to 

articulate what they want.”33

In hindsight, opportunities to improve communication 

between specialists and managers may have been 

limited by assumptions on how applied social science 

should be organized in a resource management agency. 

The action plan focuses on technical excellence—

improved methods and better data—but scarcely 

addresses effectiveness, providing the information and 

assistance that will most benefit the BLM’s programs 

and management decisions. The plan assumed that 

providing socioeconomic information and assistance 

should be the exclusive responsibility of trained social 

scientists, rather than a goal to be accomplished by 

a combination of specialists and other BLM staff 

equipped with appropriate tools and training.34
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 11

BLM Social Science Initiative (1995)

Three focus groups involving BLM managers and the 

socioeconomics staff were held in 1995 to review the 

status of social science within the Bureau. Many of 

the challenges identified by the focus groups had been 

noted a decade earlier:

•	 “A significant number of BLM managers resist

recognizing that there is a problem—public 

discontent with the BLM’s attention to ‘people issues’ 

and, by extension, with the level of use of social 

science in BLM.”35

•	 Social scientists fail to present information in a

manner that is “relevant and usable to BLM 

decision makers.”36

A number of solutions recommended by the focus 

groups remain relevant today and are addressed in the 

current strategy: 

•	The BLM needs to “incorporate social science

awareness training into all aspects of the 

core curriculum.”37

•	 The BLM should foster “continuous informal

dialogue between social scientists and managers” to 

advise on local issues and trends.38

• The BLM “must aggressively partner, at all 

levels, with all sources of [external] social 

science expertise.”39

Assessment of Social and Economic 

Capabilities (2009)

To adequately characterize the current state of the 

BLM socioeconomics program and to provide a solid 

basis for this SSP, the BLM contracted for an external 

assessment of its social science needs and capabilities. 

The socioeconomic needs assessment was conducted 

by a team of economists and sociologists from four 

western universities.40 The team reviewed current 

social and economic analyses within BLM planning 

documents, spoke with the BLM’s social science staff, 

conducted a telephone survey of BLM employees, and 

interviewed members of the BLM’s resource advisory 

councils (RACs). The assessment was guided by an 

oversight committee of more than 20 BLM managers 

and program employees drawn from the Washington 

Office; state, district, and field offices; the National 

Training Center (NTC); and the National Operations 

Center (NOC) (appendix A).

Through its interviews with BLM socioeconomics staff, 

field staff, managers, and resource advisory council 

members, the assessment report provides both a baseline 

of the socioeconomics program’s current status and a 

description of desired future capabilities. The findings 

in the assessment report resulted in many of the 

recommended strategies and actions presented in 

section 3 of this SSP. Given the length of the assessment 

report, only a few of the findings are noted here.41

BLM socioeconomics staff. Interviews with current 

and former BLM socioeconomics staff members 

provided a good “insider” perspective regarding the state 

of the program, including the following observations:

•	 “There is not a career track for social scientists

in BLM.”42

•	“Cross training of social scientists would

be desirable.”43

•	 “There is little time for collecting primary data. This

is especially a problem for sociology since the issues 

tend to be community based.”44

•	 “Monitoring for adaptive management will

not likely take place given competing 

demands. . . . Adaptive management requires 

good [socioeconomic] monitoring.”45

The Bureau’s socioeconomics staff indicated that they 

could benefit from enhanced support for social science 

practitioners through training and a “community of 

practice.” They also stated that current workloads 

prevent some methods of data collection and analysis, 
12 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

which may be remedied through tools that automate 

routine processes such as data standardization.

BLM employees. More than 1,200 managers and 

employees participated in a telephone survey. In 

addition to multiple choice survey questions, the study 

included several open-ended questions, such as: “Please 

describe how a resource management plan could make 

effective use of social science information.” Responses 

to the open-ended questions provided rich insight into 

the practical challenges of effectively incorporating 

socioeconomics into the BLM’s programs. Especially 

relevant survey findings are presented below: 

•	 Ten percent of those surveyed had earned a degree

in a social science, including economics. Another 

31 percent had some coursework or other formal 

training in the social sciences.46 This pool of BLM 

employees offers an important resource in building 

the Bureau’s capacity beyond the small cadre of social 

science specialists.

•	 The primary responsibility for preparing social and

economic analyses rests with BLM employees other 

than social scientists (51 percent of responses), 

followed by BLM socioeconomics staff (13 percent) 

and contractors (12 percent). Another 12 percent 

agreed that “no one addresses these [socioeconomic] 

issues.”47 This finding demonstrates the need to 

improve the socioeconomics knowledge and skills of 

those BLM employees actually guiding such analyses.

•	 Employees were asked what they would do to

enhance the use of social science research other 

than adding staff. Twenty-four percent of those 

surveyed called for more socioeconomic education 

and training for BLM employees. Others responded 

that they would contract for assistance; conduct more 

research; build awareness; increase communication 

with the public; and develop manuals, handbooks, 

and tools (figure 1).48

•	 BLM employees place a high value on socioeconomic

information but feel it is not used effectively.

In developing resource management plans, 66 percent 

of those surveyed rated the value of socioeconomic 

information “high” or “very high” (on a 5-point scale).49 

In developing field office implementation actions, 

60 percent rated the value of socioeconomic 

information “high” or “very high.”50 In contrast, the 

assessment of how well such information is actually 

used is far less positive. Only 38 percent of employees 

surveyed felt that the adequacy of socioeconomic 

information in resource management plans was “high” 

or “very high” (on a 5-point scale). In determining 

implementation actions, only 23 percent felt that the 

adequacy of socioeconomic information was “high” or 

“very high”51 (figures 2 and 3.)

In addition to questions addressed to all BLM 

employees, the survey included questions regarding 

the use of socioeconomic data specific to particular 

programs, including grazing, recreation, wildland fire, 

forestry, energy and minerals, and lands and realty.

Almost one-half of BLM field employees and 

managers surveyed either have a degree in a social 
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 13

Educate/train existing staff

No opinion

Contract with outside agencies

Conduct more research in general

Build awareness of usefulness of social science

Communicate with the public

Prioritize social science at the top

Work with university faculty and/or graduate students

Increase funding

Other

Develop policy and guidance

0 5 10 15 20 25

Percent of Respondents

Figure 1. Responses to: “What would you do to enhance the use of social science research other 

than by new staffing?” from the BLM employee survey.

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Very High High Moderate Low Very Low

Value Adequacy

Figure 2. Responses to value and adequacy of social science information for resource management 

planning from the BLM employee survey.
14 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

science or have some coursework or formal training in 

the social sciences, indicating that they are well-prepared 

to benefit from additional training in socioeconomic 

tools and methods. In addition, while many of the 

staff and managers surveyed find value in the use of 

socioeconomic information, they do not currently 

feel that the BLM uses that information to its full 

potential. This difference may be because many of the 

socioeconomic analyses are being performed by those 

outside of a social science position or because those 

employees would like additional education and training.

RAC members. For an external perspective on the 

BLM’s socioeconomic needs and capabilities, the 

assessment team conducted phone interviews with 

90 RAC members, which was a 38 percent sample.52 

RAC membership is intended to reflect a balance 

between commodity, recreation and environmental, 

and public and governmental interests. While overall 

the views of the RAC members were highly varied, the 

interviews offered relatively consistent responses to 

some key questions: 

•	 Most RAC members felt that socioeconomic issues

were important to consider during the BLM’s 

decisionmaking process. Nearly 80 percent of RAC 

members representing commodity and public and 

governmental interests rated socioeconomic issues 

“high” (on a 3-point scale), compared to about 

45 percent for members representing recreation and 

environmental interests.53

•	 RAC members were generally satisfied by the quality

of the BLM’s socioeconomic analysis. Overall, 

59 percent were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” (on a 

5-point scale), though fewer members with commodity 

interests (46 percent) and more members with recreation 

and environmental interests (68 percent) expressed that 

level of satisfaction (figure 4).54

•	 A different picture appears when RAC members were

asked whether the BLM has adequately addressed the 

economic, social, and environmental justice effects of 

its decisions (figure 5).55

Figure 3. Responses to value and adequacy of social science information for project implementation 

from the BLM employee survey.

