Our Heritage, Our Future

The BLM and America’s Public Lands
Suggested citation:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2017. Our heritage, our future: The BLM and 

America’s public lands. Bureau of Land Management, Office of Communications, Washington, DC.

Copies available from:

Bureau of Land Management

National Operations Center

Printed Materials Distribution Services

Denver Federal Center, Building 50

P.O. Box 25047

Denver, CO 80225

P-267

www.blm.gov/history

The mention of company names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by the federal government.

BLM/WO/GI-18/002+1701

Dedication

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) dedicates 

this book to all of its employees—past and present. 

BLM employees serve the American public with 

enthusiasm, perseverance, creativity, conviction, 

and commitment, and it is through their vision that 

future generations will be able to experience, value, 

and enjoy our treasured public land heritage.

Fort Ord National Monument in California.
ii Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AIM Assessment, inventory, and monitoring

BLM Bureau of Land Management

EIS Environmental impact statement

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

GIS Geographic information system

GLO General Land Office

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NLCS National Landscape Conservation System

O&C Oregon and California

REA Rapid ecoregional assessment

RMP Resource management plan

Contents

Foreword __________________________________________________________________ix

Acknowledgments __________________________________________________________xi

Prologue: Management of the Public Domain Evolves, 1776–1976 __________________ 1

Chapter 1:

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act Guides the Way, 1976–1990 ___________ 3

Land Use Planning Enters A New Era_______________________________________ 3

Forest Management Generates Debate ____________________________________ 7

Range Policy Changes Focus _____________________________________________ 9

Riparian Resource Management Finds Common Ground _____________________ 10

Fish and Wildlife Inventories Lead to Habitat Protection ______________________ 12

Cultural and Heritage Resources Face Growing Threats_______________________ 15

Designated Recreational Areas Increase ___________________________________ 17

The Wilderness Inventory Process Begins __________________________________ 20

Energy and Minerals Management Focuses on Independence_________________ 23

Public Land Disposal Authority Expands___________________________________ 27

Congress Provides Law Enforcement Authority _____________________________ 30

Changes Influence Fire and Aviation Management __________________________ 34

Wild Horse and Burro Inventories Identify Issues ____________________________ 38

Notes_______________________________________________________________ 40

Chapter 2:

The Bureau Embraces Ecosystem Management, 1990–2000 _______________________ 41

An Interdisciplinary Approach Guides the Planning Process ___________________ 41

Ecosystem Management Creates Challenges _______________________________ 43

A Threatened Species Influences Northwest Forest Management ______________ 43

A Forest Summit Leads to the Development of the Northwest Forest Plan _______ 44

Science and Politics Merge in the Interior Columbia Basin ____________________ 47

Rangeland Conditions Improve__________________________________________ 49

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Improvements Help Restore Populations _____________ 51

“Riparian–Wetland Initiative for the 1990s” Establishes Restoration Goals ________ 51

The War on Weeds Gets Underway _______________________________________ 54

Abandoned Mine Cleanups Recover Lost Landscapes________________________ 54

“Recreation 2000” Ushers In New Programs and Sites ________________________ 54

Cultural and Paleontological Resources Comprise the 

“Great Outdoor Museum”_______________________________________________ 57

The President, Congress, and the Bureau Recognize Special Places _____________ 61

The Wild Horse and Burro Program Addresses Controversy____________________ 63

Energy and Minerals Management Considers Environmental Changes __________ 65

Wildland Fire Management Reaches a Turning Point _________________________ 68

Congress Passes Realty Management Reforms______________________________ 71

The Bureau Develops a Professional Law Enforcement Program________________ 71

Notes_______________________________________________________________ 74

Adobe Town Wilderness Study Area in Wyoming.
iv Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands v

Chapter 3:

Collaborative Management Helps Address 21st Century Challenges, 2000–2009 _____ 75

The Secretary Establishes the National Landscape Conservation System_________ 75

Public Lands Experience Record Fire Seasons_______________________________ 82

A National Energy Policy Emerges________________________________________ 87

The President Launches the Healthy Forests Initiative ________________________ 95

The Bureau Revises Its Western Oregon Plans ______________________________ 96

The Secretary Announces the Healthy Lands Initiative _______________________ 97

Habitat Assessments Take a Landscape Approach ___________________________ 99

The Bureau Focuses on Healthy, Sustainable Rangelands ____________________ 105

The Wild Horse and Burro Program Reaches a Critical Crossroads______________ 107

Cultural and Paleontological Resources Take the Spotlight ___________________ 109

Recreation Management Focuses on Outcomes ___________________________ 112

The Lands and Realty Program Tackles Challenges _________________________ 114

Law Enforcement Collaborates with Local Partners _________________________ 118

A New West Leads to a Renewed Planning Emphasis _______________________ 123

The Bureau Develops a 21st Century Workforce____________________________ 127

The Secretary Designates the National System of Public Lands _______________ 131

Notes______________________________________________________________ 133

Featured Stories

Chapter 1 __________________________________________________________________ 3

The Transforming Effect of the Natural Resources Defense Council Consent Decree

 By D. Dean Bibles _________________________________________________ 9

Grazing Fees: The Next Generation

 By Judy Nelson__________________________________________________ 11

Evolution of a Biologist

 By Tim Carrigan _________________________________________________ 14

Working Underground for the Bureau of Land Management

 By James Goodbar_______________________________________________ 16

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

 By Theresa Herrera_______________________________________________ 18

The Battle to Conserve the “Crown Jewels”

 By Cecil D. Andrus _______________________________________________ 22

The Year of Three Agencies

 By Larry Bauer __________________________________________________ 25

Northern Futures

 By Bob Faithful__________________________________________________ 28

A Long Tradition of Federal Resource Protection

 By Steven Martin ________________________________________________ 30

The Sagebrush Ceiling

 By Lynell Schalk _________________________________________________ 33

Firefighting: Then and Now

 By The BLM’s National Interagency Fire Center External Affairs Staff _________ 36

Adoptions Place Mustangs in Good Homes

 By Sarah Beckwith _______________________________________________ 39

Chapter 4:

National Concerns Lead the Bureau in a New Direction, 2009–2012________________ 137

America Invests in Jobs _______________________________________________ 137

Energy and Minerals Programs Undergo Changes__________________________ 138

Initiatives Address Climate Change on Public Lands ________________________ 141

The National Landscape Conservation System Becomes Permanent ___________ 144

Recreation Demands Continue to Grow __________________________________ 150

Partners, Youth, and Volunteers Pitch In __________________________________ 151

Large-Scale Efforts Require a Strategic Planning Approach___________________ 153

Wildlife Habitat Conservation Stretches Across Landscapes __________________ 153

Fire Policy Allows Management for Multiple Objectives _____________________ 155

A Task Force Revisits Northwestern Forest Issues ___________________________ 157

The Rangeland Program Addresses Drought Conditions_____________________ 158

The Secretary Develops a New Wild Horse and Burro Strategy ________________ 158

Lands, Realty, and Cadastral Survey Programs Support Bureau Priorities________ 160

Law Enforcement Officers Protect Against Resource Damage

and Threats to Public Safety____________________________________________ 165

Public Lands Provide Economic and Intrinsic Value _________________________ 166

Notes______________________________________________________________ 169

Epilogue: The Bureau Looks to the Future, 2013 and Beyond _____________________ 173

Appendix: Directors of the Bureau of Land Management ________________________ 174

Index____________________________________________________________________ 177

Chapter 2 _________________________________________________________________ 41

Ecosystem Thinking Comes to the Public Lands

 By Mike Dombeck _______________________________________________ 42

Creating Options in Western Oregon

 By Mike Benefield________________________________________________ 44

The Road Less Traveled

 By Gloria Brown _________________________________________________ 46

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

 By Cathy Humphrey______________________________________________ 48

The First Resource Advisory Council Meeting—The First Broadcast

 By Chip Calamaio _______________________________________________ 50

The Evolution of Aquatic Resource Management in the BLM

 By Mike Crouse__________________________________________________ 53

The Fortymile National Wild and Scenic River

 By Gene Ervine__________________________________________________ 55

Leading by Example: Volunteers and Friends Groups

 By Dave Hunsaker _______________________________________________ 56

Who Owns Big Al?

 By John P. Lee___________________________________________________ 57

The Bisti Beast: The First Paleontological Excavation in BLM Wilderness

 By Pat Hester ___________________________________________________ 58

Environmental Education on the Ground: Native Plant Restoration at

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

 By Beth Kampschror______________________________________________ 60

Reminiscences of Wilderness and Training

 Compiled by Jim Foote____________________________________________ 62

Managing the BLM’s Helium Program

 By Leslie A. Theiss________________________________________________ 67

From Chains to Lasers and Global Satellites

 By Robert Casias ________________________________________________ 70

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail in Colorado.
vi Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands vii

Chapter 3 _________________________________________________________________ 75

Establishment of the National Landscape Conservation System

 By Tom Fry _____________________________________________________ 77

The National Landscape Conservation System Extends to the Subtropics

 By Bruce Dawson________________________________________________ 79

Pulling Together to Preserve History

 By Mike Abel ___________________________________________________ 81

Great Basin Restoration Initiative

 By Mike Pellant__________________________________________________ 82

Invasive Species Alter Fire Regimes and Fire Operations

 By Ken Frederick_________________________________________________ 84

Life on a BLM Engine

 By Kari Boyd-Peak _______________________________________________ 85

Milford Flat: Utah’s Largest Fire Rehabilitation Project

 By Lola Bird ____________________________________________________ 86

Powder River Basin Resurveys: 20 years—16,000 Monuments

 By Joel T. Ebner__________________________________________________ 89

The Legendary Roan Plateau

 By Jamie Connell, with David Boyd __________________________________ 91

Just How Big Is That Right-Of-Way Grant?

 By Tom Hurshman _______________________________________________ 93

The BLM’s Innovative Approaches to Renewable Energy Development in Arizona

 By Kathy Pedrick ________________________________________________ 94

Restore New Mexico: A Model for the Nation

 By Jesse Juen ___________________________________________________ 98

Looking Beyond the Strutting Grounds: Changing the Way the BLM Manages 

Wildlife Habitat

 By Dale Tribby _________________________________________________ 100

Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Program 1992–2011

 By Lori Cook ___________________________________________________ 102

The Native Plant Materials Development Program and Seeds of Success

 By Peggy Olwell ________________________________________________ 104

Terror Comes to the High Desert: BLM Wild Horse and Burro Corrals 

Are Firebombed

 By Joseph Fontana______________________________________________ 108

Chapter 4 ________________________________________________________________ 137

From Alaskan Sourdough to Little Miss Sunshine

 By Linda Resseguie______________________________________________ 140

The BLM Takes a Landscape Approach

 By Kit Muller and Barry Rose ______________________________________ 143

Owyhee Canyonlands: A Lesson in Perseverance

 By Robin Fehlau ________________________________________________ 145

Celebrating Science in the National Landscape Conservation System

 By Marietta Eaton ______________________________________________ 147

Celebrating the Legacy and Centennial of the Iditarod National Historic Trail

 By Kevin Keeler_________________________________________________ 149

America’s Backyard: The Growth of Outdoor Recreation on BLM Lands

 By Bob Ratcliffe and David O. Howell________________________________ 151

Technological Changes Enhance Safety, Operations in Wildland Firefighting

 By Sheri Ascherfeld _____________________________________________ 156

Land and Water Conservation Fund Acquisitions

 By David Beaver________________________________________________ 162

The Road to Resolution: Revised Statute 2477

 By Jeff Holdren_________________________________________________ 164

The Value of the BLM’s Wild Side: Western Communities Benefit

from Open Landscapes

 By Luther Propst________________________________________________ 167

Is Democracy Compatible with Conservation?

 By Patricia Nelson Limerick _______________________________________ 168

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009

 By Lucia Kuizon ________________________________________________ 110

Managing a Modern Day Fossil Bone Rush

 By Alan L. Titus_________________________________________________ 111

Travel Management Is Everyone’s Business

 By Mark Goldbach ______________________________________________ 112

Shelf Road Climbing Area: The BLM and the Climbing Community Scale the 

Heights of Partnership

 By Mark Hesse _________________________________________________ 113

New Century Brings New Funding for Land Acquisitions

 By David Beaver________________________________________________ 115

Alaska Land Transfer

 By Ramona Chinn and Christy Favorite ______________________________ 116

Stones and “Bones” Set by William (Billy) Octavius Owen in Wyoming

 By J.D. “Sam” Drucker____________________________________________ 117

Special Agents Work with Resource Specialists to Uncover Fraud and Theft

 By Joe Nardinger _______________________________________________ 119

BLM Investigative Work Leads to Arson Convictions

 By Kyle Gandiaga_______________________________________________ 120

The BLM Meets the Counterculture at the Burning Man Festival

 By Doran Sanchez ______________________________________________ 122

Tribal Consultation

 By James G. Kenna______________________________________________ 126

The Changing Face of the BLM

 By Melissa Dukes _______________________________________________ 127

The Maturing of the BLM’s Tribal Relationships

 By Cheryle Cobell Zwang _________________________________________ 129

Back to the Future: Changes in the BLM’s Organization in the 21st Century

 By Rebecca Mack and Alexandra Ritchie _____________________________ 130

A Director’s Perspective: 2007-2009

 By James L. Caswell _____________________________________________ 132

White Mountains National Recreation Area in Alaska (L and R photos).
Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands ix

Foreword

being good neighbors and recognizing traditional 

uses of public lands.

We do this through the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act, passed by Congress in 1976. This 

law enables us to promote multiple uses of public 

lands so that they may best meet the present and 

future needs of the American people.

Applying multiple use management requires broad 

knowledge and skill. This is because of the breadth 

and diversity of today’s public land resources and 

what they mean to the public. But the BLM has 

considerable experience to rely on.

You see, the BLM’s roots go back to the early 

years after America’s independence, when the 

young nation began acquiring additional lands. 

At first, Congress used these lands to encourage 

homesteading and westward migration. To support 

this national goal, Congress created the GLO. Over 

time, values and attitudes regarding public lands 

Old homestead in Idaho.

This book highlights the recent history of the 

BLM and serves as a sequel to “Opportunity and 

Challenge: The Story of BLM,” released in 1988. It 

reviews significant changes that occurred within 

the agency through 2012 and explains how those 

changes affect public lands today. Together, the 

two books present a brief history of public land 

management, from the creation of the General 

Land Office (GLO) in 1812 to the 200th anniversary 

of the GLO in 2012.

While the book recognizes the Bureau’s evolution 

from the GLO, we also consider this work a 

reflection of how well suited the BLM is to 

address the Trump administration’s priorities. 

This means supporting energy independence 

through environmentally responsible development; 

promoting conservation through shared 

stewardship; making America safe through effective 

border management; promoting jobs on working 

landscapes; and serving the American family by 

shifted, and Congress merged the GLO and another 

agency, the U.S. Grazing Service, creating our 

agency in 1946.

This book is unique in that it draws largely from the 

firsthand experiences of current and former BLM 

employees. They are not historians, but they have 

lived a specialized history, implementing evolving 

public land management direction and meeting 

the late 20th and early 21st century challenges of 

multiple use management in the face of increasing 

demands for public land uses. In short, they are 

real Americans working to turn public policy into 

reality on the ground.

In reading “Our Heritage, Our Future: The BLM 

and America’s Public Lands,” I am confident you 

will see that as history has shaped public lands 

and how they are used, our agency has been there 

to meet the opportunities and challenges that 

accompany change.

Michael D. Nedd

Acting Deputy Director, Operations

Bureau of Land Management 

Rogue River Ranch National Historic Site in Oregon.
Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands xi

Acknowledgments

Derrick Henry, Linda Hill, Dave Hunsaker, 

Jennifer Kapus, Jeff Kitchens, Jeff Krauss, 

Elizabeth Rieben, Mitch Snow, Hans Stuart, 

Kyle Sullivan, Twinkle Thompson, and 

Bev Winston. The team is indebted to the book’s 

authors: Derrick Baldwin, Bibi Booth, Elaine Brong, 

Don Buhler, Brianna Candelaria, Bob Casias, 

Elena Daly, Randy Eardley, Shelly Fischman, 

Tony Garrett, Kim Harb, Margaret (Megg) Heath, 

Jeff Holdren, Jeff Kitchens, Steve Martin, 

Geoff Middaugh, Jeanne Moe, Elizabeth Rieben, 

Don Smurthwaite, Mitch Snow, Matt Spangler, 

Hans Stuart, Twinkle Thompson, and 

Elizabeth (Betsy) Wooster. Tremendous gratitude 

goes to these authors as well as the authors of more 

than 200 sidebars for sharing stories that so enrich 

the BLM’s literary landscape and celebrate our 

public land heritage. 

Basin and Range National Monument in Nevada.

The BLM produced “Our Heritage, Our Future: 

The BLM and America’s Public Lands” as part of a 

commemoration of two important anniversaries: 

the creation of the General Land Office in 1812 

and passage of the Homestead Act of 1862. The 

BLM and numerous partners launched a variety 

of additional efforts in 2012, including holding 

local and national celebrations and symposia, 

establishing a history website, and developing an 

illustrated timeline of major events in the BLM’s 

history. One such partner, the Public Lands 

Foundation, which is largely comprised of BLM 

retirees, provided assistance in developing some of 

the material included in this book, and many of its 

members participated in the events described here.

A BLM history team produced the book, the 

website, and other educational products. The 

team consisted of Celia Boddington, Peter Doran, 

The book could not have been written without 

the assistance and contributions of Brian Amme, 

Joe Ashor, Shayne Banks, Chip Calamaio, 

Don Charpio, Glen Collins, Elena Fink, 

Sam Guagush, Rich Hanson, Dave Harmon, 

Deborah Harnke, Robin Hawks, Antonia Hedrick, 

Rob Hellie, Sherry Hendren, Doug Herrema, 

Michael Hildner, Jeff Jarvis, Marilyn Johnson, 

Barbara Klassen, Jerry Magee, Dick Mayberry, 

Dennis McLane, Kim Menning, Ted Milesnick, 

Cynthia Moses-Nedd, Kit Muller, Lauren Pidot, 

Bob Ratcliffe, Deb Rawhouser, Linda Rundell, 

Deb Salt, Laurie Sedlmayr, Ed Shepard, Tim Spisak, 

Bob Stahl, Joe Stout, Andrew Strasfogel, 

Mary Tisdale, Jeanne Van Lancker, Bob Wick, 

Davina Wilkins, and Elaine Zielinski.

Gooseberry Mesa National Recreation Trail in Utah.
Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands

1

Prologue | Management of the Public Domain Evolves, 1776–1976

further settlement followed, including the Timber 

Culture Act, Desert Land Act, and Stock Raising 

Homestead Act. 

At the beginning of the 20th century, President 

Theodore Roosevelt promoted the idea that land 

and its resources had an inherent worth beyond 

extraction and development. Roosevelt, one of 

history’s great conservationists, focused on using 

public lands to promote the best and highest use 

of resources while also considering future 

generations and their needs. During his tenure, 

President Roosevelt oversaw the creation of 

150 national forests, more than 20 national 

parks and monuments, and 55 bird and wildlife 

reserves, leaving a permanent mark on the nation’s 

public domain.

With fewer than 200 million acres of vacant public 

domain remaining by the 1920s, free and open 

land had become a rare commodity for those 

looking to develop large farming or ranching 

operations. Furthermore, the land that remained 

was often overgrazed. In 1928, Congress authorized 

the Mizpah-Pumpkin Creek Grazing District in 

Montana, the first grazing district on public lands. 

An association of ranchers leased these lands and 

instituted conservative grazing practices. Ranchers 

from across the West soon petitioned for similar 

grazing reserves in their areas, which led to passage 

of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934. After signing 

the act, President Franklin Roosevelt withdrew 

all vacant, unreserved, and unappropriated public 

lands in the West from entry for other than mineral 

use so that grazing districts could be set aside and 

the remaining public lands classified for their best 

use. The Department of the

Interior created the Division of

Grazing, which would later

become the Grazing Service,

to administer these

grazing districts.

In 1946, seeking to relieve

tensions over grazing fee

increases between the Grazing

Service and Congress, Secretary

of the Interior Harold Ickes

recommended merging the

Grazing Service with the GLO. 

President Harry Truman

forwarded the proposal to 

Congress as part of his 

Reorganization Plan No. 3, and

on July 16, 1946, the Grazing

Service and the GLO became

the BLM. The BLM not only

inherited the duties of the GLO

and Grazing Service, it also

incorporated the Alaska Fire

Service, various revested lands

(including the Oregon and

California Railroad lands and

the Coos Bay Wagon Road

A Montana ranch (1872).

President

Theodore Roosevelt.

President

Franklin Roosevelt.

President

Harry Truman.

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) story 

began with the 1783 Treaty of Paris, marking 

the end of the Revolutionary War. Great Britain 

relinquished its claim to the 13 colonies and ceded 

another 237 million acres of land reaching west to 

the Mississippi River, forming the nation’s original 

“public domain.” In 1785, the United States created 

a Land Ordinance that became the basis for the 

surveying, securing, and selling of all public lands 

into the future. 

From 1803 to 1867, the United States acquired over 

a billion acres of land, including Florida, Texas, the 

Southwest, the Northwest, and Alaska. To oversee 

the disposition of these lands, Congress established 

the General Land Office (GLO) in the Treasury 

Department in 1812. In 1849, the GLO moved to 

the newly formed Department of the Interior. 

Between 1850 and the early 1900s, the United States 

focused on three key areas related to public land 

management: transportation, resource use and 

extraction, and homesteading. During this period, 

the United States established its first reserves for 

timber and lead. Through land grants for wagon 

roads and canals in the 1820s, the nation set a 

clear precedent for determining where and how to 

establish infrastructure. In 1862, Congress passed 

the Homestead Act, which opened the floodgate of 

settlement in the West by giving 160 acres of land 

to qualified persons who had lived on the land and 

improved it for 5 years. Other acts encouraging 

Immigrants traveling west.
2 Prologue | 1776–1976 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 3

lands), and multiple

mineral reserves. 

The reorganization plan

did not provide a clear

mandate or any additional

formalized direction.

Fred Johnson, the first

director of the BLM,

headed an agency of

almost 700 employees, 

most of them having worked for the GLO in the 

Washington Office. Just 86 employees oversaw 

150 million acres of grazing land. By 1948, 

continued controversy led to major budget cuts for 

the agency, reducing staff by more than half and 

barely funding most programs. 

In 1948, Secretary of the Interior J.A. Krug named 

Marion Clawson as the BLM’s second director. 

Clawson reorganized the BLM and laid the 

foundation for the agency’s multiple use mission. 

During the 1950s, the BLM formalized its forestry, 

recreation, minerals management, wild horse and 

burro, and wildlife programs. 

The 1960s brought rapid growth and fundamental 

change to the BLM, permanently altering the 

Bureau’s course. President John Kennedy asked the 

BLM to accelerate its inventory of the public lands 

and develop a program of balanced use to reconcile 

resource conflicts. The agency also began taking 

on its first conservation-focused lands in the form 

of wild and scenic rivers and national scenic and 

historic trails. 

In 1964, Congress established the Public Land Law 

Review Commission to study the nation’s 3,000 

land laws and federal management of the public 

domain to identify problems and recommend 

new policies, programs, and legislation. In its 

1970 report, “One Third of the Nation’s Land,” the 

Commission recommended that the United States 

consider retaining most of the public domain.

From the late 1960s through the mid-1970s, 

Congress passed a host of new laws, including the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Air 

Quality Act, Wild and Free Roaming Horses and 

Burros Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

Endangered Species Act, and Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, that would change how the 

BLM did business. However, none of these would 

match the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) of 1976, the BLM’s Organic Act, for 

the change it would bring to the agency. FLPMA 

(pronounced flip-ma) formally recognized what the 

BLM had been doing for many years: managing the 

public lands under the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield.

Land Use Planning Enters a New Era

FLPMA represented a fundamental change in 

public attitudes about the management of the 

nation’s public lands. For the first time, Congress 

stated that America’s public lands comprised 

nationally significant resources and recommended 

retaining them in public ownership.

This new policy sparked an era of comprehensive 

land use planning in the BLM that

guided future management of the

public domain for the benefit of the

American people. FLPMA mandated

that the Secretary of the Interior,

through the BLM, conduct land use

planning using a “systematic

interdisciplinary approach, to achieve

integrated consideration of physical,

biological, economic, and other

sciences” in support of multiple use,

which it defined in part as “harmonious

and coordinated management of the

various resources,” and sustained yield

principles. An important requirement

was that the BLM coordinate with other

federal agencies and state, local, and

tribal governments and involve the

public in developing the new land

use plans. 

The BLM began developing this new land use 

planning system in the late 1970s, incorporating 

FLPMA’s core mandates of multiple use and 

sustained yield of resources. This new system built 

upon the BLM’s management framework plans of 

the 1960s, eventually replacing them with resource 

management plans (RMPs).1 Over the next several 

decades, the BLM continually refined and improved 

its land use planning process and adapted it to a 

changing West and a changing world. 

Timber sale on public lands in Wyoming (1965).

President

John Kennedy.

BLM range conservationists working in the Poncha Pass Resource

Conservation Area south of Salida, Colorado (1962).

Pompeys Pillar National Monument in Montana.

Chapter 1 | The Federal Land Policy and Management Act Guides the Way, 1976–1990

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 was landmark legislation that established the 

mission of the Bureau of Land Management along 

with the initial statutory authorities necessary to 

advance that mission. FLPMA merged the many 

disparate public interests and values of the public 

lands into one unified mission of “multiple use and 

sustained yield.” 

The policy embodied in FLPMA reflected an 

evolution that had already begun within the 

BLM and one that continues today—a holistic 

perspective of the land that recognizes the 

interdependence of resources and the necessity of 

using scientific and interdisciplinary methods to 

manage them.

BLM Director

Fred Johnson.
4 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands

5

Planning Ties to Other Federal Land Policy

and Management Act Requirements

To enhance the BLM’s management and 

decisionmaking capability, FLPMA directed that 

the Bureau “prepare and maintain on a continuing 

basis an inventory of all public lands and their 

resource and other values” and that “this inventory 

shall be kept current so as to reflect changes in 

conditions and to identify new and emerging 

resource and other values.” The BLM expanded its 

existing inventory efforts to comply with FLPMA’s 

more demanding requirement to catalog and 

quantify rangelands, fish and wildlife habitat, 

mineral and archaeological resources, recreational 

opportunities, lands with wilderness characteristics, 

and other values on the public lands. 

FLPMA also required the BLM to recognize and 

manage areas of critical environmental concern 

and to give priority to designation through the 

planning process. FLPMA defined these areas as 

public lands where special management attention 

is required to protect historic, cultural, or scenic 

values; fish and wildlife resources; and other natural 

systems. Furthermore, FLPMA allowed the BLM to 

designate areas of critical environmental concern 

to protect life and safety from natural hazards that 

require management action. 

In testimony given to the House of Representatives 

in 1971, Secretary of the Interior Rogers C.B. 

Morton stated: 

“The identification of the most critical 

environmental areas will be given a high 

priority by this Department so that those 

areas may be given the protection they so 

urgently need. . . . The national resource 

The California Desert Becomes

a Planning Showcase

Among the specific land use directives included 

in FLPMA was a provision calling for the creation 

of the California Desert Conservation Area. 

Managing nearly 11 million acres of public lands in 

the southern California desert area had become a 

singular challenge for the BLM. Public use of these 

desert lands had rapidly increased over the years, 

along with competition among user groups and 

degradation of the desert ecosystem.