45%

50%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Very High High Moderate Low Very Low

Value Adequacy
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 15

Very

dissatisfied

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Dissatisfied Neither

satisfied or

dissatisfied

Satisfied Very satisfied

Group 2

Group 1

Group 3

Figure 4. Responses to: “Overall, how satisfied are you with the level of social and economic analysis in BLM’s 

resource management decisions?” from RAC interviews (group 1 = commodity interests; group 2 = recreation and 

environmental interests; group 3 = public and governmental interests).

Figure 5. Responses to: “In making resource decisions, has the BLM adequately addressed the economic, social, 

and environmental justice effects of its decisions?” from RAC interviews (group 1 = commodity interests; group 2 = 

recreation and environmental interests; group 3 = public and governmental interests).

Economic effects

of decisions

Social effects of

decisions

Environmental justice

effects of decisions

70%

80%

90%

100%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

No

Yes

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3
16 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

In other words, while the BLM may be including 

socioeconomic information in its analysis and 

documentation, it may not be using that information 

to inform the overall decision.

Regarding economic effects, positive responses were 

received from about 50 percent of RAC members 

with commodity interests, about 57 percent from 

those with recreation and environmental interests, 

and only about 35 percent from those with public and 

governmental interests:

•	 “No, they can do a much better job of it, but they

are shorthanded and need more [funding], and we 

shouldn’t blame the field-level personnel because they 

are already pulled in too many directions.”56

•	 “There is no long term data to back up anything and

the data they have is not updated.”57

Regarding social effects, only 30 percent of commodity 

interest members responded positively, with around 

50 percent positive responses from recreation and 

environmental and public and governmental interest 

members. One member commented, “No, I don’t 

think they recognize the impacts that decisions can 

have on communities. We don’t see any difference of 

approach to their managing oil and gas development 

with $140/barrel oil than we did at $20/barrel oil, so 

there is no reaction to circumstances.”58

Regarding the effects on minority, low income, 

and tribal populations (environmental justice), 

60 percent of commodity interest members responded 

positively, compared to 50 percent for recreation and 

environmental interest members and about 45 percent 

for public and governmental interest members:

•	 “We need a better understanding of social structures,

interactions of communities, compatibility of types 

of data. There is not enough staff to harvest, compile, 

prepare and distribute the data.”59

RAC members expressed broad concern with the 

adequacy of how the BLM assesses and responds to the 

social and environmental justice effects of its resource 

management decisions. In addition, the RAC members 

showed strong interest in socioeconomic issues and 

extensive knowledge of regional socioeconomic 

conditions. Given these facts, there is great 

opportunity to work with the councils on a systematic 

basis to identify the socioeconomic information 

most relevant to outside constituencies, strengthen 

outreach on socioeconomic issues, and gain an external 

perspective on improving the mitigation of social and 

economic effects.

BLM Socioeconomics Program 

Accomplishments

Despite the limitations identified by past efforts and the 

recent needs assessment, a review of the socioeconomics 

program’s activities over the past few decades shows 

that much has been accomplished.

Guidance

By the early 1980s, the BLM had developed a 

substantial socioeconomic manual and handbook 

system, dealing with topics such as planning, 

mineral valuation, benefit-cost analysis, and 

impact assessment. Other guidance was issued 

on socioeconomic analysis of grazing decisions60

and socioeconomic mitigation.61 Prompted by 

the community-level effects of widespread coal 

leasing, in 1982 the BLM issued the “Guide to 

Social Assessment: A Framework for Assessing 

Social Change,” a substantial work later published 

commercially by Westview Press.62

Many socioeconomic guidance documents were 

eliminated in the 1996 (“reinventing government”) 

reduction of regulations and policies. In 2011, 

only a few socioeconomic documents remain in the 

BLM’s system of handbooks: appendix D of the 2005 

“Land Use Planning Handbook”63 and handbooks on 

economic evaluations of both coal and oil and gas.64 
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 17

Other guidance has been issued under instruction 

memoranda, such as minimum qualifications 

for contractors.65

Training

In 1983, the BLM developed a training program 

on social and economic impact assessment, 66 based 

on the “Guide to Social Assessment.” In 2002, the 

NTC developed a new course, “Social and Economic 

Aspects of Planning,” to support the congressionally 

mandated effort to expedite revision of the BLM’s 

resource management plans. This 3-day, in-person 

course was offered annually through 2007 and received 

very positive assessments. Reduced training budgets 

prompted its conversion to a 12-hour web video 

format, but the course has attracted little interest as a 

distance learning package.67

To meet a broader training need and to provide an 

introduction to socioeconomic methods that could 

serve as a foundation for more specialized courses, the 

NTC is developing a much shorter online training 

course, “Reading the Human Landscape.” The course 

presents a number of economic and social analyses 

addressing realistic problems faced by field offices. It is 

scheduled for completion in 2013.

Technical Support

To compensate for the declining number of state 

offices with socioeconomics staffs, in 2007 the 

NOC established interagency agreements with 

both the Forest Service (USFS) TEAMS and the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Policy Analysis 

and Science Assistance Branch to provide 

socioeconomic assistance for field offices preparing 

plans and project EISs. The USGS has also provided 

support for national socioeconomic initiatives.
18 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

Outreach Publications

While the information provided by BLM’s 

socioeconomics program has largely been directed at 

meeting regulatory requirements, such as impact analysis 

under NEPA, the program’s aims have recently expanded 

to support outreach to the public and constituencies.

In 2009, the DOI initiated an annual report on 

the economic impacts of its bureaus’ programs and 

activities (see box). Developing estimates of economic 

activities associated with BLM-managed lands and 

resources required a team of 10 economists, including 

5 from other agencies.

The BLM issued a factsheet highlighting these 

economic data in 201168 and is currently preparing a 

standalone report describing the social and economic 

effects of BLM’s programs at both national and 

community scales.

Tools

Over the past decade, the BLM has supported the 

development of tools intended to make socioeconomic 

information more accessible.

Economic Profile System–Human Dimensions 

Toolkit (EPS–HDT)

In 1998, the BLM’s socioeconomics program began 

a partnership with the Sonoran Institute (and 

later with Headwaters Economics) to produce a 

software application offering access to economic 

and demographic data in a format readily used and 

understood by nonspecialists. Originally developed 

to foster collaboration with the public over the BLM’s 

planning goals, EPS–HDT was quickly adopted 

as a tool for internal use. There are also thousands 

of public users. A greatly expanded application, 

now funded jointly by the BLM and the USFS, was 

released in 2011.70

In fiscal year 2010, the BLM’s programs supported 

more than 550,000 American jobs (25 percent of 

the jobs that are attributable to DOI’s programs and 

activities) and $122 billion in total economic output 

(34 percent of the total output that is attributable to 

DOI), using only 15 percent of the DOI’s payroll and 

7 percent of the DOI total budget authority.69
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 19

Assessment of Socioeconomic Planning 

Needs (ASPN)

This web-based expert system provides advice on the 

appropriate economic and social assessment methods to 

use for a plan or project assessment based on responses 

to a series of questions. ASPN is being developed by 

the USGS with funding from the BLM, USFS, and 

National Park Service.

Initiatives

A growing share of the socioeconomics workload 

involves finding new approaches to address Bureauwide 

challenges and emerging program needs.

Recreation Benefits

Identifying the economic benefits of recreation on 

BLM lands remains challenging. The socioeconomics 

staff is assisting the recreation and visitor services staff 

with identifying the most cost-effective and defensible 

methods for surveying visitor use and estimating 

visitors’ expenditures.

Community Growth

The rapid expansion of many western cities has placed 

increasing demands on BLM-managed lands and 

resources. To better anticipate the effects of growth, the 

BLM’s socioeconomics staff is partnering with the 

USGS to assess several community growth models for 

use in preparing resource management plans.

Ecosystem Services

While the BLM routinely estimates the jobs and income 

generated by the development of commodities such as 

oil and gas or timber, it is far more difficult to quantify 

the human benefits received from healthy ecosystems, 

such as water provisioning or carbon sequestration. 