FLPMA’s directive for a “comprehensive longrange plan” for the area launched one of the most 

extensive planning efforts ever undertaken by the 

BLM. The Bureau hired more than 60 planners 

and resource specialists and dedicated millions 

of dollars to extensive resource inventories, 

monitoring, and regular revisions. The BLM 

designed the California Desert Conservation 

Area plan to be dynamic and adaptable. The 

result became a showcase for the BLM’s resource 

management planning efforts. The BLM had 

succeeded in meeting all of Congress’ requirements 

with a plan that balanced the diverse public 

demands and needs. 

It soon became clear, however, that the Bureau 

could not replicate the level and intensity of effort 

devoted to the California Desert Conservation Area 

plan for other plans. Nevertheless, the BLM carried 

many components forward in its planning system, 

such as inventory and monitoring, the use of early 

geographic information system (GIS) technology, 

and the creation of an automated system to collect 

information. The BLM piloted new programs, such 

as wilderness and visual resource management, in 

the California desert planning process that became 

models for adoption Bureauwide.

lands are in a real sense our last frontier. We 

cannot afford to squander their riches.”

2

Over the next 40 years, the BLM designated nearly 

1,000 areas of critical environmental concern, 

protecting important characteristics and values of 

more than 20 million acres of public lands. 

Additionally, FLPMA directed the BLM to “take 

any action necessary to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation of the lands.” The BLM 

applied this standard of “undue degradation” on 

authorizations in all of its program areas. The 

broad discretion provided by this standard allowed 

the BLM to restrict certain uses, such as the 

development of mining claims or mineral leases, 

to protect land and other resources. The authority 

was strengthened a year later by the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act, which authorized the 

Secretary of the Interior to designate certain federal 

lands as unsuitable for coal mining operations. 

In FLPMA, Congress also stated its policy that 

“the public lands be managed in a manner which 

recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources 

of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public 

lands.” Fulfilling its multiple use and sustained 

yield mission required the BLM to balance the 

need for these commodities with other land 

uses and environmental values. This challenge 

was noted as early as 1970 by the Public Land 

Law Review Commission, which recommended 

that Congress “establish firm preferences among 

uses” or “establish statutory standards reflecting 

value judgments as to the prevailing importance 

of various broad objectives served by the public 

lands.” However, neither Commission members 

nor Congress could agree on how to accomplish 

this ordering of user preferences or prioritizing of 

public lands values. In the end, the BLM used its 

own discretion in making such determinations.

The BLM made critical decisions for allocating 

the land’s resources at the land use planning stage. 

“Land use planning is the backbone of the BLM, 

the blueprint for everything we do,” said Elaine 

Zielinski, a former BLM state director for Oregon 

and Arizona. “It’s the arena where the public and 

organizations have the most impact on how public 

lands are managed.” Planning decisions identified 

the activities and foreseeable development 

allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or a part of 

the planning area over the life of the plan. More 

extensive resource inventories and monitoring data 

helped the BLM make more informed decisions but 

did not necessarily make the decisions any easier. 

Nor did they enable managers to avoid controversy 

when making hard choices.

Grazing on reclaimed land in Colstrip, Montana (1975).

California Desert Conservation Area.
6 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 7

Planning Addresses

Environmental Concerns

Before FLPMA’s passage, Congress had enacted 

major environmental legislation during the 1960s 

and 1970s—the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, the National Trails 

System Act of 1968, the Clean Air Act of 1970, 

the Clean Water Act of 1972, and the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. For the BLM and its planning 

program, the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 had the greatest impact.

Reflecting the strength of the nation’s 

environmental movement, the Senate unanimously 

passed NEPA and President Richard Nixon signed 

it into law on January 1, 1970. “By my participation 

in these efforts,” Nixon said, “I have become further 

convinced that the 1970’s absolutely must be the 

years when America pays its debt to the past by 

reclaiming the purity of its air, its waters, and our 

living environment. It is literally now or never.”3

A Sagebrush Rebellion Arises

FLPMA’s planning provisions gave state and 

local governments greater influence in public 

land management than ever before. Federal land 

policy was changing direction toward more 

balanced management for multiple use, sustained 

yield, and a greater emphasis on conservation of 

natural resources, and these changes raised some 

opposition.

This opposition coalesced in a “Sagebrush 

Rebellion” that found its voice in the Nevada 

Legislature in 1979 with passage of a bill to give 

the state control of certain BLM lands within 

Nevada’s borders. Similar measures soon followed 

in the Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and 

Wyoming legislatures.

Though the Sagebrush Rebellion failed in its 

stated goal of giving western states control over 

public lands within their borders, it succeeded in 

promoting the causes of traditional public land 

users, including ranching, mining, timber, and 

other interests. 

In 1980, John D. Leshy,5 assistant solicitor for the 

Department of the Interior, predicted that the 

Sagebrush Rebellion would ultimately be viewed 

as representing “not the beginnings of a second 

American Revolution, but instead a last gasp of 

NEPA’s statement of purpose echoed the nation’s 

new concern for the environment—and its idealism 

in addressing conservation issues:

“To declare national policy which will 

encourage productive and enjoyable 

harmony between man and his environment; 

to promote efforts which will prevent or 

eliminate damage to the environment and 

biosphere and stimulate the health and 

welfare of man; to enrich the understanding 

of the ecological systems and natural 

resources important to the Nation . . . ”

Congress intended that NEPA would ensure more 

informed decisionmaking on federal actions that 

may affect the environment. NEPA required federal 

agencies to analyze significant impacts from major 

proposed federal or federally funded actions—and 

to disclose them to the public—before making 

decisions. It required agencies to present their 

actions, discuss them with the public, and develop 

final management actions after extensive on-theground evaluation and public notification of a 

range of possible alternatives. 

NEPA requirements dramatically changed the 

way the BLM authorized activities on the public 

lands. The BLM could still make decisions that 

would have adverse impacts on the environment 

but was required to incorporate detailed analyses 

of proposed actions and alternatives, both at the 

local level and cumulatively across regions and over 

longer timeframes. 

The following years severely and relentlessly 

tested NEPA’s vision for “productive and enjoyable 

harmony between man and his environment” and 

FLPMA’s vision for “harmonious and coordinated 

management” of public land resources. As former 

BLM Director Frank Gregg said, “With the passage 

of FLPMA in 1976, BLM had reason to hope for 

a period of stability, a window of opportunity 

to concentrate on refinement of multiple use 

management systems for the public lands. It didn’t 

work out that way. On the contrary, the years 

immediately after FLPMA were arguably among the 

most politically volatile in public land history.”4

A forester drawing a map of a recreation site in Oregon (1970).

BLM Director

Frank Gregg.

a passing era, a poignant effort to turn back the 

clock to the days when competition among uses 

of federal lands was rare, when resources seemed 

inexhaustible, and when a consensus existed 

for exploitation.”6

“Yet there are reasons to welcome it,” Leshy wrote. 

“For one thing, it will focus attention on positive 

as well as negative attributes of federal land 

ownership, out of which may ultimately emerge 

an even stronger consensus for sound 

land management.”

Forest Management Generates Debate

No BLM program became more controversial than 

forest management within the lands covered by the 

Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained 

Yield Management Act of 1937, known as the 

“O&C lands,” and within the BLM’s remaining 

public domain forests. 

The war effort and the postwar housing boom of 

the 1940s required the timber industry to accelerate 

the harvest of industrial forest lands with the 

understanding that the federal forests would help 

fill the nation’s growing need for timber while the 

next rotation grew in private forests. 

The Public Land Law Review Commission, in its 

1970 report, expressed its belief that federal policy 

for timber management and investment should be 

market-driven: 

“On dominant timber production areas, 

this will mean that the primary directive 

to the public land management agencies 

should be to maximize the net dollar 

return to the Federal Treasury in the long 

run. This does not mean, of course, that 

other considerations on these lands are 

not important. We do not believe that the 

use of economic guidelines will lead to a 

deterioration of the land and its capacity to 

produce other values.”7

Likewise, the 1973 President’s Advisory Panel on 

Timber and the Environment called for substantial 

increases in federal timber production and noted 

the possibilities for increasing production from oldgrowth forests by 50 to 100 percent.8

President Nixon signing the National

Environmental Policy Act on January 1, 1970.

Photo courtesy of the Nixon Presidential Library.

Timber sale in the Coos Bay District in Oregon.

In 1975, in compliance with NEPA, the BLM 

completed a programwide, or “programmatic,” 

environmental impact statement (EIS) for its forest 

management activities. Within a year, however, the 

National Resources Defense Council challenged 

the adequacy of the EIS. The subsequent lawsuit 

settlement required the BLM to prepare EISs for 

13 sustained yield units in western Oregon, 1 unit 

in northern California, and 1 unit in northern 

Idaho. During this process, the BLM also updated 

its timber management plans, completing them 

in 1983.

FLPMA called for balanced management of public land uses.
8 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 9

Congress and succeeding administrations 

continued to fund the BLM and U.S. Forest Service 

timber production programs at or near the historic 

harvest levels of the mid-1960s. In June 1979, 

President Jimmy Carter, seeking to reduce the 

inflationary effects of timber prices on housing, 

ordered the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service to 

put aside the policy of “non-declining even flow,” 

which would limit timber sales to “a quantity equal 

to or less than a quantity which can be removed 

from such forest annually in perpetuity.” President 

Carter’s order called for accelerated production—

even from old-growth forests, wherever it was 

economically and environmentally feasible.

The BLM continued to comply with environmental 

statutes and policy directives that governed federal 

forest management. In 1979, the Bureau began 

updating land use plans, timber plans, and 

EISs for its 16 forest planning areas in Oregon 

and California.

The increased rate of timber harvests, including old 

growth, along with the practice of clearcutting and 

the use of herbicides to aid reforestation, sparked 

a protest movement by environmental activists 

that spread across the Pacific Northwest and lasted 

for decades. Many environmental organizations 

held nonviolent demonstrations. Protest groups 

such as Earth First! used more aggressive tactics. 

“The Spokesman-Review” captured the wrath that 

this organization provoked among forest industry 

supporters years later in a 1996 editorial:

“In Earth First! speak ‘fun’ means a group 

of screwballs chaining themselves to gates, 

trucks, equipment and even a buffet table; 

pouring sand in gas tanks; draining oil from 

police cars, burying themselves in a logging 

road; trespassing; sitting in trees—

Range Policy Changes Focus

Before the

enactment of

NEPA, managing

rangelands—

which represent

about three-fourths

of all BLM public

lands—had been

a relatively

straightforward

process under the

Taylor Grazing Act

of 1934. The act

allowed rangelands

deemed “chiefly valuable for grazing and raising 

forage crops” to be divided into grazing districts. 

A “district grazier” generally had no reason to look 

anything that will hamper legal logging 

on public land.”9

The rising tide of environmental opposition 

to federal timber practices and the political 

and economic counterpressures for increased 

production grew more intense in the 1980s, 

heading toward what Presidential candidate 

Bill Clinton later described as a “train wreck.”10

Even as the environmental movement was gaining 

momentum in its fight to protect old-growth 

forests and change clearcutting and herbicide 

practices, federal timber policy continued to call for 

aggressive timber production. 

In the early 1980s, with growing interest in the 

potential of alternative sources of energy, the 

BLM began to consider the energy and economic 

potential of the 21 million acres of woodlands 

(as opposed to the commercial timber forest lands) 

it managed. In 1983, the Bureau reported that 

woodlands contained an estimated 200 million 

cords of firewood or the energy equivalent of 

761 million barrels of fuel oil. Residues from 

timber harvests also represented significant energy 

potential. Subsequent inventories and economic, 

environmental, social, and technological studies 

led the BLM to develop a robust program for 

support of biomass energy, along with a variety of 

nontimber forest products. 

Annual timber sale volumes from Oregon and 

Washington public domain lands during the 1980s 

ranged from 0 to 5 million board feet. Timber sales 

from these lands were often valuable to local mills 

that could harvest on these lower elevation forests 

when snow kept them out of the higher U.S. Forest 

Service lands. Those lands did not have the same 

mandate to produce timber as the O&C lands, so 

production often fluctuated. The BLM’s first policy 

for its forestry program gave direction to manage 

for forest health, with forest products being a 

byproduct of treatments rather than the objective 

of management.

Rapid economic growth in the mid- to late 1980s 

created additional demand for and acceleration of 

timber harvests. In 1988, the BLM reported that 

timber harvests from all BLM forests in western 

Oregon had reached a 10-year high, totaling 

1.64 billion board feet. Federal receipts from the 

harvests came to $200 million, with the 18 O&C 

counties receiving 50 percent. Yet the numbers 

contained a footnote that signaled a shift in future 

policies. The BLM had not been able to offer the 

full allowable harvest level of 1.176 billion board 

feet for sale in 1988 due to a preliminary court 

injunction halting the harvest of timber in areas 

assumed to be habitat for the northern spotted owl. 

The courts vacated the injunction after Congress 

approved the Northwest Timber Compromise of 

1989 to legislate a solution

to a conflict that would

allow harvest of old

growth timber while

enhancing protections for

the northern spotted owl.

However, the legislation

was effective for only

1 year. When the

“compromise” expired, a

new era of legal and social

conflict over forest

management in the Pacific

Northwest began, persisting

throughout the following

decade and beyond.

Northern spotted owl.

beyond the boundaries of a given grazing district 

to perform his duties, which were typically 

limited to deciding how to allocate forage among 

livestock operators. 

The laws passed during the 1970s, sometimes 

referred to as the “decade of the environment,” had 

a profound influence on the direction of the BLM’s 

range management program. To the BLM’s credit, 

however, the transformation of range policy from 

the narrowly defined discipline of bygone days to a 

more comprehensive and interdisciplinary function 

originated from the Bureau’s own leaders, not from 

the environmental movement and the legislation 

it spawned. 

The transformation began under the BLM’s first 

director, Marion Clawson (1948-1953). It continued 

under succeeding directors, who recognized that 

the predominant use of livestock grazing was 

“hitched”—as naturalist John Muir would say—to 

the health of the soil, vegetation, riparian areas, fish 

and wildlife, public recreation, and other public 

land uses and values.

In 1974, a landmark court ruling in the Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. Morton case 

dramatically influenced the pace of change. The 

BLM developed, as it had with its forest program, a 

national programmatic EIS on its grazing program 

to comply with NEPA. The BLM did not examine 

impacts of grazing at the local level, planning to 

address them later, if and when appropriate. The 

Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit. The 

court sided with the plaintiffs, agreeing that, for 

locally specific decisions, NEPA required a “finely 

tuned and systematic balancing analysis” at the 

local level as well as programmatically.11

The Transforming Effect of the Natural Resources Defense Council Consent Decree | By D. Dean Bibles

Early Utah grazing district.

specialists, geologists (other than those connected to leasing), and 

numerous others.

Many of these employees were hired into “When Actually Employed” 

positions (temporary or intermittent appointments) but were converted 

to permanent positions as soon as possible. As these individuals gained 

experience, they moved into higher level positions and changed the 

demographics of the BLM forever. A few years later, when I was the 

state director for Oregon/Washington, we had 198 different specialties

on our staff!

There was little way to anticipate the massive positive change that 

came about because of this court case and its settlement—it occurred 

through a breathtakingly rapid process. But once the consent decree was 

implemented, people were in place to help the BLM fully manage public 

lands under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

BLM fishery biologist monitoring rainbow trout habitat in Alaska.

Dean Bibles retired from the BLM after serving as the state director in Oregon/Washington and Arizona, the assistant director for land resources in Washington, DC, 

and the district manager in Montana, northern California/Nevada, and Idaho. He received Presidential Distinguished Executive Awards from Presidents Reagan

and Clinton and the Presidential Meritorious Service Award from President George H.W. Bush. Dean was also active in international conservation efforts.

One of the major transformations in the BLM’s history occurred when 

the agency lost a court case concerning environmental impact statements 

(EISs) and livestock grazing (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton). 

The BLM had prepared a single programmatic EIS on grazing nationwide 

to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency was 

sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1974, and the court 

subsequently ordered that 212 separate EISs be prepared at the field 

level; this was later reduced to 144 EISs in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. Andrus.

Due to the court-ordered documentation of the resources necessary 

to complete adequate EISs, employees in many new specialties were hired 

into the BLM workforce. At that time, I was the district manager in Boise, 

Idaho, where we hired about 45 new employees in fields for which we 

had not hired employees in any real numbers in the past. We hired fishery 

and avian biologists, archaeologists, sociologists, information technology 

BLM avian biologist 

working near

the Snake River

in Idaho. 
10 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 11

Herd of cows on public lands.

Noting the degraded condition of many of the 

BLM’s rangelands, the court also sought to 

reconcile the Taylor Grazing Act (with its emphasis 

on livestock use) and NEPA (with its emphasis on 

environmental protection). The court stated that 

“while Congress has determined that public lands 

should be put to the best use possible, it has also 

demonstrated a strong interest in protecting 

the environment.”12

As the BLM worked toward improving the health 

and productivity of rangelands while dedicating 

the resources necessary to comply with the EIS 

requirements of NEPA, Congress recognized the 

magnitude of the challenge facing the program. 

In 1978, Congress passed the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act, based on the findings that 

the rangelands were still producing below 

their potential and that they would remain in 

unsatisfactory condition, or deteriorate even 

further, absent additional resources. Congress 

warned that the unsatisfactory condition of the 

public rangelands presented a high risk of soil 

loss, siltation, desertification, loss of forage for 

livestock and other grazing animals, degradation 

of water quality, flood danger, and threats to 

local economies.13

To address these concerns, the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act authorized “an intensive public 

rangelands maintenance, management, and 

improvement program.” It also authorized a 

20-year investment in the program totaling 

$365 million. The funding, however, was subject 

to annual appropriations. 

The following year, the BLM published “Managing 

the Public Rangelands,” which outlined its plan 

for restoring the health and productivity of the 

rangelands. The central policy of the plan was 

“to manage efficiently the basic resources of the 

public rangelands to improve and maintain their 

productive capability to serve the full range of 

natural, social, economic, and environmental 

needs.” Under the policy, the inventory of 

rangelands and land use planning, which focused 

mainly on livestock grazing capacities in the past, 

must now consider the broader spectrum of public 

land values, including soil and water quality, 

vegetation, wildlife habitat, wild horses and burros, 

and recreation and scenic values.

By 1985, the BLM was reporting significant 

progress in range management. From 1975 to 1984, 

the proportion of rangelands in excellent or good 

condition had more than doubled, increasing from 

17 percent to 36 percent. Rangelands in poor or bad 

condition declined from 33 percent to 18 percent. 

The BLM attributed the progress to a continuing 

long-term decline in livestock numbers, rangeland 

improvements, better livestock management 

practices, and cooperative management efforts by 

the BLM, livestock operators, and other interests.

By 1988, the BLM’s assessments indicated that 

the overall conditions of the rangelands were 

continuing to improve, and the consensus among 

range professionals was that the rangelands were 

in better condition than at any time in the past 

century. Stocking rates on 80 percent of the BLM’s 

grazing allotments were at or below capacity. The 

BLM scheduled adjustments on another 5 percent 

of the allotments and gathered information to make 

decisions on the remaining allotments. Even so, the 

BLM’s range program (and that of the U.S. Forest 

Service) came under criticism in a 1988 report by 

the General Accounting Office (later renamed the 

Government Accountability Office), which focused 

on those allotments that were overstocked or 

otherwise showing declining range conditions.14

Grazing Fees: The Next Generation | By Judy Nelson

Judy Nelson retired from the BLM in 2004 as the chief of biological sciences in the Oregon State Office. She started her BLM career as a rangeland economist 

in the Washington Office and later became the assistant district manager in Vale and the district manager in Eugene and Lakeview, Oregon.

Riparian Resource Management

Finds Common Ground

Riparian areas, those areas along the banks of rivers 

or other bodies of water, are important in every 

type of landscape, but in the arid West, they are 

critical to properly functioning and sustainable 

ecosystems, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat, 

migratory bird flyways, erosion reduction, water 

quantity and quality, and public recreation.

The BLM’s early riparian restoration efforts in the 

mid-1970s, which were mainly the responsibility 

of wildlife and fisheries biologists, were 

concentrated simply on the exclusion of livestock 

for habitat improvement. These efforts often met 

strong resistance from livestock permittees, who 

viewed the Bureau’s riparian program as a “onesize-fits-all” approach focused exclusively on 

fish and wildlife and ignoring the interests of the 

ranching community.

In 1976, the same year that FLPMA passed, 

Wayne Elmore, a young wildlife and fisheries 

biologist working for the BLM in Oregon, set out 

to bring livestock interests and conservationists 

together on common ground. The common 

ground he chose was a place called Bear Creek in 

central Oregon. Domestic livestock had grazed the 

area since the late 1800s, and the licensed use in 

1976 was 75 animal unit months from April until 

September (an animal unit month or AUM is the 

amount of forage needed to feed one animal unit, 

such as a cow and her calf, for a month). At that 

time, the riparian area totaled 3.8 acres per mile of 

stream and produced approximately 200 pounds of 

forage per acre. Streambanks were actively eroding 

and degrading stream quality with high volumes 

of sediment.

The grazing fee issue has long been intertwined with the history 

of the BLM and has even influenced major Department of the Interior 

decisions over the last century, including the decision to merge the GLO 

and the Grazing Service into the BLM in 1946. Although grazing fees 

contribute little in terms of revenue, they have drawn the attention of both 

a President and John Wayne! 

Worry over increasing grazing fees delayed the passage of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act in 1976 until a compromise was reached 

to do another grazing fee study. The study was legislated in 1978 via the 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA). PRIA required a 7-year trial 

of a new fee formula and a recommendation of a permanent fee schedule 

to begin in 1986. I volunteered to head the PRIA-mandated study shortly 

after I arrived in Washington, DC, in 1980 and became the BLM’s principal 

representative from 1981 until 1985. 

Although President Reagan had campaigned on being a “sagebrush 

rebel,” his administration fully supported the grazing fee study. In fact, 

raising the grazing fee was one of the top ten priorities of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s director, David Stockman. Secretary of the 

Interior James Watt often stated that he never met a subsidy he liked. 

I sought advice from others who had worked on past studies. 

Marion Clawson, one of the first people I visited with, was an economist 

before he was BLM’s director, and in the 1980s, he was still an active 

economist at Resources for the Future. Clawson cautioned that grazing 

fees were one of the most politically contentious issues he dealt with as 

the BLM director. He did his first grazing fee study in 1944 and told me 

that my study would not be the last. Hal Ramsbacher, BLM’s lead on a 

1966 grazing fee study, recommended that we consider an appraisal rather 

than the questionnaire used in 1966. 

The PRIA study was a joint BLM-Forest Service effort. Ed Frandsen 

of the Forest Service was my counterpart, and we produced a series of 

independent studies, including an appraisal of the public rangelands, 

evaluation of the PRIA and other grazing fee formulas, evaluation of state 

grazing fees, and analysis of the economic impact of grazing fees. These 

were published before the grazing fee report was due to Congress.

The centerpiece of our study was an appraisal conducted by 22 BLM 

and Forest Service field appraisers who interviewed an estimated 

100,000 people during a 17-month period and obtained detailed John Wayne commented

on grazing fees.

President

Ronald Reagan.

information on 80-90 percent of the grazing lease transactions within the 

study area. The appraisal came up with values ranging from $4 to more 

than $8, with a Westwide value of about $6.50. 

Both Watt and Stockman left the administration before the end of 

the study (in 1983 and 1985, respectively), and political coverage left with 

them. During that time, the first major crack in the study occurred—BLM 

Director Robert Burford decided he wanted it to be accessible to the public 

and asked me to reduce the document from 450 to 50 pages. The Assistant 

Secretary’s Office had edits. The Forest Service was unwilling to agree with 

Interior, and the agencies proposed to publish separate studies. The White 

House directed the agencies to work together on one study. A painful 

page-by-page reconciliation with the Forest Service ensued.

I left Washington in 1985, between the draft and final study. Before 

I left, however, I participated in a series of public meetings in the West. 

The politics had changed. Those who opposed raising the fee attacked the 

study, many citing the appraisal as an inappropriate methodology because 

it had not been done before and it was done in-house. 

More than 7,000 public comments were received, mostly from 

permittees. They favored the PRIA formula, criticized the appraisal 

methodology, and said that any price increase would be disastrous. 

(John Wayne also commented in favor of keeping fees low.) 

Interior Secretary William Clark (who had replaced Watt) encouraged 

President Reagan to sign the Executive order on grazing fees in 1986, 

which extended the use of the formula established in PRIA to calculate 

the annual grazing fee. Our final 1986 study, delivered after the Executive 

order was signed, did not recommend a fee. 

Congress, however, was not through with the fee issue. The House 

held a series of hearings and twice passed bills to increase grazing fees, 

but they were not supported in the Senate. The 1992 Interior 

appropriations act required an update of the 1986 study, providing 

6 months to complete it. The Senate requested a study on an “incentivebased” grazing fee. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt also recommended an 

incentive-based system. A report was completed, but grazing fee reform 

was ultimately dropped.

The PRIA fee, as modified by the Executive order, has lasted for more 

than 25 years. It does not allow the fee to fall below $1.35, and it has been 

at or close to that level ever since. 
12 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 13

From 1976 to 1978, the BLM partially rested the 

area from grazing in an attempt to restore the 

productivity of the riparian area. In the following 

2 years, livestock grazed the area for 1 week in 

September, and from 1981 through 1984, no 

livestock grazed, resting the area entirely. In 1985, 

the BLM divided the pasture into three units and 

converted it from a season-long schedule to a threepasture rotation from mid-February to mid-April.

Key Initiatives Emerge

The BLM’s fish and wildlife program, as well as its 

commitment to protecting and enhancing habitat, 

grew in the years immediately following passage of 

FLPMA. The BLM focused on several key initiatives 

in wildlife and fisheries: 

• Restoring populations of bighorn sheep in 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New 

Mexico, and Utah and undertaking habitat 

improvement projects in Idaho and Wyoming.

• Developing a draft management plan and EIS 

for 25 million acres of the California desert to 

ensure adequate management and protection of 

desert wildlife, including the desert tortoise.

• Developing and implementing statewide 

and site-specific measures to restore tule elk 

populations and prevent their listing under the 

Endangered Species Act in partnership with 

the California Department of Fish and Game, 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and others.

• Identifying habitat locations of the California 

condor and possible measures to help 

reestablish the species in partnership with the 

State of California, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and Audubon Society.

• Reestablishing populations of endangered 

species such as the peregrine falcon, the 

Colorado squawfish of the lower Colorado 

River, and the woundfin minnow of the Gila 

River in Arizona.

Wayne Elmore later summarized the results of the 

project in an essay written for “Range” magazine:

“By 1989 the licensed use had increased to 

. . . five times the amount previously grazed 

from the area. The livestock permittee 

reportedly reduced his annual cost of hay 

by $10,000 because of less winter feeding. In 

1996 the riparian area had grown to 

12 acres per mile of stream and was now 

producing approximately 2,000 pounds 

of forage per acre. The production had 

increased 30-fold. The filtering of sediments 

by the vegetation had raised the stream bed 

by two-and-a-half feet and we were now 

storing nearly four million gallons of water 

per mile. Stream length (sinuosity) had 

increased by one-third of a mile in the three 

mile stretch, also helping keep the water on 

Bear Creek (late 1970s).

Bear Creek after

grazing adjustments.

the land longer. Rainbow trout had 

finally returned.”15

Fish and Wildlife Inventories

Lead to Habitat Protection

The Taylor Grazing Act in 1934 recognized that 

wildlife habitat was among the most important 

values of the public lands and required the BLM to 

ensure adequate forage for wildlife. For the next 

30 years, however, forage allocation was still 

arbitrary. Not until the mid-1960s did the BLM 

begin taking a professional, scientific approach to 

wildlife habitat management by creating a Wildlife 

Division and recruiting wildlife biologists to state 

and district offices.