Such ecosystem services can be significantly affected by 

resource management decisions. BLM’s socioeconomics 

staff has partnered with the USGS to evaluate 

computer-based tools and other economic methods for 

valuing ecosystem services.
20 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

Environmental Restoration Benefits

Many BLM programs contribute to the restoration 

of healthy ecosystems, but we lack good data on the 

economic impacts of these efforts in terms of jobs and 

output. The BLM’s socioeconomics staff is supporting 

a new effort by the USGS and USFS to correct this 

omission through a survey of businesses and an 

analysis of the economic contributions made by federal 

restoration activities.

Human Dimensions of Climate Change

Beginning in fiscal year 2012, the BLM staffs from the 

socioeconomics program and climate change initiative 

are partnering with the USGS and other agencies to 

build a common framework for assessing the human 

dimensions of climate change. The project will identify 

methods, protocols, and indicators for describing those 

socioeconomic effects and adaptive responses most 

relevant to the lands, waters, and resources that are 

managed for the public.
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Plan 2012–2022 21

Section 2: Needs and Responses 

The BLM’s Emerging Socioeconomic Needs 

The BLM’s need for socioeconomic information, analysis, and problem solving falls into three 

interrelated categories: communities, landscapes, and values.

Communities

Many of the factors shaping the BLM’s external challenges, such as changing western economies 

and growing polarization over the values that should guide resource management, increase the 

relevance of community perspectives in the BLM’s decision process. Communities include both 

communities of place (such as small settlements, growing towns, and large metropolitan areas) and 

communities of interest (such as ranchers, off-road vehicle users, and wilderness advocates). The 

BLM must consider the following factors:

•	 Community development. Bureau managers and planners need information on the community 

development objectives of local government partners, as well as reliable data on local and regional 

economic trends, to maximize the opportunities for cross-jurisdictional coordination in land 

use planning. This can mean supporting plans to put local economies on a more diversified and 

sustainable footing. Examples include participation in regional ecotourism initiatives, promotion 

of historic and archaeological sites as visitor destinations, and support for stewardship contracting 

for fuels treatment and use of small-diameter logs. The BLM socioeconomics staff can be an 

important resource for such efforts.

•	 Impacts of commercial uses. Commercial uses of BLM lands often have substantial effects on 

surrounding communities and groups. Commercial recreation on BLM lands, led by outfitters 

and guides, has both economic and social impacts on surrounding communities. The economic 

importance of many traditional uses (for example, timber and grazing) has decreased in recent 

decades, but those industries remain an important part of how many communities define 

themselves. Many extractive sectors such as oil and gas are subject to major fluctuations in 

production (boom and bust). To plan effectively for both sides of this cycle, local governments 

need more detailed projections of project-driven revenues, employment, housing impacts, and 

demand on public services (figure 6).
22 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

•	 Demographic changes and urban growth. BLM and 

local government planners need practical ways to 

model how changing populations and expanding 

urban footprints will affect the demand for 

recreation and other uses of the public lands.

•	 Environmental justice. As noted by RAC members, 

BLM planners need better analyses of the effects of 

proposed actions on community subgroups, 

particularly of the potential effects on minority, low 

income, and tribal populations.

•	 Subsistence. BLM biologists and planners need 

better information on subsistence requirements 

of rural communities in Alaska and many other 

western states. Such baseline information, usually 

obtained through collaborative ethnographic studies, 

is essential to assess the impacts of plans and projects 

on subsistence uses (see figure 7 example.)

Development Production Reclamation

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

0

2007

2011

201520192023

2027

2031203520392043

2047

2051

2055

2059

2063

Year

Total Direct Employment

Figure 6. Projected direct employment from oil and gas development under the Pinedale,Wyoming, resource 

management plan.71
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 23

Species Winter Spring Summer Fall

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Fish

Birds

Berries

Furbearers

Caribou 

Polar Bear

Moose

Seals

Walrus

Bowhead

No to Very Low Levels of Subsistence Activity Sources: Stephen R. Braund and Associates and 

Institute of Social and Economic Research (1993) and 

Stephen R. Braund and Associates (2003a). Low to Medium Levels of Subsistence Activity

High Levels of Subsistence Activity

Landscapes

Today the BLM is challenged by new conditions 

and resource demands that cannot be addressed 

effectively within the boundaries of a single field 

office. Examples include climate change, the largescale loss of sage-grouse and other important wildlife 

habitat, the loss of ecological connectivity, and the 

siting of large renewable energy facilities. Directly or 

indirectly, most of these changes are driven or affected 

by human activities. To respond, the Bureau has 

begun landscape-scale rapid ecoregional assessments 

(REAs), which cross jurisdictional boundaries. 

The REAs bring together biophysical data with 

socioeconomic data—for example, information on 

urban development or the growth of road networks—

to understand the natural and human influences that 

are shaping the environment.73

The emphasis on landscape-level assessments 

challenges the BLM’s use of socioeconomics, which 

until recently operated with little reference to 

the models, data, and research objectives of other 

disciplines and programs. In the future, many 

of the most important science and policy issues 

at the BLM will involve the interaction of social, 

economic, and geographic factors with biophysical 

processes. This interaction will require integration of 

socioeconomic data with the BLM’s evolving system 

for data management, including geospatially organized 

data sets. Substantively, it will require integrating 

socioeconomic variables into models of ecological 

change. Nonetheless, socioeconomic analysis will 

continue to be needed at multiple scales, from local 

and regional to national and transnational.

Figure 7. Annual cycle of substance activities in Barrow, Alaska.72
24 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

Grazing on the public lands provides a good example 

of the challenges in modeling change at a landscape 

scale. Grazing can play a positive role in stabilizing 

degraded sagebrush steppe environments.74 When 

grazing is conducted properly, base ranch properties 

provide an ecologically preferable alternative to 

converting land to subdivisions and other urban 

development because ranches limit landscape 

fragmentation and maintain ecological connectivity.75 

A proper assessment of the costs and benefits of public 

lands grazing requires a model of landscape change 

that integrates biophysical and socioeconomic factors 

at appropriate geographic and temporal scales.

Climate change, which affects a wide range of BLM 

and other DOI programs (see box), provides the best 

example of the need to understand the bidirectional 

linkages between biophysical and socioeconomic 
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 25

systems at a landscape scale.77 In the Arctic, for 

example, permafrost thaw, altered streamflows, and the 

displacement of tundra by boreal forest drive numerous 

habitat changes that in turn reshape both formal and 

subsistence economies.78 Similarly, programs to build 

ecological resilience and conserve biodiversity must 

reflect an understanding of local social systems so that 

human communities benefit as conservation programs 

alter land use practices.79

Values

Resource management involves weighing the 

competing sets of values that distinctive groups place 

on landscapes, resources, and activities. Such values 

take several forms, each documented through distinct 

socioeconomic methods:

•	 Market values reflect the supply and demand for 

various goods and services, including the value 

of commodities produced from BLM-managed 

resources and the wages earned in producing 

those commodities.

•	 Nonmarket environmental values provide monetary 

estimates of the benefits individuals attribute to 

experiences of the environment, such as the value 

individuals place on a whitewater rafting trip.

•	 Ecosystem services estimate the value of human 

benefits from healthy ecosystems, for example 

potable water from ground water recharge or flood 

control from intact wetlands.80 These services may 

be market-based (such as agreements between 

municipalities and farmers to provide water filtration 

on rural lands) or measured outside of traditional 

market mechanisms (such as collection of traditional 

tribal materials in high desert ecosystems).

•	 Social values reflect meanings that communities or 

other groups give to particular places, events, and 

practices, such as the Gettysburg battlefield for 

American citizens, caribou hunts for Alaska’s rural 

villages, or a ranching way of life for many western 

rural communities.