In the early 1970s, the Endangered Species Act 

added new responsibilities for fish, wildlife, 

and plant habitat by directing federal agencies 

to manage public lands and resources for the 

continued existence of threatened and endangered 

species of plants and animals. In 1974, the Sikes Act 

directed federal agencies to coordinate with 

the states in developing comprehensive 

management plans for conserving fish and wildlife 

species and habitat. 

FLPMA further enhanced recognition of fish 

and wildlife habitat as one of the principal values 

of the public lands and increased the BLM’s 

authority and responsibility to manage, protect, 

and enhance wildlife and fishery resources. The 

Bureau increased its efforts to inventory and plan 

for habitat management. Wildlife specialists worked 

closely with other program staffs to incorporate 

habitat protection and improvement within 

plans developed for livestock grazing, mineral 

development, timber management, and other 

program areas.

By 1979, the BLM’s public lands inventories 

documented the presence of some 60 plant and 

animal species on the federal endangered species 

list. The BLM fish and wildlife program staff 

worked more closely than ever with other federal 

agencies. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

required that federal agencies consult with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service on any proposed actions that 

might affect listed species or their habitat. In 1979, 

the Bureau completed 1,200 such consultations.

By 1980, the number of work years devoted to 

wildlife management had increased from 227 to 

more than 380 (1 work year is approximately 

2,080 hours). Funding for the program had 

increased more than 300 percent.

Inventorying vegetation (1960s).

The “Fish and Wildlife 2000” Strategy

Guides Future Management

In 1987, the BLM launched a new strategy, called 

“Fish and Wildlife 2000: A Plan for the Future,” 

which provided a comprehensive blueprint for 

managing fish and wildlife resources on public 

lands into the 21st century. Under the plan, the 

BLM began developing state-level management 

strategies tailored to the resources and conditions 

within each BLM state. An interdisciplinary team of 

fish and wildlife biologists, managers, and human 

resources experts developed recommendations for 

improved skills and career development among the 

Bureau’s biologists. 

The BLM also intensified its efforts to nurture 

partnerships and encourage investments from 

Desert tortoise.

nongovernment organizations such as sportsmen’s 

groups. In 1988, the Bureau signed memoranda 

of understanding to facilitate cooperative work 

with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Quail 

Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, 

Foundation for North American Wild Sheep (now 

Wild Sheep Foundation), and Trout Unlimited.

These partnerships enabled the BLM to increase 

funding to support on-the-ground work in 

habitat management, recreation, and conservation 

through the Challenge Cost Share program, which 

authorized the BLM to match nongovernment 

contributions. In 1985, the BLM’s Challenge Cost 

Share funding of $294,000 was leveraging $305,000 

in partnership contributions. 

A resident rainbow trout in Oregon.
14 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 15

Cultural and Heritage Resources

Face Growing Threats

The BLM’s efforts to preserve and protect cultural 

and heritage resources did not begin with passage 

of FLPMA, but the act did give these resources 

important standing as a priceless part of the public 

lands legacy entrusted to the Bureau. 

The BLM public lands represent the nation’s 

greatest repository of cultural resources, including 

archaeological and historic properties—the 

remnants of 20,000 years of human presence on 

the continent. The cultural treasures of the public 

Evolution of a Biologist | By Tim Carrigan

the first day of the search, we could hear frogs calling from an open area 

not far from a stream. They were loud and numerous but would grow 

silent whenever we approached; we never saw a frog even jump. Only 

by the low, angled light of late afternoon, with a high-powered spotting 

scope, did we discover that the frogs we heard were Pacific tree frogs using 

rodent burrow openings as a megaphone to project their calls. 

On day two, we learned to ignore the calls of abundant tree frogs and 

instead concentrate on surveying low-gradient, slow-moving streams. For 

hours, none of us located a single spotted frog; my frustration grew and 

I began to think that the area no longer harbored the species. I thought 

back to the frog-catching days of my youth. I could visualize the exact 

locations of my quarry—the microhabitat where the frogs would hide. 

Soon, I noticed a pool off the stream with overhanging vegetation and 

algae in the water, just like those I had seen in my childhood. I simply 

stared at the spot for more than 5 minutes until I finally saw two bulging 

eyes blink at me. We had located a Columbia spotted frog in an area with 

no recorded sightings in more than 50 years.

Over several years, the BLM and its partners, the Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game (IDF&G), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Boise State 

University, located several spotted frog populations and defined the frog’s 

habitat requirements in our area. A limiting factor for the frogs was the 

lack of beaver ponds, which we decided to address at one site after frog 

numbers plummeted. Boise State supplied the idea and workforce; the 

BLM provided the materials, biologists, and environmental paperwork; 

and the IDF&G supplied the live-trapped beavers. We repaired a dam with 

lumber and irrigation cloth, reintroduced the beavers, and let nature do 

the rest. Within 2 years, a large complex of beaver dams was established 

and there were too many frogs to monitor in the required 2-day period. 

This simple project, which took just a few days to complete, was the most 

rewarding activity of my 30 years with the BLM.

As my career heads towards dusk, I am hopeful that initiatives such as 

Take It Outside! will inspire the next generation to pursue careers in natural 

resources. It would be a shame if one of my cohorts or I was the last child 

in the woods.

A photograph of a young boy staring eye-to-eye with a frog adorns 

the cover of Richard Louv’s 2005 bestseller “Last Child in the Woods.” That 

boy could very well have been me 50 years ago in Minnesota where frogs 

were the most abundant and the easiest to catch wildlife. My love of 

nature began there and continued as I moved to Contra Costa County in the 

San Francisco Bay area, an area unparalleled in America for richness and 

diversity of wildlife, especially herptiles, a group of animals made up of 

reptiles and amphibians. It was these early encounters with animals and 

the outdoors that inspired me to study wildlife management in college and 

go on to become a wildlife biologist for the BLM. 

I was hired by the BLM after the Endangered Species Act was passed 

in 1973. At that time, BLM biologists were given little direction, as 

regulations for the new law were still being written. The wildlife program 

was not as well established as other BLM programs such as range or 

forestry. Some biologists were given the task of managing small tracts of 

land close to urban or agricultural areas to provide hunting opportunities, 

while large expanses of public lands in their districts were often ignored. 

BLM biologists eventually found a role managing the rangelands for big 

game. Our approach was that if we managed the land well for 

megafauna, all wildlife species would thrive. And that is how we 

carried on for a decade or more, sometimes getting involved in raptor 

management or monitoring of sage-grouse leks, but always concentrating 

on big game ranges.

A new vision for BLM wildlife management was cast with the 

release of the “Fish and Wildlife 2000” plan, and seemingly overnight, 

we were managing for species beyond mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and 

bighorn sheep. We looked in far more detail at the needs of sage-grouse, 

riparian-dependent species, prey animals, and special status species. I 

still remember my surprise when I was told I would be managing habitat 

for a hot springsnail, which is not much larger than the period at the end 

of this sentence. Then came the day when the Great Basin population 

of the Columbia spotted frog became a candidate for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act.

Our first task was to determine if the Columbia spotted frog still 

occurred in our area by surveying likely streams, springs, and ponds. On 

Tim Carrigan was a wildlife biologist on the Renewable Energy Team in the BLM Idaho State Office. He was also the assistant field manager of the Bruneau Field Office 

and a wildlife biologist in the Boise District. Prior to serving in the Army from 1985 to 1990, Tim was a range conservationist in Salmon, Idaho.

Columbia spotted frog in

the Owyhee Uplands in Idaho. 

Photo by Bruce Haa.

lands include prehistoric ruins of the Southwest, 

aboriginal rock art, ancient stone tools, historic 

ghost towns, wagon roads, and long-abandoned 

military posts of the frontier era.

FLPMA, as well as the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, required the BLM to 

conduct inventories of cultural resources and 

develop plans for their management. The BLM 

was confronting growing threats to these resource 

properties. Valuable and irreplaceable properties 

were being lost to increasing incidents of theft, 

vandalism, and destruction.

As the loss of these treasures gained national 

attention, Congress responded by passing the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act in 1979. 

Along with FLPMA and the National Historic 

Preservation Act, this act gave the BLM authority to 

enforce protection of cultural resources. Congress 

amended the Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act in 1988 to require that federal land managers 

establish a public outreach program explaining the 

value and importance of archaeological resources. 

Pottery shards at

a site in Arizona.

Archaeological researchers 

investigating ruins.
16 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 17

Designated Recreation Areas Increase

Public land recreation earned its place among the 

BLM’s emerging priorities when the Classification 

and Multiple Use Act of 1964 explicitly recognized 

its value. This recognition reflected the reality 

of a changing America in the latter half of the 

20th century, as lifestyles became more leisurely 

and people sought more places and opportunities 

to pursue recreational activities. 

The changing value of recreation in American life, 

and the need for the federal government to address 

the long-term implications of this transformation, 

had been a growing concern in Congress for many 

years, prompting the creation of the Outdoor 

Recreation Review Commission in 1958. The 

Commission released a report in 1962 that stated: 

“Decade by decade, the expanding 

population has achieved more leisure time, 

more money to spend, and better travel 

facilities; and it has sought more and better 

opportunities to enjoy the outdoors. But 

the public has also demanded more of 

other things. In the years following World 

War II, this process greatly accelerated as 

an eager Nation, released from wartime 

restrictions, needed millions of new acres 

for subdivisions, industrial sites, highways, 

schools, and airports. The resources for 

outdoor recreation—shoreline, green 

acres, open space, and unpolluted waters—

diminished in the face of demands for more 

of everything else.”16

After 1964, recreational visits to public lands 

increased significantly. By 1972, the Bureau hired 

an additional 30 outdoor recreation planners on the 

Working Underground for the BLM | By James Goodbar

For the BLM, “underground resources” don’t always mean oil and gas 

or other minable minerals. The BLM manages thousands of caves and the 

resources in them. 

A handful of individuals within the BLM and a host of volunteer 

groups, such as the National Speleological Society (NSS) and Cave Research 

Foundation (CRF), really love caves and want to help others understand the 

fragile nature of the world beneath their feet. It’s the act of going caving and 

seeing things that most people could never imagine. It’s making the first 

discovery of huge new underground rooms filled with wondrous, delicate 

formations that sparkle and twinkle as your light illuminates them, often for 

the very first time. It’s crawling through that small space you thought no one 

else had ever been through and finding a collection of unbroken Anasazi pots 

and ceremonial artifacts. It’s making that 180-foot rope drop in the darkness 

and finding the complete articulated skeleton of a long-extinct cave bear. It’s 

hiking for miles through the hot, dry desert to the cave and going in to find a 

crystal-clear underground lake undisturbed by the harsh conditions above. 

These experiences are what make caves and caving on our public lands 

so special—and such a challenge to manage. The BLM has recognized the 

need to protect our karst ground-water resources, and has established new 

areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and national conservation 

areas (NCAs) to manage them. Fort Stanton Cave was the BLM’s first cave 

designated as an NCA. Its newly discovered Snowy River passage contains 

the world’s longest cave formation, the 30-foot-diameter snowy white calcite 

floor of an underground river that stretches for more than 5 miles. This 

“calcite river” is still being explored, with no end in sight.

The BLM began proactive cave and karst management in 1962 when 

members of the NSS contacted Don Sawyer, the outdoor recreation planner 

in Roswell, New Mexico. They informed him that some of BLM’s unique 

and fragile resources were being badly damaged and needed protection. 

Don worked with them to develop cave management plans, design and 

install cave gates, and develop a permit system. Then in 1977, the 

Roswell District hired the BLM’s first “cave specialists,” Buzz Hummel and 

Steve Fleming, whose jobs were to document known caves within the district 

and find new ones. Since that time, the BLM has become a recognized leader 

in cave resources management. 

Throughout the 1980s, the BLM recognized caves in its resource 

management plans. The Bureau played a vital role in crafting the language 

of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 and later teamed up 

with the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service to draft the 

Department of the Interior’s regulations to implement the law. In 1991, the 

BLM created its first national cave/karst program lead position, which I filled, 

working half time for the Washington Office and half time for the Carlsbad 

Field Office in New Mexico. 

Over the years, the BLM’s program accomplishments have served as a 

template for other federal agencies. The BLM entered into national, regional, 

and local assistance agreements with the National Speleological Society 

and Cave Research Foundation and played a pivotal role in the successful 

development of the National Cave and Karst Management Symposia. Much of 

BLM’s work benefits other federal land management agencies. For example, 

the BLM organized training on cave and karst resources, pioneered a set of 

cave safety standards, and developed the first interagency agreement for 

cave and karst resources management, signed by five federal agencies. The 

BLM also has developed a comprehensive set of mitigation measures for oil 

and gas drilling in sensitive karst areas, established cave/karst program leads 

in every BLM state, and shared cave management expertise with foreign 

countries, including China, Spain, Hungary, Switzerland, Greece, Brazil, 

Mexico, Guatemala, and Haiti.

Many of the caves we have known about for decades are being revisited 

and studied under a new set of lenses. In cooperation with our speleological 

partners, we have made new scientific discoveries of resources found 

nowhere else on or under the earth. Newly discovered microbes are giving 

us fresh options for developing cures of certain types of cancer, and new 

bioremediation products help break down oil spills and other organic solid 

wastes. New methods for dating mineral deposits in caves (speleothems) are 

giving us important new information on climate change.

The BLM’s multiple use mission is now fully 3-D! Our history bears out 

the importance of our recognition of these fragile and unique underground 

resources. Our future is only as bright as the knowledge and responsible 

management we carry with us into the darkness.

Jim Goodbar began caving with his family in central Texas when he was 9 years old. Much of his 35-year career with the BLM has been spent 

developing the cave and karst management program. Jim has explored caves in 16 foreign countries and is still an active caver.

Bear bones found in a cave.

ground, staffing virtually all district offices with 

these positions. By the mid-1970s, the BLM was 

maintaining more than 400 developed recreation 

sites on the public lands, with an annual budget 

averaging $5 million for recreation management, 

$3 million for site maintenance, and $1 million for 

recreation construction. 

With passage of FLPMA and the adoption of multiple 

use planning, the BLM began to methodically evaluate 

planning areas for their recreational value and, in 

many cases, to provide information for possible 

inclusion of areas within the national system of 

wild and scenic rivers or national historic trails. 

For America’s Bicentennial in 1976, the BLM built 

interpretive facilities along the Oregon, Pony Express, 

and Dominguez-Escalante Trails.

By 1980, the BLM was managing a rapidly growing 

portfolio of designated recreational areas. 

These included:

• 30 special recreation areas totaling 

3.1 million acres

• The California Desert Conservation Area spanning 

12 million acres

• 216 miles of designated national recreation trails

• 250 recreational sites and 250 primitive 

campgrounds

• The King Range National Conservation Area 

covering 41 thousand acres and 30 miles of the 

Pacific coast

• 445 recreational and whitewater rivers totaling 

2,500 miles and 4 rivers—the Rogue, Missouri, 

American, and Rio Grande—designated as 

national wild and scenic rivers

Pony Express National Historic Trail in Wyoming.

A hunting camp on Fish Lake in Oregon (1960).

Picnic facilities at Vincent Creek

Recreation Site in Oregon (1962).

Jim Goodbar.
18 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 19

In the early 1980s, the BLM designated longterm visitor areas along the lower Colorado 

River in Arizona and California and completed 

management plans for six wild and scenic river 

segments in Alaska. The BLM added the Garnet 

Winter Trail in Montana and the Marble Creek 

Trail in Idaho to the National Trails System.

Commission Reviews Outdoor Recreation

By 1985, a variety of recreational interest groups 

convinced President Ronald Reagan to launch a 

new review of outdoor recreation. The 15-member 

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors 

conducted the review from 1985 to 1987. The 

Commission’s recommendations led to the 

establishment of the national scenic byways 

program, major volunteer and outdoor ethics 

efforts, and new funding derived from user fees and 

federal motor fuel excise taxes.

In the latter half of the decade, the BLM recreation 

program had several significant achievements, 

including the opening of a new recreation site in 

the San Pedro area of southern Arizona, completion 

of a land exchange for the Red Rock recreation 

lands near Las Vegas, and congressional designation 

of El Malpais National Conservation Area in 

New Mexico.

In 1989, the BLM prepared a report, “Recreation 

2000,” and an implementation plan to “improve 

service to the recreation-seeking public by placing 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River | By Theresa Herrera

The river passes through 800-foot chasms of the Rio Grande Gorge, 

a wild and remote area of northern New Mexico. Imagine rafting down 

the Rio Grande, with its towering colorful walls, and watching wildlife 

cross the river. The avid rafter might even catch a glimpse of a bald 

eagle floating through the sky, bighorn sheep, or even the recently 

introduced river otters. The canyon provides a wide variety of recreational 

opportunities, luring fishermen, hikers, artists, and whitewater boating 

enthusiasts. The High Bridge offers spectacular views of the Rio Grande. 

The Rio Grande and its tributaries have attracted people for 

thousands of years. Spanish conquistadores discovered the Rio Grande’s 

mouth in 1519, and during the next 100 years, they founded some of 

the earliest North American settlements along its banks. These explorers 

named the river El Rio Grande or “the Great River.” However, it has been 

called many other names. The Pueblo people called it Posoge, or P’Osoge, 

meaning “big river.” Shipwrecked British sailors crossed it in 1568 and 

called it “the River of May.” Various Spaniards and Mexicans named it 

El Rio de Nuestra Senora (“the River of Our Lady”) and El Rio Bravo 

(“the Fierce River”).

The oldest measurement station in the United States, which has 

been active since 1890, is located on the main stem of the Rio Grande at 

the Embudo Station. Modern efforts to measure discharge from streams 

rely on a series of stream gauges or measurement stations installed and 

administered by the U.S. Geological Survey and the New Mexico Office of 

the State Engineer and Interstate Stream Commission.

Many people feel a special connection to the Rio Grande. 

Sam DesGeorges, field manager for the Taos Field Office, reminisces: 

“When is a place not a place? As we do the things we do on and along 

the Rio Grande, I am reminded that this place is not so much a spot on the 

map, but a part of who I am and who others are. In 1886, my great-greatgrandfather, Etienne, owned and operated a freight company that moved 

goods and people from Taos to Embudo. He arrived in Taos from France in 

1863 and never left. Often as I crest the Taos Overlook, and I see the split 

formed by the Rio Grande and in the distance I see the Taos Mountains, I 

wonder if he felt as I do—ahh, I’m home! I am sure this feeling is shared 

by others; the reason I know is because people felt it was worthy of 

enduring protection in the form of its wild and scenic designation.”

Born to be wild! The Rio Grande is one of the first eight rivers 

Congress designated in 1968 as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. The BLM’s Taos Field Office manages the Rio Grande from the New 

Mexico/Colorado border to Velarde, New Mexico. 

The Rio Grande flows through one of the major late Cenozoic 

continental rifts, which shares most of its geophysical, geological, and 

geochemical characteristics with other rifts of the world, such as the East 

African Rift. What is a rift? A rift is a surface feature characterized by 

an elongated valley when the Earth’s crust stretches and thins. The Rio 

Grande Rift began forming millions of years ago when the Earth’s crust 

began to spread apart, triggering volcanic activity. Runoff from the newly 

elevated alpine regions was captured in the basins and the drainage 

combined to form the ancestral Rio Grande. As much as 15,000 feet of 

rift sediment has accumulated in basins of the Rio Grande Rift, forming 

important aquifers for some of the largest cities in New Mexico. Along 

with these precious supplies of water, the Rio Grande Rift provides fertile 

floodplain soils for growing corn, beans, and squash, helping to establish 

an important economic foundation for rural communities.

Theresa Herrera was a public affairs specialist with the BLM’s New Mexico Office of External Affairs.

She held various positions within the state office and had more than 40 years of public service.

The Rio Grande near Ute Mountain

in northern New Mexico.

more emphasis on our recreation program.” 

Priorities included improved visitor information 

and interpretation, resource protection and 

monitoring, and land ownership adjustments 

to increase access to key public lands. The strategy 

also called for increased partnerships and use 

of volunteers to accomplish the BLM’s recreation 

goals. The following year, BLM Director 

Cy Jamison declared, “The BLM is the new 

frontier of recreation.”17

Motorized Recreation Raises Concerns

The 1960s and early 1970s saw phenomenal 

growth in the popularity of motorized recreation 

on the public lands. Along with this growth came 

increasing concern over the effects that this form 

of recreation could have on other forms of 

recreation, as well as on ecological, cultural, and 

historic values.

In 1972, President Nixon issued Executive Order 

11644 calling for policies and procedures that 

would “ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on 

public lands will be controlled and directed so as 

to protect the resources of those lands, to promote 

the safety of all users of those lands, and to 

minimize conflicts among the various uses of those 

lands.” The following year, to improve control of 

off-road vehicle use under existing Department of 

the Interior regulations for recreation management, 

the BLM designated 12 million acres of California 

public lands as open, limited, or closed to 

off-road vehicles.

In 1974, the National Wildlife Federation 

challenged the Department of the Interior’s 

regulations, leading to a court order requiring the 

Department to set dates for classification of all 

public lands for off-road vehicle use (a requirement 

of Nixon’s Executive order) and to revise its EIS on 

off-road vehicle use across all public lands. In 1977, 

President Carter issued Executive Order 11989, 

which clarified the BLM’s authority by directing the 

immediate closure of areas when off-road vehicle 

use would cause “considerable adverse effects on the 

soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat or cultural 

or historic resources.” The Department completed 

the new EIS in 1978, and the following year, issued 

new regulations for off-road vehicle use.

By 1988, the BLM had designated 75.5 million 

acres of public lands as open to off-road vehicle use, 

50 million acres as available for limited use, and 

2.5 million acres as closed to off-road vehicle use. 

The Bureau had 152 million acres of public lands 

yet to inventory and classify for appropriate travel 

management. By the early 1990s, the BLM was 

managing 19,000 miles of trails formally dedicated 

to off-road use and an additional 53,000 miles open 

to off-road use.

The BLM’s management of off-road recreation 

emphasized user safety and land ethics. The BLM 

became a charter member of the “Tread Lightly” 

campaign and established partnerships with the offroad vehicle industry to reinforce these messages.

The BLM’s recreation opportunities had expanded 

to include thousands of unique recreation areas, 

including 32 wild and scenic rivers and 22 national 

trails; more than 670 developed and semideveloped 

recreation sites; 5,500 family camping sites; and 4.2 

million acres of lakes and reservoirs open to fishing, 

boating, and other public recreation activities. 

El Malpais National Conservation 

Area in New Mexico.

Off-road vehicle race in the southern California desert.

Rafters preparing to float

the Rio Grande.
20 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 21

The Wilderness Inventory Process Begins 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the 

National Wilderness Preservation System, which 

included certain lands managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The act defined wilderness areas 

as federal lands designated by Congress “where the 

earth and its community of life are untrammeled by 

man” and “where man himself is a visitor and does 

not remain.” Absent from the act was any mention 

of the BLM, reflecting the belief of some people that 

the vast public domain managed by the BLM did 

not contain “wilderness” at all.18 Others believed 

that protection of public lands as wilderness was 

long overdue. The passage of FLPMA, clarified 

the BLM’s wilderness responsibilities. Section 603 

(aptly titled “Wilderness Review”) provided for a 

two-step process—first, to inventory, and second, 

to manage the public lands (except Alaska) for 

potential designation as wilderness.

From this developing wilderness policy, a three-step 

wilderness identification process evolved: • First, the BLM would conduct an initial 

inventory to identify obvious roadless areas 

(of 5,000 acres or more), and by default, 

release lands that did not qualify. A more 

intensive inventory would then identify 

areas with wilderness characteristics worthy 

of designation as wilderness study areas. 

The BLM would manage wilderness study 

areas for nonimpairment until Congress 

decided whether to add them to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System.

• In the second phase of the wilderness 

identification process, the BLM would study 

the values associated with wilderness study 

areas, including mineral resources and off-road 

recreation, and further assess their suitability 

for wilderness designation.

• The final phase of the process required the BLM 

to complete a report with recommendations 

on which wilderness study areas Congress 

should designate as national wilderness by 

1991 and to submit it through the Secretary 

to the President.

In 1978, the BLM began the complex process 

of wilderness inventory, which included public 

meetings, staff reports, reviews, and decisions. By 

the end of the inventory phase of the wilderness 

program 3 years later, the BLM had identified 

approximately 23 million of the 175 million acres 

as wilderness study areas, placing them under a 

restrictive interim management plan until Congress 

could act. In 1983, Congress designated the 

BLM’s first wilderness area, Bear Trap Canyon in 

southwestern Montana (which later became part of 

Lee Metcalf Wilderness).

The BLM soon developed policies for 

implementation through a handbook, popularly 

known as the “blue book,” instruction 

memorandums, and other directives. Part of the 

early controversy centered on how a “wilderness” 

review affected other public land uses. Some 

interpreted section 603 to mean that the BLM 

should hold all uses of the public lands in abeyance 

pending this review. The objective was to get 

175 million acres inventoried for possible 

wilderness characteristics as soon as possible.19 In 

1977, the BLM hired a new cadre of “wilderness 

specialists” to do the job, and they often found 

themselves in hostile public settings.

The BLM’s Division of Recreation oversaw the 

new wilderness program and coordinated with the 

newly hired wilderness program leaders in its state 

offices to develop a systematic way to inventory 

public lands. The U.S. Forest Service’s policies and 

recent research served as a guide, but its procedures 

did not always fit the BLM’s public lands. For 

example, the U.S. Forest Service planned roads 

primarily for accessing timber or for recreation. For 

the BLM, roads on public lands generally resulted 

from public use (often to access mining claims), 

while the land pattern resulted from land disposal 

through homesteading and other means.

FLPMA required the completion of a California 

Desert Conservation Area Plan by September 30, 

1980, and plan preparers demanded the 

development of national policies on wilderness 

inventory.20 The “red book” provided preliminary 

guidance on a wilderness inventory process based 

on strict definitions within the Wilderness Act as 

adapted to the unique nature of BLM-managed 

public lands.

In writing new wilderness policy, the BLM 

deferred to political and legal definitions rather 

than focusing on describing ecological conditions. 

The wilderness policy used the political definition 

of a “road” from congressional language associated 

with FLPMA. The policy also borrowed language 

from the Wilderness Act, defining wilderness as 

that which: 

“(1) generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with 

the imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least 

five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient 

size as to make practicable its preservation 

and use in an unimpaired condition; and 

(4) may also contain ecological, geological, 

or other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or historical values.” Little Jacks Creek Wilderness in Idaho.

Study team touring the Deschutes River in Oregon (1963).

Bear Trap Canyon, Lee Metcalf Wilderness in Montana.
22 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 23

Energy and Minerals Management

Focuses on Independence

Beginning with the gas shortages of the 1970s, 

energy and mineral resources policy focused on 

one clear objective: increasing the production of the 

nation’s energy sources.

No single event exposed the United States’ reliance 

on foreign energy resources more than the Arab 

embargo of 1973 and the resulting worldwide oil 

shortage. The U.S. economy tipped into recession, 

and inflation and oil prices soared. The price of 

Saudi Arabian light crude rocketed from $1.90 a 

barrel in 1972 to $13.34 a barrel in 1980. Photos of 

lines of cars stretching blocks from filling stations 

filled the nation’s newspapers.

The nation quickly adopted a number of shortterm policy measures. Through the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975, it set fuel economy 

standards to cut petroleum consumption and 

established the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 

mitigate the economic impacts of any future 

energy crises.

Identifying further measures to ensure long-term 

energy security proved more challenging, and oil 

imports gradually increased to 50 percent over the 

next 25 years. 