While the BLM’s capacity to estimate market values 

is the furthest developed of these four, effectively 

Climate Change in the American West

“In the past decade, it has become impossible to 

overlook the signs of climate change in western

North America. They include soaring temperatures, 

declining late-season snowpack, northward-shifted

winter storm tracks, increasing precipitation intensity,

the worst drought since measurements began, 

steep declines in Colorado River reservoir storage, 

widespread vegetation mortality, and sharp increases 

in the frequency of large wildfires. These shifts have 

taken place across a region that also saw the nation’s

highest population growth during the same period.” 76
26 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

documenting each of these categories of value will 

require significant effort by the BLM’s socioeconomics 

program. Specifically, this documentation entails the 

development of appropriate data sets; additional tools 

and methods feasible for field office use; and more 

extensive training, guidance, and technical support. A 

systematic effort to recognize the costs and benefits 

associated with all four categories of value will help the 

BLM better meet its multiple use mandate, progressing 

toward the BLM mission to sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the 

use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

The BLM’s Strategic Responses

The BLM’s growing need for reliable and relevant 

socioeconomic information requires a variety of 

organizational responses. These responses fit into three 

broad categories: workloads, people, and processes.

Workloads

BLM managers and staff, from field offices to 

the director’s office, have identified four core 

socioeconomic workloads: 

• Regularly conducted socioeconomic analyses. This 

workload involves examining the social and economic 

impacts of BLM actions through NEPA and the 

Bureau’s planning process. It also involves assisting 

the Bureau in meeting annual GPRA reporting 

requirements and providing quality assurance 

and contract oversight for social, economic, and 

environmental justice portions of plans and project 

assessments. Examples include: 

•	 Performing the socioeconomic baseline and impact

assessments for resource management plans.

•	 Analyzing the social and economic impacts of

proposed oil and gas development. 

•	 Conducting customer satisfaction surveys for

program reporting.
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 27

•	 Applying methods and tools to address new challenges, 

including BLM and DOI initiatives. The 

socioeconomics program contributes information 

on the human dimensions of new challenges and 

initiatives to BLM field staff and managers, other 

federal agencies, and external stakeholders in response 

to changing management needs and accountability 

requirements. Deriving and organizing this 

information results in the creation of new 

socioeconomic methods or tools that can be used 

by the BLM at multiple levels to address a variety 

of issues in a consistent and repeatable manner. 

Examples include:

•	 Valuing the benefits of carbon sequestration and

other ecosystem services.

•	 Designing cost-effective measures for estimating

the economic benefits of recreation. 

•	 Preparing BLM elements of the annual DOI

economic report.

•	 Socioeconomic support for immediate management 

concerns. BLM managers and staff often need to 

respond to short-term challenges that can benefit 

from socioeconomic information or analysis. 

Currently there is little capacity to provide 

socioeconomic information in less than 1 week, 

which is realistically the turnaround often required 

for Washington Office and state office policy issues. 

Examples include:

•	 Documenting the economic tradeoffs of

protecting public lands, for an Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) briefing.

•	 Developing a spreadsheet to estimate the changes

in jobs and output associated with alternative 

forestry program budgets.

•	 Program- or state-specific socioeconomic priorities. 

Several states and programs have specific social and 

economic issues that require dedicated staff support. 

This workload is often defined by specific resources or 

legislative mandates and may not apply Bureauwide. 

Examples include:

•	 Coal valuation for lease sales in Wyoming.

•	 Identifying subsistence use areas and resources

used by Alaskan villages. 

The BLM’s strategy to meet its socioeconomic 

workloads in a cost-effective way will require an 
28 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

appropriate balancing of internal staffing with reliance 

on the socioeconomic capabilities of other federal 

agencies, universities, nonprofits, and contractors, as 

well as tribal, state, and local governments. 

People

The BLM’s greatest asset is its staff. While there are 

few employees in socioeconomic positions across the 

Bureau, their expertise and practical experience with 

the BLM’s programs constitutes a critical resource. As 

budgets permit, the BLM’s professional socioeconomic 

expertise should be strengthened through recruitment 

of well-qualified individuals with interests and skills 

relevant to new management challenges. In 2012, 

BLM’s Executive Leadership Team (ELT) approved a 

plan to add a socioeconomic specialist position to each 

of four zones, covering the 11 western state offices. 

The positions will ensure a level of socioeconomic 

support for all 12 state offices (the Washington Office 

staff will support the Eastern States Office). The new 

positions will complement rather than replace the 

socioeconomics staffs at the state offices and the NOC. 

In addition, other BLM employees whose programs 

need socioeconomic information and analyses should 

have access to clear guidance, effective web-based and 

instructor-led training, and useful decision-support tools.

The BLM’s need for socioeconomic information and 

support cannot be met solely through internal staffing. 

The socioeconomics program will need to leverage its 

partnerships with other federal agencies, universities, 

nonprofits, and contractors, as well as tribal, state, and 

local governments. In 2011, the NOC developed a 

blanket purchase agreement for socioeconomic services 

involving multiple vendors. This is one of several steps 

planned to improve the accessibility and quality control 

for contracted work.

In addition, the BLM’s socioeconomics program has 

already established successful partnerships with both 

the USGS and USFS TEAMS. USGS has provided 

expertise for a number of emerging socioeconomic 

challenges, including the analysis of the BLM’s 

economic contributions for the annual DOI economic 

report, a feasibility study of ecosystem services tools, 

an assessment of urban growth models, and a study of 

the economic benefits of ecological restoration. USFS 

TEAMS has provided field office support primarily by 

preparing or reviewing the socioeconomic elements 

of numerous plans and EISs. The use of each of these 

partnerships should be evaluated against the value 

of developing these capabilities within the BLM to 

determine the best use of resources across the Bureau.

While the BLM does draw on social science experts in 

the academic and nonprofit communities, far more can 

be accomplished to match socioeconomic needs across 

the BLM with appropriate organizations. The BLM 

is an active member of the Cooperative Ecosystem 

Studies Units (CESU) Network, a national consortium 

of federal agencies, academic institutions, and other 

partners working to provide applied research to support 

effective land and resource management.81

Nonetheless, many activities cannot be effectively 

outsourced. BLM employees are in the best position to 

understand the socioeconomic aspects of the Bureau’s 

diverse programs, from grazing, mineral production, 

and large-scale renewable energy development to 

wild horse management and wildland fire planning. 

BLM socioeconomic expertise is required to ensure 

that externally provided information and analysis are 

relevant, credible, and sound.

Processes

An effective socioeconomics program requires 

appropriate procedures for:

•	 Identifying workload priorities. Socioeconomic 

workload priorities should reflect the needs of field 

offices and programs. To ensure that the dollars 

supporting socioeconomic analysis are well spent, it 

is essential to have regular communication between 

users and providers—across programs and at various 

levels of management, including Bureau and state 

office leadership. The BLM employee survey 
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 29

conducted for the socioeconomic needs assessment 

provided numerous suggestions for new tools, 

guidance, and information. 

Many of the BLM’s constituencies have strong 

interests in the validity and relevance of the 

Bureau’s socioeconomic information and analysis. 

These stakeholders include tribal governments, 

county governments, RACs, and nongovernmental 

organizations such as environmental, recreation, 

and industry groups. The BLM’s “Desk Guide 

to Cooperating Agency Relationships and 

Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners 

2012” provides a framework for incorporating 

stakeholders’ concerns during the planning process. 

Consultation with these external stakeholders will 

be required to identify the types of socioeconomic 

information and analysis they need.

In addition to regular consultation to identify 

emerging information needs, the socioeconomics 

staff will need to be proactive in providing resources 

to decisionmakers and other constituencies. The 

socioeconomics staff should remain current on issues 

important to particular regions and stakeholder 

groups to anticipate their data and analysis needs.

•	 Developing policy, guidance, and tools. In the 

employee survey conducted for the socioeconomic 

needs assessment, many employees expressed the 

need for better socioeconomics guidance. More 

comprehensive guidance will help ensure that the 

socioeconomics program is employed effectively and 

consistently across the BLM.

To make use of socioeconomic information and 

analyses, managers and program staff must understand 

what is available, where it can be accessed, and how it 

can be used in the Bureau’s decisionmaking process. 

New information needs identified by consulting BLM 

managers and staffs should be met whenever possible 

by using existing data sets, tools, and other resources. 

Where this is not feasible, new socioeconomic tools 

may need to be developed.
30 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

While many types of social and economic 

analyses require in-depth training to understand 

the assumptions and limitations behind the 

methodologies, many tools are or can be made 

available to allow socioeconomic information to be 

used by employees without specialized experience. 

Many tools internalize socioeconomic expertise 

to increase the ability of other BLM employees to 

carry out their work while minimizing time and 

expense. The BLM generally develops such tools in 

partnership with other organizations to both share 

costs and leverage external expertise.

In addition, BLM socioeconomics staff members 

need their own professional support to ensure their 

effectiveness and opportunities for professional 

growth. This support should include regular 

communication with a socioeconomic “community 

of practice” and access to professional training and 

conferences to keep current in their disciplines.

•	 Assuring quality of work products. Several laws 

and regulations establish a high standard for the 

information that executive branch agencies use to 

inform management decisions. These include the 

Information Quality Act, OMB policy on peer 

review, and DOI policy on scientific integrity.82 To 

comply with these requirements, the BLM needs 

quality control and peer review processes to guarantee 

that socioeconomic information and analyses 

prepared by the Bureau or its partners are sound, 

unbiased, and defensible.
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 31

Section 3: Goals and Strategies

A successful and sustainable socioeconomics program can be defined in several ways. At a 

minimum, the Bureau’s social scientists must be available to assist employees and managers with 

their immediate as well as ongoing socioeconomic needs. They must provide both inreach to the 

BLM employees and outreach to the larger social science and resource management communities.

BLM employees whose work requires an understanding of the human context and consequences of 

resource management should be familiar with available socioeconomic tools and resources. While 

they may not know how to use every tool, they should know how to access those that are most 

relevant to their work and where to find technical support to assist them.

The BLM has established a vision for its socioeconomics program: relevant and credible 

socioeconomic information and tools are used in resource management decisions to strengthen the 

effectiveness of BLM programs. This section identifies strategies and actions organized around three 

broad goals designed to achieve that vision:

•	 Goal 1: Ensure that the BLM’s socioeconomic capabilities support legal mandates, management

priorities, and program needs. This goal includes strategies to meet socioeconomic needs of 

BLM managers, consult with and respond to external constituencies, and provide socioeconomic 

support for policy and legal mandates.

•	 Goal 2: Manage the BLM’s internal and external socioeconomic capabilities to provide sound

and cost-effective support for offices and programs. This goal includes strategies to enhance the 

BLM’s internal and external capacity to meet its socioeconomic needs.

•	 Goal 3: Ensure that BLM employees can obtain and apply sound socioeconomic information

relevant to their programs. This goal identifies actions to help field and program staffs 

understand and use socioeconomic information in their day-to-day work.

These goals reflect four broad principles:

•	 Increase socioeconomic awareness and integrate capabilities across all programs.

•	 Build on existing socioeconomic understanding and expertise within all levels of the organization.

•	 Use flexible and cost-effective approaches in workforce planning to optimize the balance of BLM

and external socioeconomic capabilities.
32 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

•	 Wherever feasible, make socioeconomic tools and

data accessible and useful for nonspecialists.

The goals and strategies presented here address 

the needs and responses described in section 2. 

The goals are broad, and as a result, there is some 

overlap between the strategies and actions discussed 

under each goal. For example, training is discussed 

in strategies 2.3 and 3.3. The former focuses on 

training for providers of socioeconomic information 

(that is, the BLM’s socioeconomics staff), while the 

latter discusses training for users of socioeconomic 

information at the BLM (employees and managers). 

Implementation of the strategies and actions included 

here will be led by the socioeconomics staff at the 

Washington Office, in collaboration with the NOC, 

NTC, and field-level staffs.

These goals and strategies lay out an ambitious agenda 

that cannot be achieved in a single year. The actions 

proposed here will be prioritized through annual 

work plans developed in coordination with the 

BLM’s Socioeconomic Advisory Board (see strategy 

1.1). Criteria for prioritizing projects include: 

(1) recommendations from internal and external 

stakeholders, as described in strategies 1.1 and 1.4; 

(2) actions needed to meet legal mandates defined in 

FLPMA, NEPA, and other legislation; and (3) actions 

required to complete other actions (for example, 

training must be developed before it can be delivered).
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 33

Goal 1

Ensure that the BLM’s socioeconomic 

capabilities support legal mandates, 

management priorities, and 

program needs.

Strategy 1.1

Identify and prioritize changing 

needs for socioeconomic information 

and support by consulting regularly 

with BLM leaders, managers, 

and employees.

Actions

A. Establish the Socioeconomic Advisory Board, 

with members drawn from Washington 

Office programs, state offices, field offices, 

centers, and possibly external stakeholders to 

help ensure that the BLM’s socioeconomic 

capabilities are responsive to emerging issues 

and organizational needs. 

B. In consultation with the Socioeconomic 

Advisory Board, develop an annual 

socioeconomic work plan to prioritize activities, 

including training, guidance, publications, 

tools, and commissioned research. 

C. Increase coordination and transparency of the 

BLM’s socioeconomic activities by soliciting 

BLM employees for input on the annual 

work plan and making both comments and 

the completed plan available for internal 

audiences. Review comments from the 2008 

BLM employee survey, conducted for the 

socioeconomic needs assessment, as input to 

the work plan. 

D. Share the work plan and annually solicit 

direction from the ELT on BLM priorities 

requiring socioeconomic support.

E. Provide semiannual updates on socioeconomic 

issues and priorities, focusing on work plan 

action items and implementation of the SSP, 

for the Field Committee and the Deputy State 

Directors’ Committee.

F. Participate in national BLM program meetings 

to identify opportunities for improved 

socioeconomic support.

G. Attend state leadership team meetings to 

share information on emerging state-specific 

socioeconomic issues and ensure field offices 

receive needed socioeconomic support. Use 

these meetings to identify emerging trends and 

work being performed across the BLM.

Strategy 1.2

Provide socioeconomic support as 

required by legal mandates. 

1.2.1. Environmental Justice 

Actions

A. Participate in the DOI Environmental Justice 

Working Group to promote the consistent 

application of environmental justice principles 

across the Department. 

B. Disseminate information on the DOI 

environmental justice strategic plan, and 

coordinate the BLM’s implementation of 

applicable requirements.

C. Support the BLM’s state office environmental 

justice coordinators through periodic 

conference calls and other information sharing. 

D. Consistent with the DOI environmental justice 

strategic plan, develop guidance on applying 

environmental justice principles in the BLM’s 

resource management and implementation 
34 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

decisions, addressing outreach, analysis of 

disproportionate impacts, and mitigation. 

E. Provide training to BLM employees on 

applying environmental justice principles.

1.2.2. Rights to Subsistence Resources

Action

A. Work with the BLM’s coordinator for Native 

American and Alaska Native issues and with 

state office tribal liaisons to assess the need 

for guidance on documenting and analyzing 

impacts to subsistence and other native 

resource uses. Develop guidance and training 

as needed.

Strategy 1.3

Develop socioeconomic information 

and procedures relevant to both field 

offices and the BLM’s constituencies.

Actions

A. Using data developed for the annual DOI 

economic report, work with public affairs 

and Washington Office program staffs to 

prepare a report summarizing the human 

dimensions of the BLM mission. This report 

will use narrative, graphics, and photos to 

describe economic and social contributions of 

programs of particular interest to the BLM’s 

constituencies at both national and local scales.

B. Consult with the BLM’s RACs to determine 

the types of socioeconomic information that 

would be most useful to the councils and 

the public.

C. Develop resources for BLM managers and 

external stakeholders to identify mitigation 

measures for adverse impacts of land 

use decisions.

D. Consult with the BLM’s coordinator for Native 

American and Alaska Native issues and the 
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 35

BLM’s intergovernmental liaison to identify 

the types of socioeconomic information and 

analysis most useful to tribal, state, and local 

governments.

E. Improve external access to socioeconomic 

information and analyses that are produced or 

compiled by the BLM.

Strategy 1.4

Strengthen the BLM’s capacity 

to support tribal, state, and 

local governments’ community 

development initiatives.

Actions

A. Work with field offices, the BLM’s liaison to 

state and local governments, and the BLM’s 

coordinator for Native American and Alaska 

Native issues to compile examples of the BLM’s 

participation in local community development 

initiatives for inclusion on the socioeconomics 

program’s SharePoint site.