The Battle to Conserve the “Crown Jewels” | By Cecil D. Andrus

On the 10th anniversary of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (Alaska Lands Act), the late historian T.H. Watkins wrote 

that the landmark legislation “was at once one of the noblest and most 

comprehensive legislative acts in American history, because, with the scratch 

of the presidential pen that signed it, the act set aside more wild country than 

had been preserved anywhere in the world up to that time—104.3 million 

acres. By itself, the Alaska Lands Act stood as a ringing validation of the best 

of what the conservation movement had stood for in the century since Henry 

David Thoreau had walked so thoughtfully in the woods of Walden Pond.” 

The Alaska Lands Act, signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980, more 

than doubled the national park, refuge, and wilderness acreage in Alaska and 

was a triumph for the broad public interest. It resolved decades of debate 

about what portion of America’s “crown jewels” should be forever maintained 

as places of unspoiled beauty and solitude, where fish, wildlife, and scenic 

values remain paramount.

But the victory in Alaska did not come easily or quickly, and many in 

Alaska saw it as nothing short of the heavy hand of the federal government 

dictating what would happen to Alaska’s land. Nearly 30 years later, 

T.H. Watkins’ view has become the prevailing view. A broad national 

consensus has emerged that the Alaska legislation does indeed represent the 

pinnacle of the national effort to preserve the very best of “the last frontier,” 

where we had the opportunity to do it right the first time.

Why did it take so long and require so much effort?

When Alaska was admitted to the Union in 1959, the Statehood Act 

acknowledged that claims of native Alaskans had never been settled. In 

1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which, 

among other things, established a deadline for sorting out these important 

claims. A key section of the legislation—section 17(d)(2)—decreed that 

at least 80 million acres of the “national interest” lands be set aside for 

protection based on their natural features. The Secretary of the Interior was 

authorized to administer the funding and the process to settle claims and 

determine which lands in Alaska were worthy of protection as national parks, 

monuments, preserves, and wildlife refuges. But the political clock was 

ticking. The land was protected from development for only 7 years.

By the time President Carter took office in 1977 and I moved from 

Idaho to Washington as his Interior Secretary, much of the time to sort out 

the Alaska controversy had slipped away. A variety of political and economic 

considerations were conspiring to delay a resolution and pave the way for 

widespread development of the unspoiled land in the last frontier.

The issue had to be forced. The leverage necessary to gain and keep 

Alaska and Congressional attention was the use of the then 70-year-old 

Antiquities Act and Secretarial withdrawal provided in the BLM Organic Act 

(Federal Land Policy and Management Act) of 1976. The maps were rolled 

out in the Oval Office and President Carter was shown that with a stroke 

of the pen he could set aside 56 million acres to protect special places of 

national importance, from the Brooks Range in the north of Alaska to the 

Misty Fjords in the south, while the Secretary withdrew 50 million acres.

“Can I do that?” the President asked. When told that such Presidential 

action was the only apparent way to generate a crisis and cause the Congress 

and the special interests to move in the direction of a comprehensive Alaska 

agreement, Carter said simply, “Let’s do it.”

We were accused of dictatorial action and, especially by then-Senator 

Ted Stevens, of misuse of the Antiquities Act. Before long, the leverage 

applied by the President’s actions and the threat that Congress could be left 

out of the policymaking prompted action.

Senators Henry Jackson and Paul Tsongas and Representatives Mo 

Udall and John Seiberling did much of the heavy lifting on Capitol Hill to knit 

together a bill that finally passed. Ironically, the nation’s greatest legislative 

conservation accomplishment was signed into law by a defeated President 

who, contrary to the popular portrayal of his Presidency, willingly embraced 

an aggressive, gutsy strategy to protect the nation’s crown jewels.

You will still find some in Alaska and across the West who lament the 

ability of the national government, acting as trustee for the public’s land, 

to take action as far reaching as the Alaska legislation, but those voices will 

continue to diminish with time and the public interest will remain the focus 

of Western public policy.

President Carter has never gotten the credit he deserves for this 

remarkable piece of legislation, but perhaps there is adequate satisfaction 

in the knowledge that one can claim a legacy of protecting rivers, ancient 

forests, volcanic craters, and critical habitat for grizzly bears and caribou. 

Future generations will not remember much of the complex and controversial 

path and the many obstacles that stood in the way of legislation conserving 

much of the best of America’s last frontier. Likewise, few visitors who stand in 

awe at the rim of the Grand Canyon remember how that great wonder came 

to be preserved. We tend to forget the battles, but we all enjoy the benefits 

of the victories.

Cecil Andrus was Secretary of the Interior from 1977 to 1981 

and served four terms as Governor of Idaho, longer than 

any Governor in the state’s history. He started his political 

career as a State Senator at age 29, the youngest person ever 

elected to that position in Idaho. He was a veteran of the 

Korean War and an avid outdoorsman and conservationist.

Project Independence Spurs Development

President Nixon launched Project Independence in 

November 1973 with the goal of making the United 

States self-sufficient in energy by 1980. Although 

the project did not meet this goal within that 

timeframe, the program helped spur an upswing in 

energy and mineral development on federal lands.

The nation began looking to the substantial oil 

and natural gas deposits in its oceans. In 1976, the 

BLM took on the responsibility of leasing the Outer 

Continental Shelf lands off Alaska and the midAtlantic states. By 1980, the BLM administered 

113 leases for 570,000 acres off the coast of Alaska 

and 232 leases covering 1.3 million acres off 

the Atlantic coast. A year later, most drilling off 

the east and west coasts was banned through a 

congressional moratorium that stayed in place for 

more than two decades.

NEPA had a major effect on the regulation of 

energy projects as the BLM began preparing 

individual EISs for large projects such as the 

development of an oil field. The agency also 

began to produce environmental assessments for 

individual proposals to drill within a field.

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was one of the 

first major energy projects reviewed under the 

aegis of NEPA. With the promise of delivering vast 

deposits of oil from the North Slope, construction 

of the 800-mile pipeline extending from the slope 

to Prince William Sound was a top priority in 

Nixon’s energy platform. 

However, shortly after preliminary designs for the 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System were released in 

1969, environmental groups took issue with the 

plan and successfully sued to block the project 

Steese National Conservation Area in Alaska.

Oil pump in North Dakota.

Offshore oil rig.

Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

Coal production in Wyoming.

President

Jimmy Carter.
24 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 25

under NEPA, which had gone into effect in January 

1970. The Alaska Pipeline Office (consisting of the 

BLM and other agencies) produced a nine-volume 

EIS in April 1972 detailing the potential impacts 

of a major spill, effects on wildlife migration 

routes, and other issues. The courts also found 

that Congress had to authorize a pipeline of that 

magnitude. This legislation passed in the wake 

of the oil embargo. When the pipeline finally 

came online in 1977 after a 5-year delay, its cost 

had ballooned from an estimated $2 billion to 

$15 billion.21

The oil embargo, along with exporter countries’ 

actions to nationalize their oil fields in the 

mid-1970s, also prompted a massive shift from 

petroleum to coal for electricity generation. The 

United States had billions of tons of coal reserves. 

To help ensure that the nation’s taxpayers received 

a fair return for the development of the vast coal 

deposits found on public lands, particularly those 

in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, Congress 

passed the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act 

in 1976, which established a competitive system for 

coal leasing.

Concurrently, the BLM addressed reforms to 

hardrock mining on public lands, which was 

unregulated prior to passage of FLPMA. In 

FLPMA, Congress directed the Department of 

the Interior to “prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation,” which gave the BLM the authority to 

review exploration and mining plans for hardrock 

minerals. In November 1980, the BLM promulgated 

regulations governing hardrock mining on public 

lands.22 The section 3809 rules gave the Department 

of the Interior authority to permit mines after 

considering any potential environmental impacts 

from the operations. 

The Linowes Commissions Investigate

In 1981, the White House Council on Integrity 

and Efficiency established a commission headed 

by economist David Linowes and charged it 

with investigating “serious allegations of massive 

irregularities in royalty payments due to the Federal 

government, Indian tribes, and States; and the 

allegations of theft of oil from Federal and Indian 

Lands.” In January 1982, the Linowes Commission 

issued its report, “Fiscal Accountability of the 

Nation’s Energy Resources.” The Commission 

found that “the government’s royalty recordkeeping 

for Federal and Indian oil and gas leases is in 

disarray” and confirmed the theft of both federal 

and tribal resources, leading to its recommendation 

of a “thorough overhaul” of the government’s 

royalty management system.23

In response, Congress passed the Federal Oil and 

Gas Royalty Management Act in December 1982 

to strengthen the BLM’s inspection and 

enforcement programs for onshore oil and gas 

production. It required lease operators to 

document well production and assessed penalties 

to operators found to have engaged in royalty theft 

or meter tampering.

Concurrently, Interior Secretary James Watt 

transferred oversight of onshore oil and gas 

operations to the BLM from the Minerals 

Management Service, an agency created the 

previous January. Secretary Watt subsequently 

amended his order in February 1983 to add onshore 

Indian lands to the BLM’s jurisdiction. Offshore 

leasing oversight remained with the Minerals 

Management Service.

Oil and gas inspection in California.

The Year of Three Agencies | By Larry Bauer

It soon became apparent that the BLM and the Conservation Division 

had different ideas about how to do things. The district manager and 

associate district manager in Craig readily offered me opportunities to 

transition to the BLM way of doing things. The ADM for operations, who 

had been in the Craig office for over 30 years at that time, became a 

mentor to me. 

One challenge we faced was that our typing workload overloaded 

the few people in the typing pool. (Yes, this was in the days before 

every employee had a personal computer and the typists used Wang 

word processors.) Another challenge was that the Conservation Division 

engineers and geologists and the BLM resources staff viewed drilling 

oil wells and digging coal mines differently. There was a lot of conflict 

resolution that took place before we arrived at the final conditions under 

which oil and coal projects were to be undertaken. A lot of discussion 

occurred, and as each side came to understand the other’s viewpoints, 

conflicts gave way to teamwork. 

In my opinion, going to work for the BLM was the best thing that 

ever happened to me. The breadth of responsibility of Bureau work was 

exhilarating. I was able to learn about the public lands, meet new people, 

and travel to new locations. 

It will be hard to forget 1982. That was the year that some 

700 employees of the Conservation Division of the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) cycled through three agencies without ever filling out a 

job application. 

The Department of the Interior, then under Secretary James Watt, 

was under fire for failing to accurately account for royalties due on the 

production of minerals not only from the public lands but also from the 

Outer Continental Shelf. The Linowes Commission completed a report after 

a lengthy investigation. In January 1982, a Secretarial order established 

the Minerals Management Service (MMS) by taking the Conservation 

Division of the USGS and melding it with the Outer Continental Shelf 

Division of the BLM. Ten months later, another Secretarial order took the 

700 people in the onshore section of the MMS and placed them in the BLM. 

At one time, some of the Conservation Division personnel were under 

consideration for transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but that idea was 

later rescinded. At each transition from one agency to another, employees 

were given a letter advising them that they could accept the transfer, 

retire, or resign.

When things settled down and each person was in their new 

agency, the question in BLM remained—where in the organization 

would the Conservation Division be located? A personnel management 

committee, made up of senior BLM personnel and new executives from the 

Conservation Division, met to decide where to place employees. Locations 

were identified and offers were made. Sometimes an individual had an 

opportunity to choose among offices.

I was offered and accepted a position as the assistant district 

manager (ADM) for minerals in the BLM’s Craig, Colorado, office. The 

proposed organization was for my division to have a branch of solid 

minerals and a branch of fluid minerals. The two branch chiefs and an 

inspection and enforcement coordinator had also recently been transferred 

to Craig. 

Arriving in Craig in June 1983, we began the work of completing our 

staffing efforts. Petroleum and mining engineers were hired. Geologists 

were recruited. The existing clerical staff was assigned new duties to 

support us. Lease and well files were transferred from the Grand Junction 

office to Craig.

Larry Bauer worked in the Craig District Office (now the Little Snake Field Office) before transferring to Phoenix,

where he served at both the Arizona State Office and the National Training Center prior to his retirement. 

Oil rig in Colorado.

Coal development

in Colorado.
26 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 27

The management of federal coal resources also 

came under scrutiny at this time. An April 1982 

coal sale in the Powder River Basin became the 

focal point for wide-ranging public concerns. The 

$67 million the BLM received for the Powder River 

Basin leases was roughly $100 million less than the 

General Accounting Office’s revised estimates of fair 

market value, and charges surfaced that some of the 

participating bidders had the minimum acceptable 

bids leaked to them.24 Environmental groups also 

sued, alleging that the NEPA analysis for the sale 

was inadequate. 

In 1983, Congress established a new commission, 

this one charged with studying the federal 

coal management program and resolving the 

controversies that were swirling around its leasing 

procedures. The Department of the Interior, once 

again, tapped Linowes to lead the commission. 

Interior Secretary William Clark, who had 

succeeded Watt in 1983, ordered a moratorium on 

coal leasing during the program evaluation. 

The commission’s 1984 report, “Fair Market 

Value Policy for Federal Coal Leasing,” provided 

Congress with 36 recommendations for 

improving federal coal management. It did not 

address environmental issues. In response to 

the commission’s report, the BLM determined it 

would no longer decide where leasing would occur 

within coal regions and strengthened the program’s 

documentation requirements.

Interest in Oil Shale Increases

As the BLM’s energy mandate expanded, the 

Iranian revolution led to a peak in oil prices in 

1980 (doubling to $26 a barrel from 1979 prices). 

Responding to the surge in prices, companies 

noncompetitive issuance for up to 2 years. Annual 

rentals are $1.50 an acre for the first 5 years of a 

lease and $2 an acre for each year thereafter, and 

producers pay royalties of at least 12.5 percent.

The courts weighed in on the proper degree 

of environmental review required for oil and 

gas development plans in the 1980s. In 1981, 

environmentalists sued the BLM—which handles 

oil and gas leasing on national forest lands—over a 

1981 decision to lease 711 parcels in the Flathead 

and Gallatin National Forests in Montana. They 

maintained that the BLM should prepare an 

extensive EIS on any development plan for an area 

before issuing leases, rather than relying on the 

environmental assessments that it routinely issued.

In its 1988 ruling in Conner v. Burford, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 

that the BLM must conduct an EIS before making 

an “irretrievable commitment of resources” to 

disturb the environment through leasing or other 

activities. Lonnie said, “The effect of the ruling was 

that oil and gas leasing followed a different protocol 

in states governed by the Ninth Circuit than in 

the Tenth Circuit, where the appeals court had 

reached the opposite conclusion regarding EISs.”27

The Department of Justice declined to petition the 

Supreme Court to reconcile the differences. The 

divergence was resolved over the next decade as

the BLM replaced its old management framework 

plans with updated RMPs, accompanied by EISs. 

These newer generations of RMPs/EISs analyzed

various scenarios for opening lands to oil and

gas leases in the context of NEPA.

combed Alaska and other areas for oil. They also 

looked to the potentially large oil deposits in the 

shale formations of western Colorado. Attempts 

to spur development in the 1970s faded due to oil 

prices that were too low to make drilling for the 

resources economically feasible. 

In 1980, Congress passed the Energy Security 

Act. The act created the government-sponsored 

Synthetic Fuels Corporation to stimulate 

production of 2 million barrels of oil a day by 1992 

through commercializing technology to extract oil 

from oil shale and natural gas from coal. When oil 

prices began falling again in the early 1980s, Exxon 

backed out of its Colorado oil shale operation and 

released more than 2,000 workers in the area, an 

event that crippled local economies.

Leasing Undergoes Reform

During the 1970s and 1980s, the BLM competitively 

leased only those lands located within a “known 

geologic structure” or a producing oil and gas field. 

The BLM leased lands outside of known geologic 

structures noncompetitively, and it could issue 

unleased tracts to the first qualified applicant 

through an over-the-counter system. The BLM also 

sold tracts within leases that had expired or been 

relinquished in a lottery. Consequently, speculators 

could pay a nominal filing fee for a lease and then 

resell it for thousands, or millions, of dollars. 

Tom Lonnie, a former BLM assistant director for 

minerals, realty, and resource protection, recalled 

criminal investigations of “boiler room” operations 

where an unscrupulous broker solicited multiple 

applications from the public for a single lease.25

The arrangement increased the broker’s odds of 

handling the initial sale and guaranteed the broker 

most of the proceeds when the lease was resold in 

the secondary market.

Upset that the BLM had issued a lease 

noncompetitively on the Fort Chaffee Military 

Reservation in 1979 to a Texas firm instead of a 

firm based in his state of Arkansas, Senator Dale 

Bumpers began introducing legislation establishing 

a system for competitive leasing on federal lands in 

1981.26 In December 1987, the Federal Onshore Oil 

and Gas Leasing Reform Act finally became law.

The law established the competitive oil and gas 

leasing system the BLM uses today, with each 

BLM state (or the Eastern States office) holding 

auctions on at least a quarterly basis, with a 

minimum acceptable bid of $2 an acre for each 

parcel. Tracts not sold competitively are eligible for 

Oil shale. Public Land Disposal Authority Expands

Within the BLM, the lands, realty, and cadastral 

survey programs had unique responsibilities that 

had significant bearing on the ever-changing 

West. The BLM had to complete surveys and legal 

descriptions of federally owned lands before any 

other actions could take place on them. Such 

actions included disposing of public lands by sale, 

exchange, or other means and authorizing rightsof-way, permits, and licenses allowable under the 

public land laws. 

FLPMA expanded the BLM’s authority to dispose 

of public lands through exchanges, sales, and other 

conveyances. FLPMA required that disposal of 

lands “serve important public objectives, including 

but not limited to the expansion of communities 

and economic development, that cannot be 

achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than 

public land.” In determining the public interest, 

the BLM was directed to consider such factors as 

improved federal land management, benefits to 

states and local communities, including community 

expansion and recreation, and the needs of fish 

and wildlife.

In the years immediately following passage of 

FLPMA, the BLM lands and realty program faced a 

number of significant challenges, including:

• Developing new regulations for land 

transactions

• Responding to dramatic increases in 

applications for energy-related transactions

• Completing an inventory of land previously 

withdrawn to identify those lands that should 

be returned to multiple use management

• Processing land selections under several laws 

that governed the disposition of federal lands 

in Alaska

In 1981, Secretary Watt invited western governors 

to identify public lands needed for community 

expansion or other uses. The governors responded 

with nearly 400 requests totaling 700,000 acres 

of public lands managed by the BLM and other 

agencies. The BLM began processing the requests 

that involved land under its jurisdiction, with 

most of the transactions involving land sales or 

conveyances under the Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act of 1926.

Cadastral survey in Oregon.
28 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 29

Land Exchanges Increase

Land exchanges were an important tool for 

consolidating land ownership to make public land 

management more efficient. Regulations requiring 

that parcels exchanged must have equal value had 

long hampered the exchange process, however. 

FLPMA provided an opportunity to streamline 

the process, and new regulations came out in 1981 

that allowed for equalizing the differences in value 

through cash payments.

In the following years, the use of land exchanges 

rose dramatically. In 1981, the BLM conveyed 

roughly 50,000 acres through land exchanges. 

In 1988, the BLM conducted 67 land exchanges, 

conveying more than 230,000 acres of land to state 

and private interests in exchange for 378,000 acres 

that became part of the public domain.

Congress Gets Involved in Land Exchanges

The purpose of land exchanges in the late 1940s 

and 1950s was primarily to improve grazing 

administration. Because the public and private 

lands exchanged were generally in the same area 

and of equal value, these exchanges usually resulted 

in little criticism or controversy.

During the 1960s, with growing public support 

for conservation and environmental protection, 

Congress became more directly involved in the 

exchange of public lands for privately owned 

lands with high conservation values. Congress 

retained authority granted in the United States 

Constitution to dispose of federal lands, and while 

land management agencies could conduct intrastate

exchanges, Congress had sole authority to authorize 

interstate exchanges.

Northern Futures | By Bob Faithful

document with the state and Native parties before 

issuing it, which allowed face-to-face discussions and 

changes without litigation. Small problem areas were 

held out of the document while hundreds of thousands 

of acres were approved. The men and women of the 

BLM ANCSA staff traveled by small planes and boats 

in all seasons and all across the state for meetings 

with the villagers, often sleeping in schools or private 

homes. These land title pioneers were mostly women 

breaking ground and establishing a high standard of 

public service. 

Sue Wolf, Stan Bronczyk, and their teams 

transferred millions of acres in the early years of the 

program. In fact, BLM’s success at expediting ANCSA 

transfers led the State of Alaska to file a lawsuit 

demanding that the transfer of 107 million acres 

under the Statehood Act (12 million acres a year) also 

be expedited. The lawsuit was settled in 1982, the 

same year I became the new deputy state director, 

working under Robert Arndorfer, the special assistant 

at that time. 

Another land issue involved the resolution of 

250,000 individual allotment parcels for Natives 

that were backlogged and now handed to the new 

ANCSA and state conveyance programs. Willa Mae 

Shore undertook a bold program with the state 

conveyances and, with her unit, transferred almost 

13 million acres—an accomplishment never matched 

in recent history. Terry Hassett’s team cleared the 

individual allotment goal. Ann Johnson, with a team 

of land law examiners, continued recordbreaking 

accomplishments, laying the economic and historic 

groundwork for Alaska Natives. Diversity, customer 

service, and accountability built another chapter to the 

nation’s lands.

In the last 50 years, a special BLM realty story 

grew from promises made both to the State of Alaska 

and to Alaska Native Corporations and individuals. It 

continued the General Land Office tradition of building 

the nation.

In 1978, I joined a new team established in 

Anchorage to speed BLM land transfers under the 

1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). 

Congress had promised 44 million acres of land to 

Alaska Native Corporations. Alaska Natives were 

shareholders of individual village and larger regional 

corporations. Of the acres promised in 1971, less than 

a million acres had been transferred after 7 years. 

The BLM state director in Alaska, Curtis McVee 

established the ANCSA Conveyance Division in 1978. 

It was led by a special assistant, Robert Arnold, who 

was a respected Alaska expert, and BLM’s first female 

deputy state director, Judy Kammins Albietz. The 

new team made a dramatic change in the historic 

patent process. We shared the draft of our final patent 

Bob Faithful was hired by the BLM in Alaska in 1978 and became the deputy state director for ANCSA and state conveyances in 1982. In 1984, he 

became BLM’s Alaska programs manager in Washington, DC. Bob was the first African-American to serve as the associate state director (acting) 

for Eastern States, associate state director for Montana/Dakotas, and assistant director for support services for the BLM. He retired after 33 years 

with the Department of the Interior, serving in the Office of the Secretary, at the Bureau of Mines, and at the National Park Service.

Small plane used to travel to villages in Alaska.

Regional corporations in Alaska.

Special acts passed by Congress authorized the 

acquisition of privately owned lands (“inholdings”) 

within units of the National Park System in 

exchange for “any property under the jurisdiction 

of the Secretary of the Interior.” 

Exchanged Lands Go to Other Agencies

These three-way land exchanges typically called 

upon the BLM to contribute the public lands 

needed for an exchange. The BLM increasingly 

found itself in the unenviable position of 

contributing property under its stewardship in 

exchange for land that went to the National Park 

Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the 

U.S. Forest Service. The BLM then served as the 

“lightening rod” for any public criticism, adverse 

publicity, or resulting investigations.

One of the earliest of these congressionally 

mandated exchanges occurred in 1962. It involved 

more than 6,000 acres of BLM lands near Phoenix 

and privately owned property north of San 

Francisco that became part of Point Reyes National 

Seashore. Conservation groups, members of 

Congress, and, of course, state and local officials 

and the public in California strongly supported 

the exchange. Elsewhere, however, people roundly 

criticized the exchange, particularly after investors 

reaped enormous profits from the Phoenix area 

lands conveyed to private ownership.

Many years later, the Public Lands Foundation cited 

this exchange in a position paper that proposed 

changes to the BLM’s lands and realty program.28

The Public Lands Foundation paper said, “The 

National Park Service got the land they wanted. 

All that the BLM received from the exchange was 

controversy over land values, public criticism of 

the exchange, and two Congressional investigative 

committee hearings that accomplished little except 

to further embarrass the BLM.”

Yet, that exchange, and the dozens like it that 

followed, allowed the BLM and the lands and 

realty program staff to gain something else: the 

satisfaction that the agency was accomplishing 

great work—though generally without credit—to 

advance the public interest by helping to secure 

and preserve some of the priceless landscapes of 

the West.

Point Reyes National Seashore headlands from Chimney Rock in California.
30 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 31

Congress Provides

Law Enforcement Authority

Probably every BLM ranger at some point has 

answered the question: “When did rangers start 

carrying guns?” Though it seems an obvious 

outcome of urban crime spilling out onto the public 

lands, the BLM’s deployment of a highly visible, 

armed ranger force just a few decades ago was a 

delicate proposition. How then, and why, did the 

BLM come to need a contingent of armed law 

enforcement officers?

After its creation in 1946, the BLM continued 

administering the public lands as its predecessor 

agencies had, using the outmoded and often 

conflicting mandates of the multitude of laws 

passed during the previous 150 years. Powerless 

to stop unauthorized use, the BLM drafted a 

trespass manual in 1950. The Bureau gave resource 

specialists the cumbersome, time-consuming, 

collateral duty of initiating trespass actions for 

unauthorized use, occupancy, and development 

of the public lands, the outcome of which was 

dependent upon the cooperation of the trespasser 

or the federal civil courts. By the early 1950s, the 

BLM became aware of increased vandalism to 

cultural resource sites but lacked the authority and 

personnel to investigate and prosecute violations of 

the Antiquities Act of 1906.

By the early 1960s, President John Kennedy took 

notice of the public lands, saying they were vital to 

the nation’s economic well-being but suffered from 

uncontrolled use and a lack of proper management. 

Between 1963 and 1968 recreational visits to the 

public lands more than tripled. Former California 

State Director J. Russell Penny recognized as 

early as 1966 “that heavily populated California 

presented a new dimension in public land 

management: ‘people management.’”

More than 16 million people lived within 3 hours 

of the unregulated California desert. Uncontrolled 

off-highway vehicle use was negatively affecting the 

public lands. The Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act of 1964 had provided arrest authority to 

“persons authorized by the heads of such Federal 

agencies to enforce any such rules or regulations 

issued under this subsection,” but the BLM had 

no trained personnel to whom it could delegate 

this authority. 

Working with the California congressional 

delegation, Penny convinced Congressman 

Bob Mathias of Tulare County to introduce 

California Desert Conservation Area legislation, 

which proposed, among other things, the 

establishment of a ranger force in the California 

desert. Penny commissioned a team in 1968 to 

answer the following questions: 

• How serious is our protection problem now?

• How bad can it get?

• What can we do immediately?

• What should we do in the future?

BLM ranger 

talking with 

off-road 

vehicle users 

at Dumont 

Dunes 

(1977).

discovered that cattle barons Daniel Camfield and William Drury had constructed a network of fences 

entirely on private lands that occurred in a checkerboard pattern with public lands. The fences effectively 

enclosed 20,000 acres of public lands and barred public access and settlement. In 1896, the government 

charged the cattlemen with violating the Unlawful Inclosures Act. The U.S. Supreme Court sustained the 

government’s case, affirming the government’s authority to manage and regulate the public domain. The 

Court said the government could not “permit any individual or private corporation to monopolize the public 

lands for private gain.” The Court also said, “The general Government doubtless has a power over its own 

property analogous to the police power of several States, and the extent to which it may go in exercise of such 

power is measured by the exigencies of the particular case.”

In 1897, Congress enacted the Forest Management Act, giving the GLO authority to regulate 

occupancy and use, develop mineral resources, sell timber, and provide for fire protection in the forest 

reserves. The first government employee to hold the title “Forest Ranger” was hired in 1898 in the 

Battlement Mesa Forest Reserve in Colorado. The Forest Reserve Manual of 1902 described the work of 

rangers as “protective duty, guarding against fire and trespass, fighting fires and stopping trespass, as well as 

assisting the State authorities in the protection of game.”

By the turn of the 20th century, a fledgling environmental movement was taking hold. President 

Theodore Roosevelt set large blocks of public lands aside to protect timber, watersheds, wildlife, and 

cultural resources. Congress enacted several laws in 1909 to protect these resources. Enforcement 

responsibilities were transferred from the GLO to the Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) Division of 

Investigations in 1933. Due to a severely diminished workload and a wartime shift in management 

philosophy, these agents lost their law enforcement authority in 1942 when they were transferred back to 

the GLO. The former agents became “field investigators,” predecessors of today’s BLM resource specialists. 

Even after the GLO and the Grazing Service were merged to form the BLM in 1946, resource 

protection continued to be a challenge. In 1971, Congress responded to the slaughter of wild horses by 

enacting the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros (WH&B) Act, which provided “any employee designated 

by the Secretary of the Interior” with arrest authority for violations of any provisions of the act. The BLM 

was charged with the management and protection of wild horses and burros but lacked enforcement 

personnel, so in March 1974, BLM Director Curt Berkland contacted Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

Director Clarence Kelley to request assistance with enforcement. Kelley told Berkland the BLM must 

take responsibility for such investigations, not the FBI, and the BLM realized it needed its own 

enforcement personnel.

In 1974, the BLM hired its first law enforcement officer, Peter Silvain, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) special agent, who was stationed in Washington, DC. The BLM then hired a second special 

agent and began developing a Bureau law enforcement program. Silvain adapted the USFWS badge for 

BLM law enforcement. In 1975, BLM Associate Director George Turcott authorized Silvain to hire special 

agents in Idaho, Arizona, Utah, Montana, California, Oregon, and Wyoming. These special agents were 

commissioned with the authority of the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

of 1965, the WH&B Act of 1971, and the Sikes Act of 1974; however, they could only make arrests for violations 

of the WH&B Act.

Around that same time, President Nixon had taken notice of uncontrolled off-highway vehicle use on 

public lands and issued Executive Order 11644, which directed federal land management agencies to manage 

motorized vehicle use; designate lands as open, closed, or limited with regards to such use; and provide for 

resource protection and public safety. The BLM designated the public lands accordingly, but Nixon’s directive 

failed to provide the BLM with authority to enforce the land use designations. California State Director J. Russell 

Penny realized the time had come to implement a “ranger force” to establish a visible presence and oversee offhighway vehicle use on the public lands. 

The BLM hired its first ranger, Steve Smith, in 1972 in Bakersfield, California. BLM’s Riverside district 

manager, Del Vail, hired Michael Wintch in 1973 as chief of the desert ranger group. Vail hired six additional 

rangers that year and 21 more in 1974. Penny, fully aware that the BLM had no enforcement regulations or 

authority, said, “The rangers are natural resource specialists first and people managers second. Our rangers will try 

to achieve as much of their jobs as possible by education and persuasion.” 

Today, BLM’s law enforcement program continues to include rangers, who provide a visible deterrent on 

the public lands, and special agents, who are plainclothes law enforcement officers responsible for long-term 

investigations of administrative, civil, and criminal violations of federal laws relating to the use, management, 

Steven Martin was in law enforcement with the BLM for 24 years. He served as a ranger in California and Utah,

a ranger and a special agent in New Mexico, and the assistant special agent in charge in Arizona.

BLM ranger with vehicle (1970).

President Thomas Jefferson.

and protection of public lands and resources. These 

investigators are classified in the same job series 

as other federal criminal investigators such as 

those in the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, 

and U.S. Marshals Service. Like their GLO and 

DOI predecessors, they investigate cases of land 

fraud and timber and minerals theft, but with 

the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, they now have the 

authority to make arrests for those crimes.

Team of horses hauling logs in Washington (1892).

A Long Tradition of

Federal Resource Protection | By Steven Martin

The need to protect 

federal resources goes back 

to the days when Thomas 

Jefferson was President. 

Though President Jefferson 

had a vision that the public 

domain would be surveyed 

prior to orderly settlement, 

settlers were moving onto 

the public domain before 

surveys were completed, 

creating conflict and 

competition for land. In 

1807, Congress authorized the military to remove, fine, and/or 

imprison trespassers who moved onto unsurveyed public lands, 

which proved to be an unpopular policy. Congress relented and 

enacted numerous preemption laws that gave squatters first right 

to the public domain lands they occupied.

Unwilling to give up on the concept of orderly settlement, 

Congress used the power of the Property Clause of the U.S. 

Constitution to create the General Land Office (GLO) in 1812. The 

duties of the GLO were to “superintend, execute, and perform, all 

such acts and things, touching or respecting the public lands of the 

United States.” 

By the late 1820s, protection of federal resources again 

became an issue when Congress realized that the vast stands of 

oak trees necessary for shipbuilding and the piney woods of the 

Old Northwest were vanishing as lumbermen clearcut the forests 

and moved on. In response, Congress enacted the Timber Trespass 

Act of 1832. The GLO hired “special timber agents” in 1832 to 

enforce this law. Unfortunately, so few agents were hired that 

timber theft and land fraud continued unabated. By 1883, the GLO 

created a law enforcement division staffed with 70 special agents 

charged with investigating timber depredations and fraudulent 

land entries.

By 1885, special agents were also investigating violations of 

the Unlawful Inclosures Act. In a landmark case, GLO investigators 
32 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 33

Three years later, the BLM issued a report on a 

basic law enforcement study. The report stated: 

“Bureau land in California is a valuable commodity 

. . . but these land and resource values are steadily 

eroded by uncontrolled use, abuse, vandalism and 

thefts, and visitor health and safety are in jeopardy.” 

It also noted that recreation regulations issued 

by the Secretary of the Interior in 1969 lacked 

enforcement authority. 

The report introduced the concept of rangers “to 

administer protection services, including law 

enforcement in the California Desert and other 

California wild land areas frequented by traffic 

violators, thieves, drug and narcotic users and 

wanted felons . . . and the protection of man from 

man during their use of public resources and 

facilities.” It noted that without enabling legislation, 

rangers would be “a roving BLM ambassador rather 

than a lawman.” The report concluded that “the 

penalties of inaction would result in irreparable 

loss and damage to the public lands and resources 

if BLM continued with the ‘status quo.’” and that 

“BLM must develop a law enforcement capability 

to protect visitors, resources, and property after 

persuasion, education and cooperation fails.” 

The question of whether to grant the BLM law 

enforcement authority became one of the most 

contentious issues before Congress as FLPMA 

worked its way through the legislative process. 

Many in Congress were fearful of turning every 

BLM employee into a law enforcement agent. 

Others believed law enforcement authority was 

necessary for the BLM to manage the public 

lands effectively. Representative Shirley Pettis of 

California stated, “Without police powers, BLM 

officials are unable to take action to protect the land 

and the users of the land.”29

Representative John Seiberling of Ohio agreed:

“BLM currently has only seven special 

agents, hired in the past year. They can make 

arrests for crimes against wild horses, but 

not for crimes against natural resources or 

people. They are authorized to investigate 

violations of natural resource laws such as 

land fraud, theft of timber and minerals, but 

once their investigation is complete, they 

have to call on another Federal agency to 

make the arrest.”30

In a last-minute rush before adjournment, Congress 

reached a compromise on the issue. FLPMA 

included four provisions that were fundamental 

to BLM law enforcement. The act defined the 

agency’s jurisdiction, provided BLM personnel 

with law enforcement authority, made violations 

of BLM regulations class A misdemeanors, and 

established a ranger force in the California Desert 

Conservation Area.

Rangers Issue Citations

Some called the early days of the ranger 

program the “smile and wave” phase as the 

BLM placed rangers under the “visitor services” 

organizational umbrella. Although rangers finally 

had law enforcement authority, the BLM had few 

regulations rangers could enforce. Managers were 

uncertain, and perhaps a bit apprehensive, about 

armed rangers on public lands. Some managers felt 

the best use of rangers was to gather field data for 

resource specialists since rangers were in the field 

anyway. Further, rangers were required to write 

a memo to the state office any time they took law 

enforcement action, such as using emergency lights 

to conduct a vehicle stop. 

Adding to the pressure, each ranger was responsible 

for more than 1 million acres of public lands. 

Moreover, rangers lacked federal authority to issue 

citations for class A misdemeanors, which, under 

the terms of FLPMA, included violations of any 

regulation governing public lands issued by the 

Secretary of the Interior. That problem was resolved 

in 1980 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 

“Rules of Procedure for the Trial of Misdemeanors,” 

allowing the issuance of citations for class A 

misdemeanors. The new rules allowed the BLM 

to develop citation procedures and collateral fine 

schedules, which the U.S. District Court’s Central 

District of California adopted in 1982. In the 

interim, Dennis McLane, a ranger in the BLM’s 

California Desert District, had obtained peace 

officer authority from the California Departments 

of Fish and Game and Forestry in 1981, authorizing 

rangers to enforce state resource laws and issue 

state citations. 

In September 1984, the BLM issued its first law 

enforcement manual, which included a formal 

statement of the program’s objective:

“The objective of this program is to seek 

voluntary compliance with Federal laws 

and regulations relating to the public lands. 

When such compliance

is not possible, law

enforcement employees

are responsible for

enforcement of

applicable laws and

regulations as they

relate to the use,

management, and

development of

public lands

and resources.”

The Sagebrush Ceiling | By Lynell Schalk

Lynell Schalk will strap a .357-magnum revolver on her hip this weekend, climb into a jeep and, like a marshal of the old West,

begin enforcing the law in a wild and desolate territory aflame with a new kind of frontier warfare.

The 28-year-old Miss Schalk received her badge and gun yesterday, becoming one of the nation’s first desert peace officers.

—Robert Lindsey, The New York Times, April 9, 1978

BLM ranger helping a visitor 

(1970s).

Deserts are fragile environments. I learned this firsthand during 

my time as a seasonal ranger in the Four Corners region for the National 

Park Service and the BLM. When I transferred to BLM’s California Desert 

Conservation Area (CDCA) in 1976, the agency was overwhelmed by 

millions of public land visitors. I became one of the agency’s first 13 

uniformed law enforcement rangers delegated with federal authority to 

protect the CDCA. I was also the BLM’s first female officer. 

The BLM launched the CDCA ranger program after the passage of 

FLPMA. BLM rangers were then trained at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. Out of more than 800 trainees 

representing nearly 80 federal agencies at the center, there were fewer 

than 30 females, which put a lot of pressure on us to succeed. I ended up 

graduating in the top 5 percent of my class.

In the beginning, there was controversy over what a female law 

enforcement ranger uniform should look like. The California State Office 

had me pose for photographs in a variety of uniform components: a 

chocolate brown above-the-knee polyester skirt, a woman’s ascot tie, a 

man’s full length tie, a pair of chocolate brown men’s slacks, and a belt 

and holster. Deciding how to anchor the gun holster over the short brown 

beltless skirt was my biggest challenge, as the gun belt rose up under 

my armpits each time I withdrew my firearm. After weeks of debate, 

the agency finally authorized me to wear the same uniform as the 

male officers. 

There was also controversy over the carrying of firearms. Concerned 

about public reaction, Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus was reluctant 

to arm BLM rangers, despite the FLPMA mandate, and was urged to place 

parameters on the rangers’ authority. In February 1978, the 13 of us 

reported to the BLM California State Office to receive our delegations. The 

national press had been called in to record the momentous event. In full 

dress uniform, minus our defensive equipment and badges, we joined the 

state director for a conference call with the (acting) director of the BLM 

in Washington, DC. The director told us of a January 24, 1978, memo in 

which the Secretary had approved the deployment of rangers with the 

stipulation “that they not wear side arms unless engaged in active search 

of violators. Arms should be kept in the patrol vehicle and out of sight of 

the public when conditions permit.” Another stipulation restricted our 

enforcement area to the CDCA.

When the director then suggested that we keep our “side arms” 

locked in our glove boxes or briefcases, we reacted with visible outrage. 

We were extremely dedicated to the protection of the public lands and 

concerned for the safety of the public, other employees, and ourselves. 

Incensed, we spontaneously got up from our chairs and advised the 

director we would not accept the delegation under such restrictions. The 

swearing-in ceremony was cancelled and the BLM’s public affairs staff 

was left to face the media’s many questions about why the undelegated 

rangers were driving out of the parking lot. 

By February 16, 1978, the Secretary had rescinded his earlier 

restrictions and the 13 of us were sworn in on April 7, 1978, with full 

federal law enforcement authority. Our actions were described by Paul D. 

Berkowitz in his book, “U.S. Rangers: The Law of the Land”: 

“It’s likely that the actions of these first thirteen Rangers—and 

their resolve to be treated as professionals, and to retain and 

carry essential defensive equipment—has helped them and 

their successors to avoid any number of violent assaults and other 

challenges to their authority that they would otherwise have 

experienced.”

After a 27-year career with the BLM, I retired in 2001 as the special 

agent-in-charge for Oregon and Washington, the first woman officer 

to serve in this position. I had hoped that my efforts had lifted the 

“sagebrush ceiling” for future women officers. By 2011, however, out of 

BLM’s 216 delegated rangers, only 18 were women. The sagebrush ceiling 

was only slightly cracked.

Lynell Schalk worked as a ranger in the Monticello District in Utah and the El Centro Resource Area in California.

She was a special agent in the Oregon State Office and retired as the special agent-in-charge in 2001.

Marijuana raid 

on BLM land in 

western Oregon 

(1985).

 Ranger Schalk

 receiving federal law 

 enforcement authority 

 from California State 

Director Ed Hastey (1978).

Helicopter

surveillance

operation in the

Grand Gulch Primitive

Area in southeast Utah

(circa 1986).
34 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 35

The Law Enforcement Program Expands

As rangers patrolled the public lands, they 

continued to discover violations previously 

unnoticed by the BLM, partly because new 

mandates and regulations restricted or prohibited 

historic uses and partly because activity on the 

public lands was increasing. The BLM began to 

realize the value of having rangers out on the public 

lands but recognized there were too few of them. 

Southern California Congressman Jerry Lewis, 

aware that the BLM’s 1971 law enforcement study 

had recommended 50 rangers for the California 

desert, secured appropriations in 1988 for the BLM 

to hire 20 rangers, expanding the desert ranger 

force to 48. 

The BLM hired additional law enforcement 

officers that year as a result of President 

George H.W. Bush’s establishment of the Office 

of National Drug Control Policy. This policy 

required federal agencies with drug enforcement 

Through the 1950s and 1960s, and even into the 

early 1970s, BLM wildland fire engines were often 

simple flatbed trucks with tanks mounted on the 

back, pump motors that had to be hand-cranked 

to start, and a wooden toolbox that held a few 

shovels, rakes, and Pulaskis. Cowboy boots and 

jeans were standard dress for firefighters, who 

typically rode to a fire on the back of the engines, 

hanging on between the tank and the side rails. 

“If you had a fire-resistant Nomex fire shirt in 

those days, that meant you were the boss,” said 

Carlos Mendiola, a retired veteran of the early days 

of BLM firefighting.31

At that time, the fire program was small and 

isolated from other BLM programs. The program 

relied almost exclusively on summer temporary 

workers and the occasional “per diem guard” 

(typically ranchers who picked up tools at one of 

several tool caches in the field and helped suppress 

a fire in exchange for fire pay) and had the singular 

mission of putting out wildfires. There was no 

attempt to understand fire in the larger picture of 

resource management and little or no cooperation 

with other agencies or departments. Safety was little 

more than a sideline consideration.

As time passed, things changed. Engines continued 

to be the primary equipment of the BLM fire 

responsibilities to devote funds and efforts toward 

drug enforcement, including bureaus of the 

Department of the Interior. The BLM was now 

in the drug enforcement business. The Bureau 

restructured its law enforcement budget with 

the goal of establishing a special agent as a drug 

enforcement coordinator in each BLM state office. 

Later that year, the BLM hired two special agents in 

New Mexico and one in Oregon. 

With an expanding program, a high level of 

curiosity, and participation in the war on drugs, 

it was only a matter of time, statistically speaking, 

before a BLM law enforcement officer would be 

involved in a serious incident. That day arrived 

during Easter weekend in 1989. As a Tucson, 

Arizona, ranger approached the remote residence 

of a suspected cactus thief, a teenage boy, armed 

with a shotgun, opened fire. The ranger was not 

seriously injured and returned to duty shortly 

after the incident, serving with distinction 

until retirement.

BLM law enforcement officers worked alone in 

remote areas and criminals frequently outgunned 

them, as was the case in Tucson. The officers 

needed to be better equipped, particularly to 

fight the war on drugs. In 1990, the BLM’s law 

enforcement chief, Walter Johnson, replaced aging 

revolvers with modern semiautomatic handguns 

and secured federal funding to combat marijuana 

cultivation and smuggling on public lands 

throughout the West and along the United States–

Mexico border. The BLM established several new 

drug and border interdiction positions that year, 

including a national drug enforcement coordinator 

agent in Washington, DC; seven agents and three 

rangers in California; five rangers in Las Cruces, 

New Mexico; and four agents in Oregon, one as a 

Bureau-sanctioned K-9 officer.

Johnson used federal drug- and crime-fighting 

funds in 1990 to launch two large-scale marijuana 

eradication operations on public lands in California 

and Oregon. With the National Guard in a support 

role, Operation Green Sweep, a 2-week operation 

in northern California, brought national attention 

to the BLM’s marijuana eradication efforts. Local 

Garberville media dubbed Operation Green Sweep 

as “the U.S. invasion of Humboldt County.” 

Another major operation, called Ghost Dancer, 

was a summer-long marijuana eradication effort 

conducted in conjunction with the Oregon State 

Police and active duty military members. It 

was successful in eradicating a large number of 

marijuana gardens throughout Oregon. 

In the years that followed, BLM law enforcement 

officers played an increasingly vital role in 

the nation’s efforts to stem the tide of illegal 

drug trafficking. 

Changes Influence Fire and

Aviation Management

The story of the BLM’s fire and aviation program 

is one of growth and change that often reached a 

hectic pace. While wildland fire itself and the basics 

of putting fire out have remained the same, all 

else has evolved in ways not even imagined in the 

early days of the program. Advances in equipment, 

technology, science, and training; the expansion of 

communities into fire-prone wildland areas (known 

as the wildland–urban interface); the spread of 

invasive species; the recognition of fire’s role in 

nature; and the influence of resource management 

on fire, among other factors, have all helped 

transform the BLM’s fire program into the modern, 

professional, diverse, and complex program it 

BLM Ranger Edwin Whitteaker is today.

and K-9 Officer Tessa

after a drug arrest.

program, but the 1970s saw those vehicles designed 

specifically as wildland fire engines. Nomex became 

available to all firefighters, though it was not 

required as personal protective equipment. Due 

to the ill-fitting nature of the early Nomex pants, 

most firefighters opted to wear the shirts but left 

the pants stowed in their gear bag in favor of 

wearing jeans.

As the engines and gear evolved during the 1970s, 

agencies’ views on fire also began to change. The 

strict federal “10 a.m. policy,” which stated that fires 

would be controlled by 10 o’clock of the morning 

following the report of a fire, was beginning to 

teeter. This policy had governed fire management 

and control in the BLM, the U.S. Forest Service, and 

other wildfire management agencies for decades. 

But over time, it became increasingly apparent 

to fire and resource managers that such quick 

suppression of wildfire—essentially removing 

fire from the environment—was creating new 

problems. As fire suppression efforts grew more 

effective, the fuels in forests and woodlands became 

overgrown and unhealthy. When fires did occur, 

they tended to be more severe and resistant to 

control, posed greater risks to firefighters, and 

caused more damage to natural resources. Too 

little fire in the forests led to the unintended 

consequence of creating dense, fire-prone stands.

The BLM’s rangelands also showed early signs of 

ecological change, which foreshadowed future 

trends. Landscapes suffered from an uneven 

distribution of fire. In lower elevation valleys, a 

frequent-fire cycle was born, where cheatgrass and 

fire interacted to the detriment of habitats and 

native plants. More fires led to more cheatgrass. 

Here, native grasslands declined in health and 

vigor, while invasive plants increased.

On other sites, too little fire changed landscapes 

differently. Where fire once maintained a healthy 

balance of grasses and shrubs on BLM-managed 

foothills, a lack of fire allowed species such 

as pinyon and juniper to gain a foothold and 

expand in range. Without the periodic cleansing 

provided by wildfire, species such as the waterguzzling western juniper encroached and began 

to dominate, robbing healthier species of scarce 

water resources. Consequently, flows in streams 

diminished, native grasses and forbs declined, 

and infrequent fires became more damaging. 

Across the BLM’s lands, these indicators 

underscored the importance of the natural role 

of fire in maintaining habitats and sustaining 

healthy landscapes. 

A control burn operation 

south of Twin Falls, 

Idaho (1958).

Shoveling a fire line

in Oregon (1959).

Using high-pressure hoses

to fight a blaze in Idaho (1963).
36 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 37

Yellowstone Fire Raises Policy Concerns

Advancements in equipment, training, 

communications, interagency cooperation, and 

other elements of the fire community continued to 

evolve at a steady pace into the 1980s. During this 

time, questions arose about the effectiveness of fire 

suppression, and the resulting buildup of hazardous 

fuels surged. The practices of reintroducing fire 

on the landscape through prescribed fire and 

managing remote wilderness fires less aggressively 

took root and grew.

Early in the decade, an escaped prescribed fire 

that ultimately resulted in a fatality and the 

loss of more than 40 homes and commercial 

buildings in Michigan reverberated across the fire 

community. That fire led to a number of lessons 

learned, including the need to define appropriate 

parameters—such as temperature, humidity, 

winds, terrain, and fuels—and safety measures for 

conducting prescribed fires.

By mid-decade, a series of significant events 

had begun that would ensue over the next two 

Firefighting: Then and Now | By the BLM’s National Interagency Fire Center External Affairs Staff

In the 1960s, perspectives on fire and its place on the land were evolving, 

and fire operations were changing, at times in major ways. During the decades 

that followed, the growth of aerial operations, increased agency cooperation, 

implementation of the Incident Command System (ICS), and development of 

standardized training significantly affected the way fires were managed and formed 

the basis for fire operations today.

“Fire used to be primarily a ground operation,” said Roy Percival, whose career 

in fire management began in the mid-1950s and spanned 35 years. “In the earlier 

times, everything had to do with hiking and trucks.” As time passed, aerial operations 

became an integral part of fire management, from smokejumpers to helicopter 

crews to single-engine air tankers and heavy air tankers, with capacities sometimes 

exceeding 3,000 gallons of retardant or water. By 2010, very large air tankers—or 

VLATs—with capacities of 12,000–20,000 gallons were being used on fires.

In the early 1960s, the BLM and the Forest Service (FS) shared a coordination 

center near downtown Boise, Idaho. By 1965, the BLM had established the Great 

Basin Fire Center in vacant buildings near the Boise airport, the FS was looking to 

establish an air center for fire suppression operations, and both agencies began 

working with the National Weather Service (NWS) to develop fire weather forecasting 

capabilities. By 1968, the BLM had acquired land adjacent to the Boise airport and 

started construction of what was to become the Boise Interagency Fire Center (BIFC). 

In the spring of 1969, the BLM, FS, and NWS moved into the new administration 

building; a mess hall, barracks, and a smokejumper loft were completed that same 

year. The three agencies were later joined by the Department of the Interior’s new 

Office of Aircraft Services and the National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). A new era of cooperation 

and coordination evolved within the fire community, and that spirit of cooperation 

continues today at what is now called the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). 

The BLM still owns the buildings and continues to serve as the host agency and the 

largest employer at NIFC.

In the early 1980s, NIFC adopted the Incident Command System (ICS), an 

organizational model that would change the way wildfire response was managed. 

Previously, a lack of communication and coordination, particularly during fires that 

crossed jurisdictional lines and involved multiple agencies, led to confusion. The 

ICS was based on a quasi-military organization and established a clear line of 

command across agencies from an incident commander to general staff and branch 

chiefs for aviation, operations, planning, logistics, finance, safety, transportation, 

and other functions. 

The ICS not only brought much needed organization to wildland fire response, it 

also was easily scalable to the size and complexity of any incident. The system would 

later be adopted by all federal, state, and local emergency responders, not just for 

wildfire but also for all types of natural and human-caused disasters, from hurricanes 

to terrorist attacks. 

The success of interagency fire response, and later, the ICS, was dependent 

upon common and consistent training. During the early 1970s, on a float trip down 

the Colorado River, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz and Secretary of the Interior 

Rogers Morton engaged in several campfire discussions about how their departments 

could work more closely together. In 1972, during a subsequent meeting of 

wildland fire training officers, it was discovered that eight separate and distinct units 

were developing similar courses in fire safety. These events pointed to a need for 

standardized training and led to the creation of the National Wildfire Coordinating 

Group (NWCG), composed of representatives from the FS; four Department of the 

Interior agencies (BLM, FWS, NPS, and BIA); state fire organizations through the 

National Association of State Foresters; and local departments through the U.S. Fire 

Administration, an organization of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

With standardized training, all firefighters would be trained according to the 

same principles, and functional firefighter and incident management roles could be 

filled in times of need across jurisdictions, agencies, and geographical areas. Since 

its inception, the NWCG has developed and established standards and guidelines 

covering the full spectrum of wildland fire management, from training, equipment, 

and aviation to business practices, risk management, communication, and numerous 

functions in between. 

According to Mike Campbell, the BLM pioneered much of the early effort in 

the fire community to standardize training. Campbell was one of a half-dozen 

employees hired in 1974 to help put together the new training program. New ideas 

regarding training, what was needed, and how it was presented and implemented 

in BLM’s fire community were welcomed and given every opportunity to succeed. “If 

you had some spunk, some imagination, and creativity, you could sell your idea to 

management and they would let you try it,” recalled Campbell, who spent more than 

28 years in the BLM fire program. “You were allowed to experiment and prove the 

worth of your idea.”

As the ICS was established and training and other elements of the fire program 

gelled, the seeds of a more professional firefighting and fire management workforce 

were beginning to sprout. “We went from an organization of temporary employees 

to more permanent employees,” Campbell said. “People got hooked on fire and 

the change gave them a career ladder. We went from a cadre of folks to a team of 

professionals.” And that team of professionals is now better prepared to face the 

challenges of fighting wildland fires that are yet to come.

decades and significantly change the nation’s 

firefighting community. Among those events 

were the Yellowstone fires of 1988, when nearly 

800,000 acres of America’s favorite national park 

burned, focusing more attention on the sometimes 

hazy relationship between wildfire and healthy 

landscapes. Americans were both fascinated and 

appalled by what they saw on the nightly news—

flames racing through the park, threatening some 

of the most iconic natural and cultural resources 

in the country. Yellowstone demonstrated the 

consequences of rapidly suppressing wildfire and 

allowing fuels to build to dangerous levels. 

“Yellowstone definitely was a turning point,” 

said Bill Mitchell, a former BLM employee with 

35 years of experience in fire logistics, plans, and 

finance. “The Yellowstone fires led to even greater 

cooperation among the agencies. People got more 

interested in applying science to fire suppression 

after Yellowstone. And there was an increase in 

public interest, which was the catalyst for changes 

in policy.”32

The Wildland–Urban Interface Draws Attention

On another front, although wildfires had been 

threatening private lands since people first built 

homes in fire-prone landscapes, it wasn’t until 

more modern times that issues related to the mix 

of communities and wildfire caught the nation’s 

attention. California, in particular, had experienced 

home losses to wildfires for years, but when a 

Florida wildfire burned 400 homes in a single day 

in 1985, the nation and Congress took note.