B. Work with external partners, as appropriate, to 

develop a guide for field managers and planners 

on supporting community development goals 

that includes case studies of pertinent projects 

or partnerships.

Strategy 1.5

Adapt socioeconomic methods and 

procedures to support emerging 

management needs.

Actions

A. Identify practical methods for estimating the 

economic benefits of noncommodity values 

of the public lands, including recreation and 

ecosystem services, and provide guidance and 

technical support for their use.

B. Link socioeconomic information and tools 

with the BLM’s geospatial capabilities. 

Projects could include linking the EPS–HDT 

with geographic information system (GIS) 

technologies, mapping community values 

identified through public participation, and 

developing a socioeconomic atlas of 

BLM resources.

C. Develop standard survey instruments applicable 

to several types of BLM management decisions 

(for example, land use plans, grazing decisions, 

energy development) to expedite OMB approval 

through the Paperwork Reduction Act.

D. To support the BLM’s emphasis on managing 

across landscapes, develop frameworks for 

socioeconomic data collection and analysis 

that can be used at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales (for example, economic 

and social datasets available across BLM 

jurisdictional boundaries).

E. Where appropriate, integrate socioeconomic 

variables into models of ecological change for 

the BLM’s resource management activities (for 

example, regarding the causes and consequences 

of landscape fragmentation).
36 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

Goal 2

Manage the BLM’s internal and 

external socioeconomic capabilities 

to provide sound and cost-effective 

support for offices and programs.

Strategy 2.1

Enhance the BLM’s internal 

capabilities to meet its current and 

emerging socioeconomic needs.

Actions

A. Develop an inventory of current and potential 

socioeconomic workloads and the qualifications 

needed to perform them. Use this information 

to guide future hiring.

B. Working with the Socioeconomic Advisory 

Board and BLM management, implement the 

zoned socioeconomics staffing plan, per the 

ELT’s direction.

C. Identify other BLM employees with significant 

socioeconomic training or experience 

and make this information available as an 

additional resource.

Strategy 2.2

Build external relationships to 

complement the BLM’s internal 

socioeconomic capabilities.

Actions

A. Ensure that the BLM offices and programs 

have access to a range of qualified contractors 

to provide socioeconomic information and 

support by:

•	 Assessing the effectiveness of the

socioeconomic services blanket 

purchase agreement.

•	 Developing a Bureauwide quality control

process for contracted work.

•	 Establishing a voluntary roster of

qualified social science contractors.

B. Maintain or expand socioeconomic 

partnerships with USGS and USFS TEAMS. 

As appropriate, develop socioeconomic 

partnerships with other federal agencies.

C. Explore the feasibility of using Service First 

authority to streamline partnerships with 

other federal agencies, including USGS and 

USFS TEAMS. 

D. Coordinate with Department- and 

governmentwide initiatives, including the 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and 

Climate Science Centers.

E. Leverage low- and no-cost research through 

universities, federal agencies, nonprofits, and 

state or local government partners by:

•	 Developing a “socioeconomic portal”

to provide researchers with access to 

potential BLM projects and BLM 

offices with information on academic 

research interests. 

•	 Soliciting socioeconomic research projects

from field, district, state, and Washington 

offices to populate the portal.

•	 Using the portal to share the results of

completed socioeconomic projects.

•	 Continuing work with CESUs to engage

universities for research and development.

F. Use socioeconomic networks, such as the 

Interagency Social Science Roundtable, to share 

information and pursue common problems 

more effectively.
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 37

Strategy 2.3

Support the BLM’s socioeconomics 

staff through training, improved 

information sharing, and other 

professional development.

Actions

A. Support professional discussions on emerging 

issues and methods through regular conference 

calls and webinars. Where feasible, these 

forums should involve socioeconomics 

staff not only from the BLM but also from 

partner agencies.

B. Establish a program for professional 

development to retain and promote a capable 

socioeconomics staff. Sufficient time to 

participate in these activities should be a 

required element of all socioeconomics staff 

workloads. This program should include:

•	 Short courses on emerging socioeconomic

issues and methods, provided in person or 

through distance learning.

•	 Cross-training to improve capabilities

across the range of social science 

disciplines (economics, cultural 

anthropology, sociology, and 

human geography). 

•	 Training in other resource areas to better

understand the role and needs of BLM 

staff and managers.

C. As budgets allow, hold Bureauwide 

socioeconomics program meetings at least 

every 3 years.

D. Develop sections of a socioeconomics program 

website to facilitate staff discussion (see also 

strategy 3.3).

Strategy 2.4

Coordinate support and 

funding across BLM programs 

to meet existing and emerging 

socioeconomic needs.

Actions

A. Develop measures to identify socioeconomic 

accomplishments across the Bureau. 

Communicate and track accomplishments, 

including feedback for the BLM’s existing 

budget and accountability systems (annual 

budget documents, activity-based cost 

management, and performance reporting).

B. Consider funding alternatives that reflect 

the broad-ranging impacts of the 

socioeconomics program.

C. Whenever feasible, maximize the reach of scarce 

funding by leveraging BLM dollars through 

cost recovery and cost sharing with other 

agency and nonprofit partners. 
38 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 39

Goal 3

Ensure that BLM staff can obtain 

and apply sound socioeconomic 

information relevant to their programs.

Strategy 3.1

Develop policy and guidance for 

using socioeconomic information and 

analysis at the BLM. 

Action

A. Develop desk guides or a socioeconomics 

handbook to address the needs of multiple 

audiences, including BLM employees, 

managers, and external constituents. Much of 

this material must be developed collaboratively 

with program staffs. Guidance is needed on a 

number of topics, including, but not 

limited to:

•	 Developing, implementing, and

analyzing surveys.

•	 Leading socioeconomic workshops for

land use planning.

•	 Using interviews and other

ethnographic methods.

•	 Analyzing the environmental justice

consequences of plans and projects.

•	 Mapping and valuing ecosystem services

(such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity 

conservation, and water provisioning).

•	 Using various methods for eliciting

information on communities of place and 

communities of interest.

•	 Estimating the local economic and social

impacts of grazing program decisions.

•	 Using the expanded EPS–HDT in

planning and community development.

•	 Using urban growth modeling in resource

management planning (in development). 

•	 Understanding and implementing onand offsite measures to mitigate social and 

economic impacts.

Strategy 3.2

Establish an effective quality 

assurance process to ensure that the 

BLM’s socioeconomic information and 

analysis are sound and unbiased.

Actions

A. Develop a quality control process that:

•	 Ensures socioeconomic work produced

by the BLM or its external partners is 

accurate and defensible.

•	 Incorporates feedback to encourage

individual and organizational learning.

•	 Provides for quick and thorough responses

to requests for document review.

B. Working with internal and external audiences, 

establish a peer review procedure for 

socioeconomic tools and methods proposed for 

adoption at the BLM. 

Strategy 3.3

Enhance communication and training 

to ensure the effective use of tools, 

models, and information.

Actions

A. Create a website for users of socioeconomic 

information within the Bureau and its partner 

agencies. Include the following information:

•	 BLM socioeconomic policy and guidance. 

•	 Socioeconomic tools, data, and methods.
40 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

•	 A forum for sharing information

and questions.

•	 Useful socioeconomic studies, organized

by topic.

•	 Research projects requested by BLM

offices and programs for external partners 

to undertake (see action 2.2.E).

•	 Links to socioeconomic training and

other resources.

•	 Good examples of previous

socioeconomic analyses and research.

B. Continue development of socioeconomic 

training through the NTC. Training should 

focus on a variety of audiences, including 

staff and managers at the field, state, and 

national level. Existing courses and courses in 

progress include:

•	 “Social and Economic Aspects of

Planning,” course 1610-12.

•	 “Economic Impact Analysis for Planning

and NEPA,” course 1610-11. 

•	 “Reading the Human Landscape,”

including three introductory online 

modules covering economic and 

social analyses for plans and projects (in 

development), courses 1610-13, -14, 

and -15.

•	 Using the EPS-HDT, including three 

brief WebEx videos. 

C. Include socioeconomic training opportunities 

at BLM program meetings and workshops.