“When Congress called it a ‘national problem’ it 

drew a lot of attention from the public and the fire 

community,” said Pat Durland, who was head of 

the BLM’s national fire prevention, education, and 

community programs in the 1990s and early 2000s. 

“I think that signaled the start of wildland–urban 

interface programs.”33

Fire approaching Old Faithful complex

in Yellowstone (1988).

Ten years after the Yellowstone fires. Aerial view of a wildland–urban interface.

Laying hose on a steep slope during 

the Raft River Fire in Idaho.
38 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 39

Wild Horse and Burro

Inventories Identify Issues

The original Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros 

Act of 1971 declared that these animals are “living 

symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the 

West” and that they are “fast disappearing from the 

American scene.” The act directed the Department 

of the Interior (and, by delegation, the BLM) to 

protect and manage them “as an integral part of 

the natural system of the public lands.” The act 

also gave the Department of Agriculture oversight 

responsibility for a much smaller population of wild 

horses and burros on lands managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service.

Yet, after decades of strife between livestock 

operators who held grazing leases or permits and 

advocates for the wild horses and burros that 

competed for water and forage on the public lands, 

the vision of harmonious management of this 

program proved to be an elusive one.

In 1978, Congress determined that the 1971 

Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act was 

achieving the goal of protecting the animals. 

However, Congress identified the need to facilitate 

“humane adoption or disposal” of the animals 

because they “exceed the carrying capacity of the 

range” and “pose a threat to their own habitat, 

fish, wildlife, recreation, water and soil 

conservation, domestic livestock grazing, and 

other rangeland values.”34 Congress amended the 

original law in provisions of the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act.

The amendments directed the BLM to maintain 

a current inventory of wild horses and burros to 

determine appropriate management levels for 

herd management areas and to determine whether 

those levels could be achieved through removal of 

animals deemed to be in excess of what the range 

could support or other options.

The act further provided that if the BLM 

determines that a given area is overpopulated:

“Such action shall be taken, in the following 

order and priority, until all excess animals 

have been removed so as to restore a thriving 

natural ecological balance to the range, and 

protect the range from the deterioration 

associated with overpopulation: 

“(A) The Secretary shall order

old, sick, or lame animals to be

destroyed in the most humane

manner possible; 

“(B) The Secretary shall cause

such number of additional excess

wild free-roaming horses and

burros to be humanely captured

and removed for private

maintenance and care for which

he determines an adoption

demand exists by qualified

individuals, and for which he determines he 

can assure humane treatment and care . . . 

“(C) The Secretary shall cause additional 

excess wild free-roaming horses and burros 

for which an adoption demand by qualified 

individuals does not exist be destroyed

in the most humane and cost efficient 

manner possible.”

While the Public Rangelands Improvement Act 

authorized the BLM to destroy unadoptable 

excess animals, BLM Director Robert Burford and 

subsequent annual appropriations bills suspended 

the use of this authority in 1982. 

The BLM continued its “Adopt-A-Horse” program, 

which it launched in 1973 for horses gathered from 

the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range in Montana 

and Wyoming. Between 1973 and 1984, the BLM 

gathered an average of about 4,300 horses from the 

public lands each year. The BLM successfully placed 

most of these animals with private individuals 

through the adoption program. 

Adopted horse

in Utah (1977).

Wild horses in the Pryor Mountains in Montana.

In addition to the Honor Farm, the BLM contracts with correctional 

facilities in Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, and Utah to gentle wild horses. As a 

result, hundreds of wild horses, in various stages of training, are offered for 

adoption into caring homes each year. 

Providing a home for a wild horse or burro is both a challenging and 

rewarding experience. Jeannie Bolt now cares for two living legends of 

the American West. Jeannie calls Billy and Sky over to say hello. They walk 

right over, and she strokes Billy’s head. “They do whatever we ask them 

to,” she says. “They hesitate sometimes, but then they do it. I thought I’d 

have to work and work to gain their trust, but it’s there. They let me hang 

on their necks!”

Even the auctioneer is sold on wild horses. Scott Fluer, who is also a 

BLM wild horse specialist in Wyoming’s Lander Field Office, has adopted 

six wild horses over the years. He and his family use them for trail riding, 

hunting excursions, and moving cattle. In fact, Fluer says he takes only his 

wild horses when he goes hunting, even though he also has five domestic 

horses. “It’s part of their training. They have to learn to rely on me for their 

food and water,” he says. “And it’s also a bonding experience. It builds trust 

and respect between us. They know me, they know my voice. There has to 

be that bond between a horse and his rider.”

The entire Fluer family has grown attached to their adopted horses. 

Fluer’s oldest daughter did a great deal of the training when they adopted 

a weanling named Cisco 9 years ago. He was so well-trained that she rode 

him in horse competitions around the state. A younger daughter rides 

trails with one of the other wild horses. It’s such a gentle horse that the 

family uses it as a “lesson horse”—a horse they use when teaching friends 

how to ride.

The experiences of these families speak volumes about the 

temperament and trainability of wild horses if given the attention, 

commitment, and patience they need. They have a challenging road to 

travel from living free and wild on the range to relying on people for their 

needs. But it can be a rewarding journey for both horse and human.

Back at Otter Creek, Jeannie peers out of the window of her office. 

Billy and Sky munch contentedly under a rainbow that has appeared 

following a late afternoon shower. “You know how some people like to 

garden?” she asks. “This is my therapy.”

Sarah Beckwith is a BLM public affairs specialist in the Wind River/Bighorn Basin District in Wyoming.

Wild horse Billy nibbling 

grass from owner

Jeannie Bolt’s hand.

BLM Wild Horse Specialist Scott Fluer 

hunting with two of his wild horses in 

the Gros Ventre Range in Wyoming. 

Photo courtesy of Scott Fluer.

Adoptions Place Mustangs in Good Homes | By Sarah Beckwith

Under an ominously cloudy sky, a 5-year-old gray horse is ridden 

through a corral past both curious onlookers and serious bidders perched 

on bleacher seats. Scott Fluer breaks the rhythm of his auctioneer’s chant 

to offer some encouraging insight about this particular wild horse.

“Sky is anxious to please his trainer and needs an experienced 

rider. At his height, he’s perfect for the over 55 crowd. Don’t let him get 

away, folks!”

The crowd chuckles, Fluer returns to his speedy chant, and 

Jeannie Bolt of Ten Sleep, Wyoming, raises her hand. Bolt is not yet part of 

the over 55 crowd, but by the end of the day, she has adopted Sky anyway, 

along with a brown, saddle-started wild horse called Billy by his trainer. 

The horses have been patiently “gentled” over the past few months by 

inmates of the Wyoming Honor Farm in Riverton, which uses the gentling 

of wild horses as a rehabilitation tool.

In 1988, the Honor Farm and the BLM worked out a cooperative 

agreement for the training and adoption of wild horses. The Honor Farm 

has found that this program plays a big part in inmate rehabilitation. 

Trainers and wild horses make positive strides together by learning to 

respect and trust each other. Trainers learn that through communication, 

patience, and respect, even a wild animal will respond positively. Inmates 

who are released after working in this program have a greater chance

of success in the outside world. 

Honor Farm trainer

showing a wild horse

at auction.
40 Chapter 1 | 1976–1990 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 41

Notes

1. A more detailed discussion of management 

framework plans appears in James Muhn and Hanson 

R. Stuart, Opportunity and Challenge: The Story of 

BLM (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, 1988), 120-122, www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/

info/history/features/opportunity_and_challenge.html.

2. Rogers C.B. Morton quoted in Phil Hanceford 

and Nada Culver, Toward a Bureau of Landscape 

Management: The Evolution of BLM’s Conservation 

Mission (Denver: The Wilderness Society, BLM Action 

Center, 2010), 18.

3. Richard Nixon, “Statement About the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” January 1, 1970, 

online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The 

American Presidency Project, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/

ws/?pid=2557.

4. Frank Gregg, “Implementing FLPMA,” in James Muhn 

and Hanson R. Stuart, Opportunity and Challenge: The 

Story of BLM, (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, 1988), 206, www.blm.gov/wo/st/

en/info/history/features/opportunity_and_challenge.

html.

5. John D. Leshy served as Assistant Solicitor in the 

Department of the Interior from 1977 to 1980 and as 

Solicitor from 1993 to 2000.

6. John D. Leshy, “Unraveling the Sagebrush Rebellion: 

Law, Politics and Federal Lands,” 14 U.C. Davis L. 

Rev. 317 (1980), http://repository.uchastings.edu/

cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1369&context=faculty_

scholarship.

7. Public Land Law Review Commission, One Third of 

the Nation’s Land: A Report to the President and to the 

Congress (Washington, DC, 1970), 96.

8. President’s Advisory Panel on Timber and the 

Environment, Report of the President’s Advisory Panel on 

Timber and the Environment (Washington, DC, 1973), 8.

9. Editorial, Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA), 

March 3, 1996.

10. John B. Loomis, Integrated Public Lands Management: 

Principles and Applications to National Forests, Parks, 

Wildlife Refuges, and BLM Lands, 2nd ed. (New York: 

Columbia University Press, 2002), 546.

11. Phil Hanceford and Nada Culver, Toward a Bureau 

of Landscape Management: The Evolution of BLM’s 

Conservation Mission (Denver: The Wilderness Society, 

BLM Action Center, 2010), 14.

12. Ibid. 

13. Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE92-Pg1803.pdf.

14. U.S. General Accounting Office, Rangeland 

Management: More Emphasis Needed On Declining 

And Overstocked Grazing Allotments, GAO/RCED88-80 (Washington, DC, 1988), http://www.gao.gov/

assets/150/146517.pdf.

15. Wayne Elmore, “Twenty-One Years: The EverChanging Tale of Oregon’s Bear Creek,” Range Magazine, 

Spring 1998.

16. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 

Outdoor Recreation for America: A Report to the President 

and to the Congress by the Outdoor Recreation Resources 

Review Commission (Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 1962), 1.

17. Cy Jamison quoted in “Back Country Byways 

Beckon,” American Motorcyclist 44, no. 2, (1990):42.

18. The BLM did create “primitive areas” under the 

sketchy authority for multiple use management in the 

Classification and Multiple Use Act. These “primitive 

areas” became “instant study areas” under the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), but there 

was no clear legislative recognition that the public 

domain contained lands worthy of incorporation into the 

National Wilderness Preservation System until FLPMA. 

19. The estimated size of the public domain in the lower 

48 states as of October 21, 1976, was 175 million acres 

and included the 2.4 million acres of O&C lands not 

covered by the section 603 wilderness review process. 

20. There were other demands driving this urgency, such 

as a power line right-of-way and a major oil and gas 

leasing plan in the Rocky Mountain “overthrust belt,” but 

the initial drive was the California Desert Conservation 

Area Plan. 

21. Louis Galambos and Joseph Pratt, The Rise of the 

Corporate Commonwealth: United States Business and 

Public Policy in the 20th Century (New York: Basic 

Books, 1988), 218-219.

22. These regulations were known as section 3809 

rules, appearing under Title 43 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations.

23. Commission on Fiscal Accountability of the Nation’s 

Energy Resources, Fiscal Accountability of the Nation’s 

Energy Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 1982), xv.

24. Commission on Fair Market Value Policy for Federal 

Coal Leasing, Report of the Commission: Fair Market 

Value Policy for Federal Coal Leasing (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984), 3.

25. Tom Lonnie, interview, 2010.

26. Laura Lindley, Of Teapot Dome, Wind River and Fort 

Chaffee: Federal Oil and Gas Resources (Fort Worth, 

TX: American Association of Professional Landmen, 

1998), 21.

27. Tom Lonnie, interview, 2010.

28. Public Lands Foundation, Land Exchanges of Public 

Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 

Position Statement 2010-12 (August 2010). 

29. Representative Pettis (CA), Congressional Record 122 

(July 22, 1976): 23440.

30. Representative Seiberling (OH), Congressional Record

122 (July 22, 1976): 23465.

31. Carlos Mendiola, interview, 2010.

32. Bill Mitchell, interview, 2010.

33. Pat Durland, interview, 2011.

34. Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Section 

2(a)(6), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-92/

pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1803.pdf.

Chapter 2 | The Bureau Embraces Ecosystem Management, 1990–2000

conflict resolution, and partnership building. Use 

of new technology, such as geographic information 

systems and predictive modeling, greatly influenced 

the direction of BLM planning programs. New 

technical specialists were helping the BLM move 

toward using more integrated data collection and 

analysis to inform land use planning.

The BLM issued instructions to field offices 

in 1990 to focus on implementing approved 

plans, linking implementation to the budget 

process, and then tracking progress.1 In 1991, 

however, a report commissioned by the Western 

Governors’ Association found that both the 

BLM and U.S. Forest Service were “preoccupied 

with plan preparation to the exclusion of plan 

implementation.” Robert A. Jones, a retired 

BLM planner, wrote a report for the Public 

Lands Foundation in 1993 that reiterated many 

of the findings of the Western Governors’ 

Association report.

These findings reflected the ongoing challenge 

implicit in balancing the cost benefits of planning 

against those of plan implementation and funding 

of other programs. The budget history of the BLM’s 

planning program reflected the waxing and waning 

of these competing Bureau priorities in times of 

tight budgets and limited staffs.

In the mid-1990s, the BLM reorganized as part of 

a government streamlining effort and the pace of 

plan development slowed, due in part to competing 

work demands on BLM staff, many with collateral 

duties in other programs. The BLM discontinued 

special program guidance and planning handbooks 

as the administration instructed federal agencies 

to reduce government regulatory and guidance 

documents as part of the Reinventing Government 

initiative. The planning budget decreased by more 

than 30 percent in 1995.2 Plan development was 

deemphasized as resources were devoted to plan 

implementation and to the emerging philosophy of 

resource management. Moving beyond traditional 

resource-by-resource approaches, the BLM began 

to focus on how to manage ecological systems as 

a whole. 

Sagebrush steppe ecosystem in the Wind River Range in Wyoming.

America’s evolving views of the environment, 

coupled with a growing consensus among scientists 

and land managers about the need to manage 

natural resources across larger areas, led the BLM 

to embrace the concept of ecosystem management. 

Putting the concept into action, however, required 

a fundamental change in the way the Bureau did 

business, a change that did not come easily.

An Interdisciplinary Approach Guides

the Planning Process 

Changes in the BLM’s resource management 

planning program helped bring a more holistic 

approach to public land management. Through 

the 1990s, the BLM used an interdisciplinary 

method to develop resource management plans. 

Resource specialists in field offices worked together 

to integrate resource data and—after extensive 

public input—propose management actions. Under 

the “old” way of planning, through management 

framework plans, specialists worked separately 

and competed to maximize the management 

and allocation of “their” resources, mirroring 

the thinking of traditional land users and their 

competing needs. At the end of the process, a 

manager had to resolve any resource or land 

use conflicts. 

To implement the new approach, the BLM 

recruited additional staff with specialized skills in 

areas such as communication, problem solving, 

Douglas Point Special Recreation Management Area in Maryland.
42 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 43

Ecosystem Management

Creates Challenges

The BLM’s movement toward an ecosystem 

management approach advanced in 1994 with the 

release of the report, “Ecosystem Management in 

the BLM: From Concept to Commitment.” The 

report defined ecosystem management as “the 

integration of ecological, economic, and social 

principles to manage biological and physical 

systems in a manner safeguarding the long-term 

ecological sustainability, natural diversity, and 

productivity of the landscape.”3

The key to this approach was the formation of 

interdisciplinary teams of BLM specialists working 

to integrate the many components of resource 

management for more comprehensive and holistic 

solutions. This approach produced more balanced 

and efficient management, maximized public 

benefits from the public lands, and ensured the 

sustainability of ecosystem services—including 

food and fiber, energy and minerals, and clean air 

and water—for the benefit of future generations.

In implementing ecosystem management, the BLM 

faced a variety of challenges. These challenges 

included data collection and management, 

changing resource conditions and new information,

competition among

interests, and continuing

legal disputes.

As the BLM took on a

succession of ambitious,

large-scale planning and

management initiatives

through the 1990s and

2000s, approaches to

Ecosystem Thinking Comes to the Public Lands | By Mike Dombeck

The adage that “ecosystems are not only more complex than we think, they are more complex 

than we can think” is as true today as when it was first stated. Yet in spite of its technical and scientific 

complexity, ecosystem thinking is founded on a basic concept: that natural processes and systems 

are intricately linked over broad expanses of space and time. In the 1940s, Aldo Leopold described 

ecosystem thinking as a land ethic that “simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include 

soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land” and added that a human is a “plain member 

and citizen” of the land community.

The passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), along with a litany of 

environmental legislation, came on a wave of public concern for the nation’s environmental well-being. 

Both FLPMA and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 set the stage for the integration of 

ecosystem thinking into multiple use management, which has transcended the administrations of 

several presidents and continues to evolve. 

Implementing ecosystem management, like most major public policy changes, was gradual, 

with momentum increasing over time. The spotted owl controversy in the Pacific Northwest was 

the event that made all the difference by triggering many “groundbreaking” initiatives. The findings 

and recommendations of an interagency committee of scientists, and later the Federal Ecosystem 

Management Analysis Team (FEMAT), provided the foundation for the Northwest Forest Plan. The fact 

that the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) developed a single integrated plan based on 

science for a 24-million-acre land base was both phenomenal and unprecedented. While hindsight 

tells us that not every facet of the plan worked, a number of policy initiatives and administrative thrusts 

resulted that have stood the test of time. In addition, the country’s two largest land management 

agencies worked more closely together than ever applying ecosystem principles over larger landscapes 

and across jurisdictions. Jack Ward Thomas, FS chief, and I (as BLM director) convened a joint national 

leadership team of the FS and BLM to push closer working relationships and colocation of offices. 

The recommendations of FEMAT called for the integration of terrestrial and aquatic habitat 

management. PACFish and InFish, joint BLM-FS guidelines, were developed to protect salmon and 

inland fish habitats throughout the West. The National Riparian Service Team was established, led 

by Wayne Elmore (BLM) and Susan Holtzman (FS). Still full of enthusiasm over the completion of 

the Northwest Forest Plan, Thomas and I agreed to move forward in the development of the Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). If successful, the entire Columbia River Basin 

would be under ecosystem-based management plans similar to the Northwest Forest Plan. However, 

ICBEMP quickly became very controversial, with many politically charged issues. The lesson learned 

was that social and political landscapes are not always ready for what makes the most sense from an 

ecosystem-based view.

Immediately after the 1994 elections, one of my tasks was to brief members of the Appropriations 

and Natural Resources Committees about ecosystem management. Some members did not like all 

the talk of ecosystems, ecosystem management, or biodiversity. So I began talking about healthy 

watersheds, native grasses, stable streambanks, and less soil erosion and could see their concerns 

subside. People are often skeptical of conceptual terms like ecosystems and biodiversity while they 

are comfortable with place-based terms they clearly understand, like watersheds and descriptions of 

healthy land. That prompted me to start talking about watersheds and the “health of the land.” 

Secretary Bruce Babbitt was a major force in promoting science-based ecosystem management on 

the public lands. After I left the BLM to become chief of the FS in 1997, Secretary Babbitt and I began 

having monthly breakfasts, in part to encourage Interior agencies and the FS to work together even 

more closely in the spirit of ecosystem management. 

The daunting challenges we face with climate change validate the basic concept of ecosystem 

thinking. They also prompt us to appreciate that not just public land but all land is connected, from 

mountaintop to valley floor, just as streams are connected from the headwaters to their deltas. 

What greater evidence do we need for the importance of landscape conservation? As time marches 

on, the public lands—belonging to all citizens—will become an increasingly important component 

of the American landscape. The public lands may provide the last places of what the country was like 

when our forefathers first saw it, the last remaining wild places and open spaces that support healthy 

native plant and animal communities for the benefit of future generations. Perhaps the most important 

question we should ask ourselves today is what we want the land to look like in 50 years and 500 years, 

and the most important challenge we face is maintaining the health of the land.

During his federal career, Michael “Mike” P. Dombeck worked as a research and field biologist and held many leadership positions.

He was the acting director of the Bureau of Land Management from 1994 to 1997 and the 14th chief of the Forest Service from 1997 to 2001. 

Ecosystem connectivity within the 

Snake River watershed in Idaho.

resolving these challenges became clearer. Some 

of these efforts fell short of their ultimate goals, 

but all served to advance the BLM’s progress 

toward more comprehensive and more effective 

resource management.

A Threatened Species Influences

Northwest Forest Management

The northern spotted owl, which the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service listed in 1990 as a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species Act, 

profoundly changed the management of federal 

forest lands in the Northwest. The BLM had to 

manage 2.4 million acres of O&C forest lands and 

comply with the requirements of the act.

The owl’s listing brought conflicts over the future 

of federal forests in the Pacific Northwest to a 

head. The owl depended primarily on old growth, 

late-successional forest habitat, an integral part

of the land base that the BLM managed for

timber harvest.

Advocates and opponents of logging both staked 

extreme positions on conservation of the owl. 

The potential loss of timber sale revenue was of 

growing concern to the 18 O&C counties that 

depended on federal timber revenues to help 

provide services to local communities. Popular 

bumper stickers of this period proclaimed, “Kill a 

Spotted Owl—Save a Logger” and “I Like Spotted 

Owls—Fried.” Members of radical environmental 

groups such as Earth First! continued their efforts 

to disrupt timber harvests with tactics like driving 

metal spikes into trees marked for cutting, making 

it dangerous to mill the logs. Some chained 

themselves to trees, setting up the potential for 

violent confrontations. 

In 1990, the U.S. District Court in Portland 

enjoined the BLM’s timber sales for the agency’s 

failure to prepare a supplemental EIS that 

considered new data on the habitat requirements 

and population demographics of the northern 

spotted owl. At the time, the land use plans 

prepared by the BLM from 1979 to 1983 collectively 

authorized harvests of 1,176 million board feet of 

timber a year. The BLM’s draft RMPs to incorporate 

the new science on the owl and other issues were 

nearing completion.

Faced with 44 timber sales suspended by the courts, 

BLM Director Cy Jamison, with the support of 

Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan, appealed to the 

Endangered Species Committee to consider the 

economic costs of halting the timber sales in 1991. 

The Committee approved a handful of sales in 1992, 

with the proviso that the BLM would thereafter 

comply with the conservation strategy developed 

by an interagency scientific committee, including 

a requirement to abide by the “viability clause” of 

the National Forest Management Act. The clause 

was not required under any legal mandate on 

BLM-managed lands. It required the maintenance 

and protection of the diversity of plant and animal 

communities in national forests across their

entire range. 

Because of continued

litigation surrounding

these lease sales, the

harvesting of timber

from the sales exempted

by the committee did

not occur. 

BLM Director Cy Jamison.

Mike Dombeck.
44 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 45

A Forest Summit Leads to the 

Development of the Northwest Forest Plan

The highly charged atmosphere surrounding 

forest management set the stage for the Northwest 

Forest Plan, an attempt to take a more holistic 

and interdisciplinary management approach on 

federally managed lands. 

On April 2, 1993, acting on a promise made during 

his campaign, President Bill Clinton convened 

a forest summit with representatives from the 

logging industry, environmental community, and 

rural communities in Portland, Oregon, in an 

attempt to end the impasse over forest policy. At 

the close of the summit, the President charged a 

team of scientists to provide him with management 

alternatives within 90 days. The Forest Ecosystem 

Management Assessment Team’s task was to 

ensure the consideration of economic and social 

dimensions alongside issues of ecological health in 

a manner that would produce a sustainable level of 

timber harvest in the area. 

The team, led by U.S. Forest Service research 

biologist Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, provided 

President Clinton with 10 options. The option 

selected by the President included “aggressive and 

active management” to

ensure the achievement

of timber harvest goals

of about 1 billion board

feet per year from

U.S. Forest Service and

BLM lands and the

protection of more than

80 percent of the most

significant old-growth

forests. Federal agencies

Creating Options in Western Oregon | By Mike Benefield

teach it all myself, on my own time, if I had to—but firefighting is 

inherently a profession of community service. It wasn’t long before 

volunteers stepped forward to donate their time to help teach. It 

wasn’t just the BLM that provided volunteer instructors, it was the 

Forest Service and the Douglas Forest Protective Association, too.

On the first evening, I was unsure how many students would 

even show up. After a full schoolday, these kids would have to 

commit to 2 extra hours in the evening, twice a week for 10 weeks. 

What was the payoff? With the Roseburg District management 

team in attendance, the first few young men and women filed into 

the conference room at the district fire office. By the time class 

started, there were 25 young, energetic faces ready to learn about 

wildland fire management and the agencies that are charged with 

making it happen. The management team welcomed the students 

and set the tone for the next 10 weeks.

By the time the 10 weeks had passed, 15 students graduated 

with a sound foundation in basic wildland fire management. 

Several of the seniors later went on to firefighting positions with 

agency and contract fire crews.

In the end, I don’t know if I did much to change the dynamic in 

my little part of Western Oregon during that tumultuous time, but I 

did see hope and the promise of a bright future in the eyes of some 

special young firefighters in the midst of some very hard times in 

their community.

It was the winter of 1994, and there was a war of sorts 

swirling in the lumber towns of western Oregon. The northern 

spotted owl had been listed as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act 4 years earlier. At the same time, logging companies 

were relying more and more upon federal timber to make up for 

shortfalls in inventory on private company lands in the area, and 

the “county supremacy movement” to assert ownership rights 

to federal public lands was gaining momentum. At that time, 

I was serving as the assistant fire management officer in the 

Roseburg District. 

Roseburg had once been known as the “Timber Capital of the 

Nation.” Now it was increasingly becoming an angry and frustrated 

community, where proud, hard-working people struggled to make 

sense of this new reality. Sensing this frustration and wanting to 

find solutions to help in some small way, I started thinking about 

what I could do to help my community. What did I have to offer 

within the parameters of BLM policy?

Then it occurred to me; I have my time and my experience. My 

20 years in fire management might be useful. The local Roseburg 

District fire management organization was going to sponsor a 

40-hour basic wildland firefighter training program for local high 

school juniors and seniors. 

I designed a flyer advertising the training program and posted 

it at the local high school career center. It would be a 2-hour course 

on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, lasting for 10 weeks. I would 

Mike Benefield was the fire management officer for the Canyon Country Fire Zone, Moab, Utah, before retiring from the BLM.

worked with the team from April 1993 to 

April 1994 to create the Northwest Forest Plan, 

which addressed forest management on almost 

25 million acres of federal forests in the Cascade 

and Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington and 

in northwest California. 

To drive coordinated implementation of the plan at 

the regional level, the principal agencies involved—

the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, Environmental 

Protection Agency, and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service—created a Regional Interagency 

Executive Leadership Committee through a 

memorandum of understanding. The use of this 

type of high-level committee served as a model for 

agency collaboration that the BLM still uses today.

In all, the plan restricted about 2 million acres of 

O&C lands managed by the BLM to sustained yield 

harvest and management for other forest values. 

However, the remaining older forests, with mature 

growth and old growth, were to provide up to 

90 percent of the timber harvests anticipated in 

the first decade of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

The plan designated late-successional reserves 

to maintain existing old growth and manage 

younger stands to attain a tree size and stand 

structure resembling old growth. “Matrix” lands 

contained stands that agencies could manage 

for sustained timber production, except around 

spotted owl nests. The plan also identified adaptive 

management areas to test new management 

approaches integrating ecological, economic, and 

other social goals. 

The plan contained a “survey and manage” 

provision, which required that, before any 

ground-disturbing activity could be carried out, 

the agencies would survey for more than 400 

covered species, and, if found, would manage them 

according to developed protocols. This usually 

required the establishment of large buffers around 

sites. As it turned out, the survey and manage 

provision was more difficult to implement and had 

a larger impact on management than accounted for 

in the plan analysis. This led to multiple attempts 

President Bill Clinton.

by the BLM and U.S. Forest Service to modify the 

program; opponents challenged each attempt in 

court, where litigation on the issue had yet to be 

resolved as of 2012. 

Ultimately, the Northwest Forest Plan failed to end 

the Northwest forest war. 

Forest lands in Oregon.

Markers identifying a timber reserve boundary. Timber harvest in western Oregon.

Youth firefighter volunteers in the 

Roseburg District in Oregon.
46 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 47

Science and Politics Merge

in the Interior Columbia Basin 

Along with the development of the Northwest 

Forest Plan, President Clinton also directed the 

creation of an even broader ecosystem management 

plan called the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project. The project encompassed 

BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands in eastern 

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of 

Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.

The lands in the Interior Columbia Basin 

Ecosystem Management Project faced forest 

and wildlife health issues—and the associated 

litigation—similar to those of the Northwest Forest 

Plan. However, the scope of the project’s goals, 

the breadth of the resource issues it attempted to 

reconcile, and the range of stakeholders it hoped to 

satisfy were far greater. The lands were also more 

diverse, encompassing shrub-steppe as well as 

forested lands.

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project began with a scientific 

assessment of a 145-million-acre project area. 

The assessment addressed ecosystem health and 

function on a basinwide basis. The BLM and 

the U.S. Forest Service then used the assessment 

results to amend their land use plans in the basin. 

The agencies designed the assessment to allow 

land managers to incorporate assessment data 

into subregional plans, watershed analyses, and 

site-specific NEPA analyses. The assessment also 

incorporated adaptive management features, 

allowing flexibility to account for the results of 

ongoing monitoring and evaluation and ensure that 

management actions attained expected results.

The Road Less Traveled | By Gloria Brown

To tell the truth, my biggest issue as an African-American in the agency and 

in my community—don’t laugh—was my hair. In some of the rural places where 

I worked, I could not find “Black” hair products. That said, I learned to do my hair 

myself—biggest issue gone! Smaller issues cropped up from time to time. My 

temporary assignment in Silver Lake, Oregon, comes to mind. I was driving through 

in my private vehicle, checking out the area before reporting to duty as the acting 

district ranger. When I got to the end of town, I turned around. As I was driving back, 

a policeman in the middle of the road directed me to stop. He came over to the car 

and said, “You lost?” I said, “No.” He said, “Well I saw you come through town and 

turn around; I thought you were lost.” I said, “No, I’m not lost. I’m the new temporary 

district ranger, and I was just checking out the area before reporting in.” The officer’s 

jaw dropped. I’m sure he didn’t realize how long it took him to speak, but it was well 

over a minute. Finally, he stumbled and said, “I . . . I thought you were lost. You . . . 

you know I know those folks over there. We . . . we play baseball with y’all. I’m, um, 

glad you’re not lost. I, um, guess you need to be on your way. You take care now.” 

In many of my first-time experiences meeting people, I found they were surprised, 

maybe even shocked, to find an African-American female living among them.

Most of my experiences confirmed that BLM and Forest Service managers are 

treated with respect. I found that if you communicate with and listen to people, 

and if you have a good reputation for knowing your job and making good decisions, 

people are willing to give you a chance. If you respect them, they respect you 

(regardless of color). I did not experience any outright prejudice. Employees and 

the public at large were more interested in how well I did my job than the color of 

my skin. The uniform and the position commanded respect. At the same time, the 

individual in the uniform had to earn that respect. 

I attribute my success in the BLM to the professional employees who worked 

for me. Most were awesome and knew their jobs and the geographic area I was 

responsible for. The professional women in the BLM also contributed to my success. 

They are a close-knit group, and in joining them, I found advocacy, support, and 

advice. Many of these women have become lifelong friends of mine and have 

supported me on and off the job. Elaine Zielinski, who was a BLM state director in the 

Pacific Northwest, turned out to be my best role model.

I picked natural resources because I love the outdoors and being able to make 

decisions that make a difference in the environment and the communities we serve. 

I wanted one moment in time when I was more than I thought I could be. The BLM 

gave me lots of those moments that will last for an eternity.

For Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the question was, “To be or not to be?” However, 

in 1994, the question for me was, “Do I work for the Forest Service or the BLM?” At 

that time, I had completed my academic studies at Oregon State University to qualify 

as a “forester.” After 20 years in administrative positions, the Forest Service offered 

me a line officer job, which was not to exceed 1 year. The BLM offered me the field 

manager position in Baker City, Oregon. I took the BLM job. It turned out that I was 

the first female African-American field manager ever hired in the BLM!

My career spanned from 1974 until 2007. During those 33 years, I can count 

on one hand the number of times that I was in a meeting in which there were other 

African-Americans. Even today, it is unusual to find an African-American female 

in a natural resource career, let alone as a forester. When I decided to go into 

management, I was definitely blazing a road less traveled by other African-American 

females. I had no role models. I wanted to be excellent in all of my endeavors, so I 

studied the professionals in the BLM. 

Folks are always curious about my experiences—how I accomplished what I did 

and why I picked a career in natural resources when so few African-Americans were in 

the field. Most importantly, I did not dwell on the fact that I was an African-American 

female. If every move I made or every decision I delivered focused on that, I knew 

early on that I would spend a lot of energy on it, rather than focusing on being the 

best that I could be. The latter worked better for me. 

Gloria Brown began her federal career with the Forest Service in 1974. She came to the BLM in 1994 as the field manager in Baker City, Oregon, and later became

the branch chief for minerals and energy adjudication in the Eastern States Office. Gloria returned to the Forest Service in 1999 and retired in 2007.

BLM office in Baker City, Oregon. Photo by John Stanton.

The project incorporated an extensive effort 

to engage the public in the planning process. 

The BLM and the U.S. Forest Service held more 

than 200 public meetings in the basin to 

discuss the project and received more than 

83,000 public comments.

The courts also considered the Interior Columbia 

Basin Ecosystem Management Project a muchneeded solution to long-term problems of 

salmon and bull trout endangerment. Judge 

Robert E. Jones of the U.S. District Court in 

Oregon stated that he viewed the project as a 

potentially permanent strategy to address threats 

to these species from timber harvesting and 

other activities.4

But the size of the project was a two-edged sword. 

Martha Hahn, a former BLM state director in Idaho 

who served as the chair of the Interior Columbia 

Basin Ecosystem Management Project Executive 

Steering Committee, noted that the “figurative 

weight” of the project’s products might be too much 

for local managers to work with effectively. “They 

need a local road map, and we could be dropping a 

world atlas on them.”5

In 1997, two similar draft EISs were released, one 

for the eastern portions of Oregon and Washington 

and one for the upper Columbia Basin, covering 

parts of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, 

and Utah. The preferred alternatives of the 

two plans came under criticism from all sides. 

Environmentalists protested that the plans failed 

to protect rare species and their habitats. Timber 

and mining industries argued that the plan closed 

too many roads and increased fire risks. Due to 

the level of controversy, and the involvement of 

members of Congress, the agencies extended the 

comment period on the Interior Columbia Basin 

Ecosystem Management Project to 335 days.

Congressional committees threatened to terminate 

the project in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations 

bills, effectively keeping management 

decisionmaking at local BLM and U.S. Forest 

Service offices through the traditional land 

use planning process. Ultimately, however, the 

congressional intervention was unnecessary.6

The agencies merged the two EISs, publishing a 

supplemental EIS in March 2000 and a final EIS 

in December 2000. Yet the effort still failed to 

satisfy the objections of Congress and stakeholders 

and to reconcile differing views of the federal 

agencies involved. In the end, the agencies did 

not sign a record of decision. Instead, in 2003, 

the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture 

published the “Interior Columbia Basin Strategy,” 

which provided guidance for incorporating the 

scientific data and resource information developed 

from the project into individual RMPs.

The environmental movement and the legislative 

and judicial response to the movement affected 

more than just the BLM’s forest policy. The new 

environmental laws and regulations had profound 

implications for virtually every facet of the 

Bureau’s mission.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project area.
48 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 49

Rangeland Conditions Improve

For the BLM range program, applying ecosystem 

management involved a more site-specific 

inventory and assessment of rangeland resources 

and a planning approach that put a broad range of 

public uses and values on equal footing with the 

traditional use of livestock grazing. While no longer 

considered a “predominant use,” livestock grazing 

continued to be the predominant issue in rangeland 

management throughout the decade. 

In 1990, BLM Director 

Cy Jamison responded 

to the 1988 General 

Accounting Office

report on declining 

range conditions with 

a new initiative called 

“State of the Public 

Rangelands 1990: The 

Range of Our Vision.” 

The initiative set goals 

for restoring BLM 

riparian wetlands, 

increasing the amount of rangelands in good or 

excellent condition, and decreasing the amount 

of rangelands in poor condition. Another goal 

of the program was to bring 75 percent of BLM 

riparian wetlands into good or excellent condition 

“to provide a wide variety of forage and habitat 

diversity for wildlife, livestock and watershed 

protection” by 1997. 

The Bureau Releases “Rangeland Reform ’94”

During a speech to the National Press Club in the 

early months of his tenure, Interior Secretary Bruce 

Babbitt declared that the days of “unrestrained, 

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project | By Cathy Humphrey

What started out as a 3-week detail to facilitate public meetings across eastern Oregon and 

Washington ended up being 7 years of the most difficult but most rewarding job I’ve ever had. Much 

has been said about the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, both good and bad, 

but I’d like to focus on a few of the positive things.

I went to Walla Walla (Washington) in early 1994, a couple of months after the Forest Service chief 

and BLM director signed a charter to develop an ecosystem management framework and assessment 

for their agencies’ lands east of the Cascade crest in Oregon and Washington and within the interior 

Columbia River Basin. This was the first of many things we did right—writing a charter that clearly 

defined the geographic area, laid out our expectations, identified key participants and their roles, and 

described the products and timelines. We referred to the charter many times in the early months of the 

project. With a clear charter, there was no room for excuses.

Our project area was enormous—30 million acres of federal lands in eastern Oregon and eastern 

Washington (the entire project area encompassed 64 million acres of federal land). Our Tribal Liaison 

Group developed a consultation process with each of the 22 tribes in the area. The Eastside Ecosystem 

Coalition of Counties facilitated the involvement of 104 counties in parts of 7 states. We quickly learned 

what was important and how to relay it to agencies and organizations at all levels—from regional 

directors of federal agencies to interested individuals who use public lands. We showed maps and 

provided details for those who needed them. 

Cathy Humphrey was the deputy EIS team lead for the draft, supplemental draft, and final EISs for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. She was also the

planning/NEPA training coordinator at the BLM National Training Center and is currently a collaboration and dispute resolution specialist for the BLM’s Washington Office.

giveaway, environment-be-damned” public land 

management were over. They gave way to a “new 

American land ethic” under which commodity 

uses of the public land were governed with a new 

respect for environmental concerns and fair market 

values. Foremost among his targets for reform was 

livestock grazing.7

Secretary Babbitt’s proposed grazing reforms 

included increasing the grazing fees from 

$1.86 to $4.28 per animal unit month and 

penalties, including potential loss of grazing 

permits, for abuse of ecological resources. In the 

face of stiff opposition from western lawmakers, 

the administration scaled back its proposals, but 

a series of Senate filibusters prevented Babbitt’s 

proposals from becoming law. As Frank Clifford, an 

environmental writer for the Los Angeles 

Times, colorfully opined, “In most Western 

communities, his plan had all the appeal of 

hoof-and-mouth disease.”8

The following year, Secretary Babbitt pressed 

on with the effort through another approach, 

implementing “Rangeland Reform ‘94” through 

revisions in BLM grazing regulations. The reform 

package reflected further concessions designed to 

win acceptance among the ranching community. 

The new reform

package featured the

development of

environmental

standards and

guidelines for livestock

grazing—the first ever

imposed on public

lands grazing. It also

featured the creation of

citizen resource

advisory councils (called RACs), representing 

livestock interests, conservation interests, and 

the general public, to participate in the design of 

standards and guidelines. Additionally, the proposal 

provided authority for environmental groups to 

buy grazing permits and “rest” their allotment 

for conservation purposes. Far from heralding an 

end to the long-running dissension over grazing 

administration, “Rangeland Reform ’94” ignited 

a new wave of controversy, along with legal 

challenges that continued over the next

two decades.

Council Challenges 

Reforms

In July 1995, the 

Public Lands Council, 

representing a variety of 

livestock associations, 

filed suit in federal 

district court in 

Wyoming to challenge 

Secretary Babbitt’s 

authority to implement the grazing reforms. The 

Supreme Court ultimately decided the suit with 

a unanimous ruling in May 2000 that affirmed 

the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to 

implement the provisions of “Rangeland Reform 

’94”—with one notable exception. The Supreme 

Court upheld an earlier appeals court ruling that 

the Secretary’s authority did not extend to allowing 

conservation interests to acquire grazing permits 

for the purpose of halting grazing.

By the end of the decade, the BLM had 

implemented the new standards and guidelines 

for grazing, further institutionalizing the 

interdisciplinary nature of range management. 

Secretary of 

the Interior 

Bruce Babbitt 

giving keynote 

speech at BLM 

Summit.

We tried new things. To keep the public involved in rapidly changing discussions, we invited them 

to watch the Science Team deliberate when they met in Walla Walla. The scientists weren’t used to 

showing their “sausage-making,” and the public wasn’t used to how slow and excruciating the progress 

could be. But the process bought us some trust. And in time, folks were satisfied with monthly 

updates from the Science Team leader. 

We scheduled hundreds of meetings in dozens of locations. The meetings had agendas, but we 

were flexible. If we wanted to split people into small groups, but they wanted to stay together, we 

let them. We respected them—when Earth First! members came to a meeting dressed as woodland 

animals, we called on the chipmunk in the back during question and answer time. We listened. 

The rules kept changing—prepare one environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Eastside 

(eastern Oregon, eastern Washington); prepare two EISs (Eastside and Upper Columbia) at different 

times with different alternatives; prepare two EISs at the same time with similar alternatives or exactly 

the same alternatives; and finally, prepare one EIS covering both geographic areas. 

The Forest Service’s original direction to “develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy 

for management of eastside forests” turned into the Forest Service and BLM developing the strategy, 

steered by 13 directors from 5 agencies (the Forest Service, BLM, Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and 2 Forest Service research 

stations. Those of us who lasted the longest learned not to sweat what we didn’t have control over and 

to do the best job on what we did control.

My little group guided the look and feel of the EIS. We added pull quotes, included a diagram 

of the carbon cycle, and put summary bullets at the beginning of several chapters. We wrote 

management guidance (objectives and standards) and included our rationale—this helped quell 

many arguments. We made the EIS better.

We had the right idea, we had the funding, and we had the right people. But the scale was huge, 

the politics contradictory, and the concepts too complex to understand easily (and therefore trust). 

The project was also caught between two administrations.

By December 2000, we’d answered the protests and written the proposed record of decision 

(ROD). Then, a new administration took office on January 20, 2001. Two years later, in a February 19, 

2003, news release, the agencies announced a strategy to use the findings from the project’s Science 

Team along with new information to “update land use plans for National Forests and BLM lands in the 

four-state region.” This approach placed decisionmaking at a more local scale. 

We did not get a signed ROD, but we did gain valuable experience. We learned firsthand that 

by using a coordinated interagency approach to planning and decisionmaking, managing risks and 

opportunities does not need to be limited by agency boundaries. Now our broad-scale understanding 

of aquatic and terrestrial landscapes, and of social and economic aspects of a given area, provides 

context for better land management at the appropriate scale. 

Communication 

goals included bringing 

scientists, land managers, 

and the public into a close, 

working partnership; 

working openly; and 

developing a common 

understanding of 

ecosystem management. 

We began by defining 

ecosystem management. 

We taught concepts (such 

as the hydrologic system 

and carbon cycle), and we 

debated definitions. We 

took every opportunity 

to bring everyone up to 

speed so we could have 

meaningful discussions. 

Forest Service-Administered Lands

Major Rivers

BLM-Administered Lands

Water

Major Roads

RAC/PAC Borders

Supplemental Draft EIS Area Border

Surface ownership in the project area.
50 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 51

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Improvements 

Help Restore Populations

Under the umbrella of the “Fish and Wildlife 

2000” strategy, the BLM worked with partners 

to develop 18 more specific plans. These plans 

addressed habitat for threatened and endangered 

fish, special status plants, anadromous fish, 

waterfowl, desert tortoise, and bighorn sheep. They 

also introduced programs such as “Bring Back the 

Natives,” to rehabilitate river systems and promote 

native aquatic species and “Watchable Wildlife” to 

respond to growing public interest in birdwatching, 

nature study, and photography. Other plans aimed 

to establish a public/private partnership for the 

conservation of nongame migratory birds and to 

implement a program directed at restoring and 

maintaining wetlands.

Under “Fish and Wildlife 2000,” the BLM’s budget 

for these areas increased from $16.3 million in 

1987 to more than $34 million 5 years later. In 

1991, as evidence of its increasing emphasis on the 

conservation of federally listed species, the BLM 

allocated $7 million to the protection of threatened 

and endangered species. In 1992, the BLM’s 

Challenge Cost Share funding of $3.25 million was 

leveraging $4.8 million in partnership support.

That same year, the BLM launched an effort 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to restore 

populations of the black-footed ferret—one of the 

most rare mammals in the world. The program 

began with the release of captive-bred ferrets into 

the wild in the Shirley Basin of Wyoming. Through 

the program, the agencies returned the ferrets to 

ranges in eight states and in northern Mexico. 

Over time, Arizona, South Dakota, and Wyoming 

achieved self-sustaining populations.

The First Resource Advisory Council Meeting—The First Broadcast | By Chip Calamaio

On September 21, 1995, the BLM was on the cutting edge.

Across the West, all of the newly formed Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) held their first 

meetings on that Thursday morning, and they were all linked together by the first live satellite 

broadcast originating from the new BLM National Training Center (NTC) studios in Phoenix, Arizona. 

It was the first time live, interactive, satellite technology was used on a national basis within the BLM 

and the Department of the Interior, and it was the first time television communications were used in 

real time to reach BLM’s stakeholders and public land customers to roll out a major new initiative.

“Reaching Common Ground” was hosted by BLM Montana State Director Larry Hamilton and 

featured Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Acting BLM Director Mike Dombeck, BLM Montrose 

(Colorado) District Manager Mark Stiles, and Carol Anderson, a member of the newly formed Arizona 

RAC. The telecast was staged as an informal talk show. In addition to presentations by the panelists, 

a prerecorded video by Mark Stiles was shown on the critical role of the RACs in working with the BLM 

to develop the standards for rangeland health and guidelines for grazing management as called for 

under the new grazing regulations. Much of the air time was used for RAC members in the field to 

ask questions and discuss issues with Secretary Babbitt and BLM’s leaders via live telephone calls 

and faxes.

The idea of using a live, national, satellite broadcast to kick off the first RAC meetings was 

developed by Todd Christensen, an NTC training coordinator, and Mike Penfold of BLM’s Washington 

Office gave the concept the green light. Under the leadership of NTC’s director, Gary Dreier, video 

producer Chip Calamaio and the NTC media team went into high gear building a studio set and 

collaborating with contractors to work out the hi-tech mechanics of producing 3 hours of live 

television for the very first time. Stress and anxiety levels ran high since everything from 

crew assignments and the broadcast script format had to be developed completely from 

scratch—and with something as high profile as the national RAC rollout with the Secretary 

of the Interior, failure was not an option! To ensure success, several weeks before the live 

telecast, BLM managers and RAC meeting facilitators all came together at the NTC to develop 

the facilitator agenda and content for the first RAC meetings. Everyone also learned about 

the logistics and technical aspects of the satellite broadcast and the contingency plans if some 

part of the satellite transmission system failed. 

Since BLM offices were not yet equipped with satellite downlink systems, some 

offices rented portable dishes on trailers to host the RACs; others went to community 

colleges, hotels, and other facilities that had C-band satellite systems. Satellite downlink 

arrangements were made at 15 different locations in the West where RAC members could 

participate in the live broadcast. The word was that one RAC in Montana met at a local sports 

bar and arranged to have NTC’s broadcast signal tuned in instead of the normal football feeds.

When the red light flashed on, the event came off like clockwork. Once media-savvy 

Bruce Babbitt determined which studio camera was “his,” he maintained eye contact with 

that camera and engaged in a very personal dialog with RAC members. He explained the 

role of the RACs and how the BLM and the Department of the Interior were changing the way 

our public land customers would be involved in resource management issues and long-term 

planning efforts. 

During interactive segments, all 12 phone lines were constantly lit up, and three fax 

machines kept humming away, pushing out questions sent to the NTC studios from RAC 

members. Host Larry Hamilton did a masterful job of facilitating a fast-paced discussion 

among RAC viewers and the studio panelists. Behind-the-scenes staff made sure that every 

RAC location had an opportunity to get at least one question to the panelists during the 

telecast. In the closing minutes of the broadcast, a question from the last RAC group came in 

over a crackling phone line. Apparently, a BLM staffer had to leave the RAC downlink site in a 

bar, jump into a pickup, and drive down to a gas station phone booth to call in the question. 

“Reaching Common Ground” was an unqualified success. After the program concluded, 

NTC Director Gary Dreier walked past the control room and said matter-of-factly to the 

crew, “Well, this was just the first of many.” As a high-stakes “pilot,” the “Reaching Common 

Ground” broadcast validated the concept of using satellite technology in the BLM for training 

and communications. Within the next 12 months, almost every BLM office had installed 

a permanent satellite downlink system, and within the next 15 years, more than 300 live 

broadcasts were produced out of the NTC studios.

Chip Calamaio started in 1985 as the BLM’s instructional television specialist. Over the years, he was influential in creating the BLM Satellite Network,

establishing the National Training Center facility, and developing BLM’s numerous distance learning delivery methods.

Live Resource Advisory

Council broadcast from

BLM’s National Training Center.

In the Vale District of Oregon, the BLM 

reintroduced sharp-tailed grouse in a joint project 

with the Oregon Department of Fish, Game, and 

Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service. The Bureau 

reintroduced wild turkeys in New Mexico’s Laguna 

Seca Special Management Area. In Idaho, the BLM 

reseeded more than 14,000 acres of sage-grouse 

habitat burned by wildfire. And in Boise, Idaho, a 

partnership among the BLM, Boise State University, 

Peregrine Fund, and others established the Raptor 

Research and Technical Center (now the Raptor 

Research Center) to help guide the management 

of the Snake River Birds of Prey Area. In Arizona, 

Idaho, New Mexico, and Oregon, the BLM worked 

with partner organizations to restore populations of 

threatened fish species such as the desert pupfish, 

redband trout, Gila topminnow, and Rio Grande 

cutthroat trout.

In 1996, for the first time in more than 70 years, 

California condors were flying high and free above 

the BLM lands of the Colorado Plateau in Arizona. 

The return of the magnificent, endangered bird 

was the result of a collaborative effort by the BLM, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, and others to reintroduce the 

California condor to the wild. 

By the late 1990s, the BLM had helped develop 

and implement recovery plans for more than 

75 threatened or endangered species. The Bureau 

was also focusing on early conservation measures 

to protect declining species with the goal of 

avoiding the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act.

“Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990s” 

Establishes Restoration Goals

The BLM’s “Riparian-Wetland Initiative for 

the 1990s” established a goal of restoring and 

maintaining riparian areas and wetlands to bring 

75 percent of the areas into proper functioning 

conditioning by 1997. The initiative focused 

on avoiding or mitigating disturbance of these 

resources, acquiring privately held lands with 

exceptional ecological values, and expanding public 

and private partnerships. 

By 1993, the BLM had established 10 “showcase 

areas” that were illustrating the potential successes 

of the riparian-wetland initiative. These included 

the Consumnes River Preserve in central 

California, Alder Creek in Colorado, Sage Creek in 

Montana, and Carrizo Creek in New Mexico.

In Nevada, the BLM acquired 54 miles along the 

Marys River and worked in partnership with 

area ranchers to adjust grazing patterns along 

the river to begin restoring populations of the 

endangered Lahontan cutthroat trout. In places 

like Muddy Creek in Wyoming, Clover Creek 

in Idaho, and Jenny Creek in Oregon, the BLM 

forged partnerships with stakeholders to record 

California condors in Paria CanyonVermilion Cliffs Wilderness in Arizona.
52 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 53

other successes in riparian restoration. Through 

land exchanges, the BLM acquired lands for 

southern Arizona’s San Pedro Riparian National 

Conservation Area and acquired the historic 

Empire and Cienega Ranches that formed the 

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. 

Other key land exchanges in the early 1990s 

included acquisitions for New River coastal 

wetlands in Oregon and California’s Big 

Morongo Canyon Preserve.

The BLM began assessing the functioning condition 

of riparian and wetland areas in 1990, and by 1996, 

implemented restoration measures on nearly 300 

riparian projects and conducted maintenance on 

about 500 more. This work resulted in improvement 

of approximately 7,600 acres of wetlands, both 

in terms of their functioning condition and the 

structural diversity of riparian vegetation. By 1997, 

the BLM reported 78 percent of riparian areas 

and 79 percent of wetlands were in proper 

functioning condition.9

The BLM was also working to improve water and 

soil quality and reduce soil loss and erosion on 

nearly 6,000 sites across the West. The Bureau 

applied on-the-ground vegetation and land 

treatments on 6,700 acres and applied prescribed 

fire to tens of thousands of acres to improve 

watershed values and habitat.

During the 1990s, the Bureau made a significant 

contribution to an interstate and interagency 

program to improve water quality on the Colorado 

River by reducing the introduction of salts into the 

river system. Congress had mandated the program 

in 1974 to benefit the millions of U.S. citizens who 

depend on the Colorado River for agriculture and 

to honor treaty obligations with Mexico, whose 

citizens also depend on the Colorado River. The 

BLM’s role in the program included treating 

vegetation through prescribed fire, stabilizing 

soils, plugging abandoned oil and gas wells, and 

improving management of grazing, riparian areas, 

and off-road vehicle use. By 1999, the Bureau’s 

efforts had prevented approximately 43,000 tons 

of salt from entering the waters of the Colorado 

River system.

San Pedro Riparian

National Conservation Area in Arizona.

The Evolution of Aquatic Resource Management in the BLM | By Mike Crouse

I was hired by the BLM in the late 1970s to help prepare 

environmental impact statements (EISs) mandated by the National 

Environmental Policy Act and settlement of the 1974 Natural Resources 

Defense Council lawsuit, which required the BLM to assess the impacts 

of grazing. At the time, I was the first BLM fisheries biologist east of the 

Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. With a small crew, or 

sometimes alone, I conducted some of the first systematic assessments 

of fish and aquatic habitats for hundreds of miles of streams. I fondly 

remember several field seasons of camping out and surveying streams 

by foot, horseback, and helicopter. More than once, I returned on the 

weekends with my wife and young sons to show them some of these 

beautiful and remote areas.

The fish and aquatic habitat information gathered during these 

surveys was included in numerous grazing EISs and used in records of 

decisions that called for significant changes in grazing practices, especially 

in the Trout Creek Mountains of southeastern Oregon. At that time, the 

concept of riparian area management was relatively new, and stream 

bottoms were often heavily impacted by summer-long grazing. Area 

range conservationists were essential to implementing actions to protect 

and improve streams and riparian areas because they had the trust of 

local ranchers. With their support, dozens of miles of stream habitat for 

the threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout were excluded from livestock 

grazing using rim and water-gap fencing. The ecological response 

within these enclosures was truly miraculous. Grasses, sedges, willows, 

and even long-absent aspens flourished, streambanks healed, channels 

narrowed and deepened, water temperatures became cooler, and trout 

populations expanded. This network of stream enclosures later served as 

the foundation of watershedwide grazing systems promoted by the Trout 

Creek Mountain Working Group. 