D. See also actions 1.3.C (develop resources on 

socioeconomic mitigation) and 1.4.B (develop 

a guide on community development).

Strategy 3.4

Make effective use of existing 

knowledge by identifying and 

synthesizing available information in 

terms relevant for BLM staff.

Actions

A. Establish ways to regularly communicate 

current socioeconomic issues and sources of 

information to managers and field staffs (for 

example, a quarterly e-newsletter).

B. Explore techniques for documenting the local 

socioeconomic knowledge of field staffs, and 

use such information to strengthen plans and 

project assessments. 

C. Develop mechanisms for collecting and 

publishing locally generated data (e.g., county 

or municipal economic projections).

D. Provide guidance to local governments on the 

type and format of information that would be 

useful for BLM decisionmaking.

E. Summarize existing research to meet the 

information needs identified through 

goal 1 and creating a series of “white papers” 

supporting BLM program activities 

and initiatives.

Strategy 3.5

Develop tools to allow BLM 

employees without specialized 

expertise to access and appropriately 

apply socioeconomic information to 

meet program needs.

Actions

A. Using input from the Socioeconomic Advisory 

Board, establish a list of priority socioeconomic 
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 41

tools for future development (e.g., a 

GIS representation of relevant social and 

economic information).

B. Review results of the employee survey 

conducted for the BLM socioeconomic needs 

assessment to determine what additional 

socioeconomic data and tools may be needed to 

support program activities.

Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 43

Appendix A: Socioeconomic Oversight 

Committee

BLM Washington Office and National Centers

Lynda Boody Fire and Aviation (former position)

Jim Bowmer Forests and Woodlands (former position)

John Broderick Minerals and Realty Management 

Jim Burd Fluid Minerals (former position)

Jerry Cordova Cultural, Paleontological Resources and Tribal Consultation

Lara Douglas National Landscape Conservation System (former position)

Marlo Draper National Training Center 

Marietta Eaton National Landscape Conservation System (former position)

Roxanne Falise National Operations Center

Hal Hallett Recreation and Visitor Services (former position)

Matt Magee Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA

Kit Muller Renewable Resources and Planning

Doug Powell (retired) Rangeland Resources

Deb Rawhouser National Operations Center (former position)

BLM Field Offices

Stacie McIntosh Arctic Field Office, Alaska

George Oviatt (retired) Alaska State Office

Catherine Robertson (retired) Grand Junction Field Office, Colorado

Aden Seidlitz Boise District Office, Idaho (former position)

John Thompson Montana State Office

Kim Titus Oregon State Office (former position)

Joan Trent (retired) Montana State Office

Steve Wells Eastern States Office (former position)

Department of the Interior

Cynthia Moses-Nedd Office of External and Intergovernmental Affairs

Ben Simon Office of Policy Analysis

Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 45

Notes

1. Social science is defined as “the study of society and of individual relationships in and to society, generally 

including one or more of the academic disciplines of sociology, economics, political science, geography, 

history, anthropology, and psychology” in BLM Manual 1601, “Land Use Planning,” 2000, Glossary, p. 5. 

2.	 Timothy J. Finan and Colin West, eds. “An Assessment of Climate Vulnerability in the Middle San Pedro

River Valley.” University of Arizona, Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS) Report Series:

CL3-00 (August 2000). 

3. For information on the use of geographic models and techniques to enhance the analysis of a wide range of 

social science issues, see the website of the Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science, http://www.csiss.org/. 

4. Greg G. Brown, “Measuring national forest landscape values using an internet-based participatory 

mapping approach,” International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Park City, Utah 

(2007). 

5. See Sahotra Sarkar et al. “Biodiversity Conservation Planning Tools: Present Status and Challenges for the 

Future.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31 (2006):123-159. 

6. 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(2); 43 CFR 1610.4-3. 

7. 42 U.S.C. 4331(a).

8. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(A). 

9. 40 CFR 1508.14.

10. The Government Performance and Results Act, Public Law 103-62, Sec. 2(b)(4).

11. Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations,” Federal Register 59:32, section 1-101 (16 February 1994). 

12. The “U.S. Department of the Interior Environmental Justice Strategic Plan 2012-2017” is available at 

http://www.doi.gov/oepc/justice.html.

13. Robert N. Clinton, Nell Jessup Newton, and Monroe E. Price, American Indian Law: Cases and Materials,

3rd edition (Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company, 1991) ch. 6.

14.	Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 3111-3126.

15. The western states that more than doubled in population from 1970 to 2010 are, in order of relative 

growth: Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico. U.S. Census Bureau, “2010 Census 

Population Profile Maps,” http://www.census.gov/2010census/data/ (accessed 31 July 2011).

16. Center of the American West, “Boom and Bust in the American West” (Boulder, CO: University of 

Colorado, 2002), 3.

17. Headwaters Economics, “Energy Development and the Changing Economy of the West,” Figure 7 

(Wyoming personal income from mining compared to other sectors 1970-2005) (Bozeman, MT, 2009), 

http://headwaterseconomics.org/energy/western/changing-economy-west/ (accessed 14 May 2011).
46 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

18. Headwaters Economics, “Impacts of Energy Development in Colorado With a Case Study of Mesa and Garfield 

Counties,” Figure 14 (difference in average wages in energy-related and other sectors, Garfield County, CO). (Bozeman, MT, 

2008), http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/energy/western/colorado-mesa-garfield-counties (accessed 15 May 2011).

19. Headwaters Economics Economic Profile System–Human Dimensions Toolkit, Mining Report for Garfield County, 

Colorado, http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt (accessed 16 May 2011).

20. U.S. Census Bureau, “2010 Census Briefs: Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin” (C2010BR-02), p. 3, http://www.

census.gov/2010census/data/ (accessed 15 May 2011).

21. Hispanic Americans composed 25 percent of the population of the twelve western states (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, 

NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, and WY) in 2000, compared to 13 percent nationwide. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census

Bureau, American Community Survey (2000). Retrieved through Economic Profile System–Human Dimensions Toolkit, 

Demographics Report, http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt (run date 15 May 2011).

22. American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Public Law 95-341. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

of 1980, Public Law 96-487.

23. On the role of cooperating agencies in the preparation of environmental impact statements by Interior Department 

bureaus, see 43 CFR 46.225. 

24. For the number of sociologists employed, see “Loss of Sociological Expertise at the BLM,” draft issue paper (1987), p. 1. 

The estimate of approximately 40 economists assumes that in the early 1980s half of roughly 45 district offices and all state 

offices had at least one economist on staff, in addition to economists at the Washington Office and what was then the Denver 

Service Center. The 1981 socioeconomics staff estimates do not include the Outer Continental Shelf program, then still part 

of BLM’s operations. 

25. Bureau of Land Management, “Assessment of Social and Economic Capabilities” (ASEC), summary of interviews with 

socioeconomics staff (2009), p. 6.

26. “BLM Socioeconomic Staffing” (table) (May 2011). The 2011 data exclude supervisors and other staff with no more than 

10 percent time spent on socioeconomic work. Many individuals included in the staffing figures have other significant duties, 

for example in planning or the oil and gas program. Several economist positions are staffed by minerals economists, who may 

not necessarily have experience in other aspects of the BLM’s socioeconomic workload, including economic impact analysis 

and nonmarket valuation.

27. “Social and Economic Policy and Action Plan” (1981). Transmitted under BLM Instruction Memorandum 81-315 

(11 March 1981), p. 1.

28. Action Plan (1981), pp. 21-24.

29. Action Plan (1981), p. 27. 

30. Action Plan (1981), pp. 1, 29.

31. Action Plan (1981), pp. 37-38.

32. Action Plan (1981), pp. 27, 30. 

33. Bureau of Land Management, “Social and Economic Task Force Report” (1984), pp. 2-8 (BLM Information 

Bulletin 84-289).

34. Action Plan (1981), p. 30 (“personnel”).

35. BLM Social Science Initiative – Interim Report, Social Science Focus Groups (1995), p. 3. 

36. BLM Social Science Initiative – Interim Report, Social Science Focus Groups (1995), p. 6. 

37. BLM Social Science Initiative – Interim Report, Social Science Focus Groups (1995), p. 4. 
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 47

38. BLM Social Science Initiative – Interim Report, Social Science Focus Groups (1995), p. 5. 

39. BLM Social Science Initiative – Interim Report, Social Science Focus Groups (1995), p. 2. 

40. External Assessment Team: John A. Tanaka, Oregon State University; Audie Blevins, University of Wyoming; 

Katherine Jensen, University of Wyoming; Neil R. Rimbey, University of Idaho; David T. Taylor, University of Wyoming; 

L. Allen Torell, New Mexico State University; J.D. Wulfhorst, University of Idaho. 

41. ASEC (2009), http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/social_science/contact_list.html. 

42. ASEC, socioeconomics staff interviews (2009), p. 6. [“There is general consensus that there is not a career track for social 

scientists in BLM. . . . while other specialists seem to have both career tracks and training programs, there is little in the way 

of training for social scientists that will help them further their careers or to do better jobs.”]

43. ASEC, socioeconomics staff interviews (2009), p. 5.

44. ASEC, socioeconomics staff interviews (2009), p. 5.

45. ASEC, socioeconomics staff interviews (2009), pp. 5-6.

46. ASEC, employee survey (2009), Table 5, p. 65. 

47. ASEC, employee survey (2009), Table 11, p. 74.

48. ASEC, employee survey (2009), Table 44, p. 127.

49. ASEC, employee survey (2009), Table 9, p. 70. 

50. ASEC, employee survey (2009), Table 10, p. 71. 

51. ASEC, employee survey (2009), Table 16, p. 80. 

52. ASEC, RAC interviews (2009), p. 294. 

53. ASEC, RAC interviews (2009), Appendix D4, Question 5: “How important are social and economic issues to the RAC 

members as they formulate advice concerning BLM decisions?” Results are shown in Figure 5, p. 301. 

54. ASEC, RAC interviews (2009), Appendix D4, Question 14: “Overall, how satisfied are you with the level of social and 

economic analysis in BLM‘s resource management decisions?” Results are shown in Figure 10, p. 318. Data are provided in 

Appendices D5, D6, and D7.

55. ASEC, RAC interviews (2009), Appendix D4, Question 8: “In making resource decisions do you feel that the BLM 

has generally: a. Adequately addressed the economic effects of its decisions? b. Adequately addressed the social effects of its 

decisions? c. Adequately addressed the environmental effects of its decisions on minorities and low income residents (here, 

probe for tribal impacts)?” Results are shown in Figure 7, p. 308, which presents responses in yes/no format, coded from 

open-ended responses. 

56. ASEC, RAC interviews (2009), Appendix D7, Question 8a (economic effects), governmental/ public interests, p. 412. 

57. ASEC, RAC interviews (2009), Appendix D7, Question 8a (economic effects), governmental/ public interests, p. 412. 

58. ASEC, RAC interviews (2009), Appendix D5, Question 8b (social effects), commodity interests, p. 343. 

59. ASEC, RAC interviews (2009), Appendix D6, Question 8c (environmental justice effects), conservation interests, p. 378. 

60. “Guidance for Social and Economic Analysis in Grazing Environmental Impact Statements (EISs),” BLM Instruction 

Memorandum 81-99 (25 November 1980). “Ranch Analysis and Related Economic Inputs to Grazing EISs,” BLM 

Instruction Memorandum 80-579 [cited in BLM Instruction Memorandum 81-99, Encl. 1-14]. 

61. “Reference Guide to Socioeconomic Mitigation,” BLM Information Bulletin 86-318 (8 August 1986). 

62. Kristi Branch, James G. Thompson, Douglas Hooper, and James L. Creighton, Guide to Social Assessment: A Framework

for Assessing Social Change, Social Impact Assessment Series #11 (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1984). 
48 Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022

63. Appendix D: Social Science Considerations in Land Use Planning Decisions, H-1601-1, “Land Use Planning Handbook” 

(2005).

64. BLM Handbooks H-3070-1, “Economic Evaluation of Coal Properties” and H-3070-2, “Economic Evaluation of Oil 

and Gas Properties,” http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_

handbook.Par.29194.File.dat/h3070-1.pdf. H-3070-2 - Economic Evaluation of Oil and Gas Properties: http://www.blm.gov/

pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.39460.File.dat/h3070-2.pdf. 

65. “Minimum Qualifications for Socio-economic Contractors,” Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-112 (15 March 2006). 

66. “Loss of Sociological Expertise at the BLM,” draft issue paper (1987), p. 1. 

67. “Social and Economic Aspects of Planning” (course #1610-12), available in an online format through the BLM National 

Training Center’s Knowledge Resource Center website, http://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/viewresource.php?courseID=249&

programAreaId=96.

68. “The BLM: A Sound Investment for America” (2011), http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/social_science.html. 

69. BLM’s payroll, jobs, and output estimates: “The Department of the Interior’s Economic Contributions” [fiscal year 2010] 

(21 June 21 2011), pp. 7, 12-13, http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/upload/DOI-Econ-Report-6-21-2011.pdf. BLM 

and DOI fiscal year 2010 budgets: “The Department of the Interior Fiscal Year 2011 Interior Budget in Brief,” BLM Budget 

Highlights (2011), p. BH-11, and Appendix A: Comparison of 2009, 2010, and 2011 Budget Authority, p. A-14), http://

www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2011/highlights/index.cfm. For FY 2010, the BLM/DOI comparisons are: jobs 

550,016 / 2,216,985; total output $122.11 billion / $363.18 billion; payroll: $733 million / $5.05 billion; and budget 

$1.317 billion / $19.955 billion.

70. Links to the Economic Profile System–Human Dimensions Toolkit (EPS–HDT) version 6.01 and explanatory factsheets 

and training videos are available on the BLM National Training Center’s Knowledge Resource Center: http://www.ntc.blm.

gov/krc/viewresource.php?courseID=504&programAreaId=96.

71. Ecosystem Research Group, “Sublette County Socioeconomic Impact Study: Phase I Final Report,” Figure ES-2 

(Missoula, Montana, 2008).

72. “National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska Draft Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement,” Ch. 3, Affected 

Environment, Sec. 3.4.3, Subsistence, Figure 3-5 (draft November 2011).

73. Dynamac Corporation. “Colorado Plateau Rapid Ecoregional Assessment, Memorandum I-2-C: Data Identification & 

Evaluation, Section III: Data Needs Assessment” (4 December 2010), http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/

Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/landscape_approach/documents1.Par.64529.File.dat/ColoradoPlateauREA_12-

05-10FinalMemorandum_I-2-c.pdf (accessed 6 November 2011).

74. Neil E. West. “Synecology and Disturbance Regimes of Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems,” Proceedings: Sagebrush Steppe 

Ecosystems Symposium, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, Publication No. BLM/ID/PT001001+1150 (1999), 19-20, http://ris.wr.usgs.gov/general/SSSymp.pdf#page=18 (accessed 6 November 2011). 

75.	Richard L. Knight, George N. Wallace, and William E. Riebsame. “Ranching the View: Subdivisions versus Agriculture,”

Conservation Biology 9(2) (1995): 459-61.

76. J. Overpeck and B. Udall. “Dry Times Ahead,” Science 328 (25 June 2010): 1642-1643.

77. Department of the Interior Task Force on Climate Change, Report of the Subcommittee on Land and Water 

Management (2008), http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/.

78. O.A. Anisimov et al. “Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic).” Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry 

et al., eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 666.
Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 49

79. Benjamin S. Orlove and Stephen B. Brush. “Anthropology and the Conservation of Biodiversity,” Annual Review of 

Anthropology 25 (1996): 329–352.

80. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005). 

81. Information on the Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Units (CESU) Network is available at http://www.cesu.psu.edu/

default.htm. 

82. The Information Quality Act, Public Law 106-554, §515. Department of the Interior, Departmental Manual, “Integrity 

of Scientific and Scholarly Activities,” 305 DM 3, 28 January 2011. Office of Management and Budget, “Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,” Bulletin M-05-03, 16 December 2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda_

fy2005_m05-03.

Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022 51

The mention of company names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by 

the federal government.