Increasing awareness and an emphasis on riparian and aquatic 

resources on public lands came to fruition in the early 1990s. In response 

to information documenting broad declines in naturally reproducing 

Pacific salmon, steelhead, and bull trout and widespread degradation 

of the habitat upon which these fish species depend, the Forest Service 

and BLM adopted a comprehensive aquatic conservation strategy (ACS) 

throughout the Pacific Northwest. Commonly referred to as PACFISH, 

the ACS established stream corridors along fish-bearing streams and 

important tributaries in which strict standards and guidelines were applied 

to regulate land-disturbing activities, including grazing, mining, and 

timber harvesting. In addition, the ACS required that field units conduct 

watershed-scale analyses to ensure that the most critical aquatic habitats 

were considered in planning for land management and restoration 

actions. This ecosystem-based ACS was also a key component of both 

the Northwest Forest Plan and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project (ICBEMP). As a senior manager with BLM, and later 

with the National Marine Fisheries Service, I had the privilege of working 

with a dedicated group of interagency managers and biologists to facilitate 

the implementation of these ACS on the ground and to streamline the 

consultation process for anadromous fish and bull trout listed under the 

Endangered Species Act.

To promote the “riparian revolution” on public lands beyond the range 

of anadromous fish and bull trout, BLM Director Mike Dombeck and Forest 

Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas established the National Riparian Service 

Team, led by Wayne Elmore, in 1996. The conceptual centerpiece of the 

NRST’s work is the proper functioning condition (PFC) assessment, which 

uses a variety of criteria to determine the ecological potential of a stream 

and watershed and measures it against current conditions. Then the team 

helps field units design management prescriptions to move the watershed 

toward PFC.

Today, these approaches still serve as cornerstones for the 

management of aquatic and riparian habitats on BLM and Forest Service 

lands in the West. 

During his 20 years with the BLM, Mike Crouse was a fisheries biologist in Vale, Oregon; the national fisheries program manager in Washington, DC;

and the chief of biological resources for the Oregon/Washington State Office. He also worked for several other federal agencies during his 36-year career. 

Southeast Oregon fish survey (1980).

Helicopter dropping off a stream survey crew in

Little Owyhee River Canyon in southeast Oregon (1980).
54 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 55

The War on Weeds Gets Underway Abandoned Mine Cleanups

Recover Lost Landscapes

In the 1990s, increasing activity on the public lands 

and wider use of motorized vehicles in remote 

locations were more frequently bringing the public 

into contact with hazardous sites on the public 

lands. The hazards included tens of thousands of 

abandoned mine sites with dangerous mine shafts 

and potential contaminants in the soil, water, 

and air.

Working with federal, state, and local partners, the 

BLM spearheaded an effort to clean up these sites. 

From 1993 to 1995, the BLM identified more than 

6,600 abandoned mine safety hazards and nearly 

900 environmental hazards. The Bureau and its 

partners carried out remediation measures at more 

than 800 of the highest priority sites.

The BLM was also making progress in the cleanup 

of other sites where hazardous materials presented 

a threat to public health and safety. Working 

with the Environmental Protection Agency and 

others—including potentially responsible parties, 

people who may be liable under the Superfund law 

for contaminating the land—the BLM cleaned up 

hundreds of these sites. One of the priority efforts 

of this period was the former Monite Explosives 

Factory, a hazardous materials site near Sparks, 

Nevada, where the BLM fenced off contaminated 

land, then removed and destroyed thousands 

of cubic yards of materials contaminated by 

trinitrotoluene (TNT) and its derivatives.

“Recreation 2000” Ushers In

New Programs and Sites

The BLM’s recreation program, energized by its 

strategic plan, “Recreation 2000,” ushered in the 

Back Country Byways, Adventures in the Past, and 

Fishing Partners . . . with You! programs. These 

programs promoted broader public appreciation

for the recreational opportunities of the public

lands and invited greater numbers of visitors to 

these lands. In 1990 and 1991, the Bureau hosted 

44 recreation showcase projects that included 

dedications of

wild and scenic

rivers, national

conservation

areas, wilderness

areas, and

back country

byways.

By 1992, the BLM was managing more than 300 

special recreation areas. Through “Recreation 

2000,” the BLM had acquired tens of thousands 

of acres of land with unique recreation values, 

including parcels along the New River in Oregon, 

the Clearwater River in Idaho, and the popular 

whitewater rafting area of Westwater Canyon on the 

Colorado River in Utah.

Congress also established the Recreational Fee 

Demonstration Program in 1996, allowing 

agencies to return recreation fees to the sites from 

which they were collected and to use them for 

maintenance and improvements. The program 

started in 1997 with 10 sites collecting $419,000. 

By the end of the decade, 100 sites were generating

$6.5 million in additional recreation funds.

The Fortymile National Wild and Scenic River | By Gene Ervine

The Fortymile is the longest river in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System, but it also happens to have played a critical role in the 

history of Alaska and the Yukon Territory. The 1886 discovery of gold on 

the river’s Franklin’s Bar touched off Interior Alaska’s first gold rush. The 

mining boom ushered in a wave of settlement that forever changed the 

place, not only for its new residents but also for the Athabascan Indians 

who occupied this region long before them. 

Prospectors mined more than a half-million ounces of gold from the 

Fortymile River. During the heyday of Fortymile mining, the community 

of Steele Creek, located on the main overland trail between the towns of 

Chicken and Eagle, served as a community center and transportation hub. 

At one time, it included a trading post, a post office, a restaurant, several 

cabins, and a two-story roadhouse, some of which still stand on the site.

In 1896, when gold was discovered on Rabbit Creek near present 

day Dawson City, Fortymile miners streamed across the border to stake 

their claims, laying the foundation for Canada’s great Klondike gold rush 

in the Yukon Territory. The whole complexion of the region changed 

quickly after that, and Alaska was catapulted into national prominence. 

Adventure stories and gold rush poetry captured the public’s imagination. 

Photographs and moving pictures continued to promote the country’s 

remote frontier. 

In 1899, just across the international border in American territory, 

the United States Army established Fort Egbert at the trading post of 

Eagle on the Yukon River. In 1903, the Washington Alaska Military Cable 

and Telegraph System (WAMCATS) was completed, linking Alaska to the 

rest of the world. That system quickly demonstrated how important 

communications were for the booming territory.

Today, the Fortymile River is shared by recreational rafters and 

canoeists, placer gold miners working federal claims, and suction dredge 

miners working the State of Alaska’s claims on the bottom of the river. 

Managing a wild and scenic river as part of a working landscape presents 

some interesting challenges as BLM’s National Landscape Conservation 

System matures. The Fortymile caribou herd and nesting raptors provide 

additional challenges and opportunities for scientific investigations 

and management.

Abandoned mine inventory in Nevada.

Guadalupe National Back Country 

Byway in New Mexico.

Gene Ervine started with the BLM in 1990 as a resource interpretive specialist in the

Alaska State Office. Working together with a variety of field office employees,

he developed an award-winning interpretive program for Alaska.

Fortymile Wild and Scenic River in Alaska.

The roadhouse in recent years.

Steele Creek Roadhouse next to the 

Fortymile River (1925).

The rapid spread of noxious 

weeds—advancing at a rate of 

thousands of acres per day in many 

parts of the West—posed another 

threat to the health of entire 

ecosystems. By the mid-1990s, the 

BLM estimated that noxious weeds 

had invaded more than 8 million 

acres of public lands.

In 1994, the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service 

led the formation of the Federal Interagency 

Committee for the Management of Noxious and 

Exotic Weeds. The committee united 16 federal 

land management agencies to facilitate cooperation, 

provide an integrated ecological approach to the 

management of noxious and exotic weeds on 

federal lands, and provide technical assistance for 

applying the approach on private lands.

Two years later, in January 1996, the BLM launched 

“Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for the 

Bureau of Land Management,” to prevent and 

control the spread of noxious weeds on BLM lands 

through cooperation with partners. The Bureau 

designated four weed demonstration areas in 

Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Utah to highlight 

best management practices for combating weeds 

through cooperative efforts and partnerships. Each 

BLM state had developed at least one weed pilot 

project involving partnerships at the local level. 

On February 3, 1999, President Clinton stepped 

up the campaign with an Executive Order that 

officially established the National Invasive Species 

Council to provide leadership for the ongoing war 

on weeds and enhance coordination among the

13 departments and agencies involved.

Yellow star-thistle.
56 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 57

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Comprise the “Great Outdoor Museum”

BLM public lands, with their millions of cultural 

artifacts, fossils, and bones, are essentially a “great 

outdoor museum,” providing a forum for learning 

about the history of those lands, the people who 

lived upon them, and the animal and plant life 

they supported. 

Leading by Example: Volunteers and Friends Groups! | By Dave Hunsaker

In 1986, after working for the BLM for 12 years, I moved from Oregon 

to Nevada to become the new supervisory outdoor recreation planner for 

the Stateline Resource Area in the Las Vegas District. I was responsible 

for the wilderness, recreation, off-highway vehicle, and cultural resource 

programs for the resource area, and I was also the manager of Red 

Rock Canyon Recreation Lands, which is now Red Rock Canyon National 

Conservation Area.

At the time, the Red Rock Canyon Visitor Center was open only 

4 days a week, while the scenic loop drive was open all week. It was clear 

that we were behind the eight ball in terms of offering the interpretive, 

educational, and safety services that the public was coming to expect. 

With a little help from Senator Harry Reid, the budget for Red Rock Canyon 

was increased to allow operation 7 days a week. The BLM also successfully 

completed a significant three-way land exchange with the Howard Hughes 

Corporation and The Nature Conservancy, which allowed for increased 

protection of Red Rock Canyon while accommodating the ever-expanding 

city of Las Vegas.

As interest in the area grew, we realized that we needed significantly 

more help. This situation was not relegated solely to us in southern 

Nevada—public expectations, especially for quality outdoor recreational 

opportunities, were on the rise throughout the BLM, and the California 

Desert Conservation Area was right next door. Red Rock Canyon’s chief 

interpreter at the time, Joel Mur, had an idea to increase the public’s 

involvement in managing the area. 

While the BLM had involved the public in myriad ways throughout 

the years, there was no established national policy regarding the use of 

volunteers or nonprofit organizations. The BLM had not yet considered the 

formation of friends groups or other support groups. At the time, we did 

have a contractual agreement with the Southwest Natural and Cultural 

Heritage Association for sales of interpretive materials in the Red Rock 

Canyon Visitor Center. They provided inventory, furniture and shelving, 

and a part-time salesperson at the front desk. What Mur and the area 

manager, Bill Civish, had in mind was far and away bigger than that.

In 1984, the Friends of Red Rock Canyon (FORRC) tentatively took 

shape. Over the next year and a half, Civish and Mur met with a small, 

temporary, startup group of interested folks with varied backgrounds, 

including a lawyer, an accountant, and a community activist. From that 

effort, the BLM’s first organized, nonprofit support group was formed 

(under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code). In 1986, we 

completed the agency’s first cooperative management agreement with a 

group organized solely to support the BLM’s mission. Soon, thousands of 

hours of volunteer time, goods, and services were donated annually.

Today, FORRC members continue their commitment to preserve, 

protect, and enrich Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. The 

organization now does all the things that the BLM could only dream 

about more than 25 years ago, including removing graffiti, picking up 

trash, maintaining trails and the visitor center grounds, leading hikes, 

staffing the information desk, monitoring cultural sites, sponsoring an 

annual art show, and participating in community events. In addition, the 

organization provides more than $100,000 annually for program support, 

volunteer and staff training, and supplies and equipment.

In a very real sense, the FORRC provided a roadmap for the BLM to 

work with others who desired personal involvement in managing public 

lands. The FORRC example led to countless other successful groups, 

including Trail Tenders, Inc., in Baker City, Oregon (National Historic 

Oregon Trail Interpretive Center-Flagstaff Hill); Grand Staircase-Escalante 

Partners in Kanab, Utah (Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument); 

Friends of the Desert Mountains in Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley, 

California (Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument); 

Pompeys Pillar Historical Association in Billings, Montana (Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument); Friends of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument 

in Ashland, Oregon (Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument); Anza Trail 

Coalition in Tubac, Arizona (Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail); 

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Trail Association in Las Cruces, New 

Mexico (El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail); Snake 

River Raptors in Boise, Idaho (Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey 

National Conservation Area), and many others. 

Partnerships of this nature are crucial to the management of public 

lands and are a window into the future of public involvement. The benefits 

of partnerships run both ways. Not only do these groups and individuals 

provide valuable services to help the BLM accomplish its work, but these 

relationships provide opportunities for greater awareness, understanding, 

and support of the BLM and public lands and create a win-win-win 

scenario for the public, the BLM, and the land.

Dave Hunsaker worked in natural resource management for 41 years before retiring in 2010 as BLM’s associate state director in Colorado. Dave was also the deputy director for the National Landscape Conservation System

in the Washington Office; manager of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Kanab, Utah; and manager of the National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center–Flagstaff Hill in Baker City, Oregon.

REI and FORRC teaming up on the first Make a 

Difference Day in 2005 to revegetate the area after 

summer wildfires. Photo by Markian Rekshynskyj

(Friends of Red Rock Canyon).

Volunteer Chuck Williams documenting Native American 

pictographs at Red Spring. Photo by Barron Haley

(Friends of Red Rock Canyon).

There were many significant discoveries on the 

public lands during the 1990s. For example, historic 

and prehistoric resources on public lands gained 

national and international celebrity in 1991 with 

a rare paleontological discovery in the remote 

badlands of northern Wyoming. Film, song, books, 

and countless newspaper and magazine articles 

celebrated the excavation of nearly intact fossils of 

a creature referred to as “Big Al” (a member of the 

species Allosaurus).

Throughout the 1990s, BLM archaeologists 

continued excavation of the Mesa Paleoindian 

site along the northern flank of Alaska’s Brooks 

Range, first discovered in 1978. The excavation 

work revealed ancient hearths and associated stone 

artifacts dating from 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. 

Projectile points found at the site were similar to 

those made by Paleoindian inhabitants thousands 

of miles away in the western continental United 

Who Owns Big Al? | By John P. Lee

On the afternoon of Friday the 13th in September 1991, the BLM cadastral 

survey staff in Wyoming was asked to perform a boundary survey immediately. 

Richard (Dick) Kohler was selected as the BLM cadastral surveyor, and he and his 

survey crew were notified to come to work on Monday prepared to go out of town. 

They did not know where they were going, just that they needed to be ready to be 

gone for a week. 

First thing Monday morning, there was a flurry of activity. At the Wyoming 

State Office in Cheyenne, survey records were researched and instructions prepared. 

This was happening as Kohler and his crew loaded up their surveying equipment and 

headed out from Gillette, Wyoming. Their instructions and survey records were faxed 

to the Buffalo Field Office so they could pick them up there. They then drove over the 

Bighorn Mountains to Shell, a small town 15 miles east of Greybull.

The week before, an astute field crew from the Worland District Office noticed 

a newly graded road taking off from the public road. They followed this dirt road to 

the end, where they found that a crew had been excavating a paleontological site. 

The crew was led by a fossil hunter from Switzerland, who had found the fossil of a 

dinosaur. They believed they were digging on private land. After checking maps and 

aerial photographs, the BLM staff was still uncertain about the ownership of the land 

where the site was located.

The Worland Field Office then contacted the Wyoming State Office. Law 

enforcement and cadastral survey staffs were brought into the discussion. Two 

special agents from Cheyenne drove to the site on Saturday to safeguard it from fossil 

removal. The survey crew arrived on the scene Monday, and was able to locate the 

necessary survey corners to determine the ownership of the site. Luckily, a portion of 

that township had been resurveyed in 1942, and the remainder in 1967. This made 

Kohler’s job a lot easier.

This site is situated in east-central Big Horn County, approximately 9 miles 

north-northeast of Shell, along the foot of the west slope of the Bighorn Mountains. 

The terrain varies from nearly level to steep and mountainous. It took nearly 3 days 

to survey the 31⁄2 miles needed to subdivide this section. As Kohler was performing 

survey calculations, using the hood of his truck as a desk, the special agents and the 

Swiss crew were anxiously awaiting the answer to the question: Who owned the 

dinosaur later to be known as Big Al?

Big Al turned out to be a very important discovery. The specimen was the 

most complete fossilized skeleton of a juvenile Allosaurus ever found. The skeleton 

was about 95 percent complete and articulated, which means the major portions 

were found connected to each other. In addition, when this animal was alive, it had 

survived about 20 injuries that can be seen in the skeleton, including some broken 

bones. It was a remarkable discovery. The Swiss crew had plans to transport it 

overseas. There were rumors that it might be sold.

If the site of Big Al had been south of the east-west centerline of the southwest 

quarter of the section, it would have belonged to the owner of the private land. If 

it were north of the east-west centerline, it would be on public land. As it turned 

out, the site was located north of the boundary line by 375 feet, with a second 

excavation that was less than 40 feet from the boundary. The fossil would stay in 

the United States.

The excavation of the skeleton was completed by a Montana State University 

(MSU) crew under a cooperative agreement with the BLM, with the assistance of 

Brent Breithaupt, University of Wyoming (UW) museum curator. The skeleton went to 

the Museum of the Rockies on the MSU campus in Bozeman, Montana, and a full cast 

of the skeleton is on display at the UW’s Geological Museum. Casts of Big Al’s skull 

(one of the most complete Allosaurus skulls ever found) can be seen in various BLM 

offices and museums around the world. This area of Wyoming still produces valuable 

dinosaur fossils today.

John Lee served as the chief cadastral 

surveyor for the Wyoming State 

Office from 1989 until his retirement. 

Prior to that he worked as a cadastral 

surveyor in the Oregon, California, 

and Colorado State Offices as well 

as in the Headquarters Office in 

Washington, DC.

FORRC member Klaus Cobb 

removing graffiti from the 

Lost Creek rock shelter. 

Photos by Pat Williams 

(Friends of Red Rock Canyon).

Big Al skull. Photo courtesy of 

Museum of the Rockies.

Brent Breithaupt

with Big Al exhibit.

Photo courtesy of

Museum of the Rockies.
58 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 59

the Cliffs of Mystery,” a video and activity guide 

that used these popular characters to present 

an antivandalism message. In addition, Utah’s 

“Intrigue of the Past: Investigating Archaeology” 

education program was adopted as the classroom 

component of the national heritage education 

program and renamed “Project Archaeology.” This 

program continues to provide curricular materials 

for educators to fulfill science and literacy standards 

while teaching citizenship and stewardship. 

Partnerships Enhance Preservation

In 1997, the BLM signed an agreement with the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the 

National Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers that promoted collaboration on more 

efficient state-specific procedures regarding 

preservation. To implement the agreement, the 

Director also chartered the BLM Preservation 

Board, composed of BLM deputy preservation 

officers and field specialists, which continues 

to inform BLM policy development and 

implementation. 

The Bureau Fulfills Its Sacred Obligation

to Native American Tribes

In 1990, the Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act required federal agencies and 

nonfederal museums that receive federal funds 

to locate, inventory, and determine the ultimate 

disposition of Native American cultural items, 

including human remains and funerary and 

sacred objects.

Upon enactment of the law, the BLM devoted 

substantial time, energy, and funding to fully 

carry out its obligations. By 1999, the BLM had 

The Bisti Beast: The First Paleontological Excavation in BLM Wilderness | By Pat Hester

whole or partial skulls of Pentaceratops sternbergii known to science, and 

tyrannosaurid material was even more rare—only two partial skeletons 

were known from the geologic formations exposed in the Bisti/De-Na-Zin. 

The amount of material in place would require excavation to preserve 

the bones for scientific purposes. Excavation would include digging a 

trench around rock containing the bone material, creating a protective 

jacket around the bone and rock matrix, and finally, getting it out of 

the wilderness! 

For Chris Barnes, the BLM Farmington Resource Area recreation 

and wilderness specialist, the challenge was managing for wilderness 

values while balancing the collection of significant paleontological 

resources. An environmental assessment was completed using the 

“minimum tool” principle, and a permit was issued for excavating those 

paleontological resources. 

In the summer of 1998, the crew walked the 3 miles to the excavation 

site in the badlands, hand-carrying plaster, burlap, water for the plaster 

jacket, and hand tools, which were cached inside the wilderness. Each day, 

once their work was completed, the crew returned to a campsite outside 

of the wilderness. Work occurred over 3 months and was completed 

in September. On September 11, 1998, the NMMNHS arranged for a 

helicopter to fly the 2000-pound jacket containing the tyrannosaurid out 

of the wilderness. The helicopter did not land at the site; the jacket was 

netted, hooked onto the helicopter, and then flown out. Followup site 

visits show that evidence of the excavation activities in the wilderness has 

disappeared. In 2010, the tyrannosaurid was described and named by 

Thomas Carr and Tom Williamson as Bistahieversor sealeyi. The Bisti Beast 

remains on display for public enjoyment at the NMMNHS. 

In 1984, the San Juan Basin Wilderness Act was passed, establishing 

the Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness in New Mexico. The geologic formations 

exposed within the badlands of this wilderness record an ancient 

ecosystem. Here, changes to plant and animal life document the end of 

the Cretaceous geologic time period and the beginning of the Paleocene, 

a time when mammals began filling ecological niches left vacant by the 

demise of the dinosaurs.

This part of New Mexico has been visited by paleontologists since 

the 1880s, so its known paleontological resources were a component 

of the wilderness values found here. Establishing wilderness in areas 

with paleontological resources was controversial. The paleontological 

research community’s perception was that wilderness designation might 

limit research. Reconnaissance and survey activities for paleontological 

resources were assessed, and the conclusion was that these activities 

had little effect on wilderness characteristics. By 1995, permitted 

reconnaissance and survey for paleontological resources in the area 

resumed and continue today. 

When Paul Sealey, a volunteer with the New Mexico Museum of 

Natural History and Science (NMMNHS), discovered fossil bones eroding 

out of a knoll deep inside the Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness in the spring of 

1997, he marked the spot with two small cairns so that he could return to 

the locality with paleontologists from the NMMNHS. Sealey didn’t have a 

GPS unit. That fall, Dr. Tom Williamson and NMMNHS staff and volunteers 

returned to assess the sites and identified the discoveries as a partial 

skeleton of a large tyrannosaurid, a skull of a Pentaceratops sternbergii, 

and a partial skeleton of a hadrosaur. The partially exposed fossil material 

was very exciting for the group since, at that time, there were only six 

Patricia Hester was BLM’s regional paleontologist 

for New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and 

California from 2004 until her retirement in 2012. 

She was also a BLM geologist in solid minerals, 

mining law, and oil and gas for 19 years. During 

her time in New Mexico, Pat coordinated and 

facilitated the excavation of the Seismosaurus 

Quarry in the Ojito Wilderness.

States—suggesting an intriguing connection 

between the two ancient cultures.

In 1997, a research geologist from the Indiana 

Geological Survey, Erik Kvale, was leading a 

group of hikers on a trek across public lands near 

Red Gulch, Wyoming, when he noticed curious 

imprints in the limestone bed of a dry wash. The 

chance siting led to the discovery of one of the few 

paleontological sites in the world from the Middle 

Jurassic Period of 160 million to 180 million years 

ago. The depressions in the rock noticed by Kvale 

proved to be among hundreds, possibly thousands, 

of footprints left by dinosaurs as they trod the 

muddy shore of an ancient sea. 

The continuing need to combat looting and 

vandalism of archaeological resources underscored 

the importance of the BLM’s education programs. 

When Interior Secretary Lujan included education 

in the Department’s stewardship agenda in 1990, 

the BLM conducted a study of existing Bureau 

education initiatives and offered alternatives for 

creating a national education program. Director 

Cy Jamison vowed that the BLM would become a 

leader in heritage education. 

In 1991, the BLM developed “A Plan to Educate 

Young Americans About Their Nation’s Rich 

Cultural Heritage.” The plan described a flagship 

program to enhance science literacy and promote 

stewardship. Around the same time, the BLM 

released “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and 

located and determined tribal affiliation for 

about 90 percent of the Native American human 

remains in its museum collections. The effort 

involved thousands of hours of inventory and 

analysis by staffs from nonfederal museums and 

the BLM, as well as countless hours by tribes in 

consultation with the BLM. The work resulted in 

the identification of 464 individual human remains 

and about 11,230 objects for potential repatriation, 

enabling the Bureau to honor its obligation to 

return them to the affiliated tribes.

The Bureau Establishes Interpretive Areas

Eager to share the wonders of the nation’s cultural 

and natural heritage with the public, the BLM 

designated its first national interpretive lead 

position in 1993. The BLM also established a 

number of interpretive areas, including the Red 

Gulch Site in Wyoming, the Trail Through Time in 

Colorado, the Paleozoic Trackway in New Mexico, 

and the Trilobite Trail in Nevada. 

By the end of the decade, the BLM had inventoried 

a total of 13.9 million acres, recording more than 

220,000 cultural resource properties and more 

than 25,000 paleontological localities. Of these, 

255 became sites on the National Register of 

Historic Places, and 22 became National 

Historic Landmarks.

The BLM also developed interpretive centers for 

cultural resources. The Anasazi Heritage Center 

in southwestern Colorado, which opened in 1988, 

hosted tens of thousands of visitors and hundreds 

of scientists during the 1990s. The museum 

preserves artifacts and records from excavations 

in the Four Corners area and is one of the premier 

repositories for artifacts relating to the culture of 

the Ancestral Puebloan (Anasazi), who inhabited 

the region from AD 1 to AD 1300. By 1999, the 

museum’s collections included approximately 

3 million artifacts.

In 1992, the BLM opened the National Historic 

Oregon Trail Interpretive Center to celebrate 

the sesquicentennial of the Oregon Trail. The 

celebration featured the largest wagon train 

reenactment of the century. 

Dinosaur track at

Red Gulch in Wyoming.

Anasazi

Heritage

Center (later

renamed Canyons

of the Ancients Visitor 

Center and Museum)

in Colorado.

National Historic Oregon 

Trail Interpretive Center

in Oregon.

Extracting the Bisti Beast 

by helicopter. Photo by 

John Arnold (New Mexico 

Museum of Natural 

History and Science).

Bisti Beast skull. Photo by David 

Baccadutre (New Mexico Museum 

of Natural History and Science).
60 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 61

Education, Partnership, and

Volunteer Efforts Expand

In 1991, the BLM’s new environmental education 

division entered into an agreement with the 

National Science Teachers Association to produce 

inserts for the association’s “Science and Children” 

magazine. Over the next decade, the BLM produced 

22 articles with posters covering environmental and 

heritage education topics. Field staffs incorporated 

these materials into their programs, while readers 

nationwide learned more about the BLM. Other 

partnerships followed. Through Project Learning 

Lands Day, enlisted scores of government and 

private partners. Participation in the event grew to 

175,000 volunteers working at more than 2,200 sites 

in every U.S. state and territory.

During the 1990s, several initiatives expanded 

the volunteer program and provided centralized 

leadership for the enlistment and use of 

volunteers. In 1992, the volunteer program and 

staff became part of the newly formed Division 

of Environmental Education and Volunteers. In 

1995, the division created the Volunteer Program 

Adjunct Team to provide technical expertise and 

help implement strategic initiatives. The team 

established the BLM Making a Difference National 

Volunteer Awards program to honor volunteers and 

volunteer coordinators. 

Tree, a national environmental education program 

of the American Forest Foundation, the BLM 

expanded fire and invasive species education 

efforts. The BLM established the Partners in 

Resource Education collaboration in 1994 to 

coordinate environmental education efforts of 

federal land management agencies. Between 

1995 and 2000, the environmental education and 

heritage education staffs each developed national 

strategies for expanded use of digital media 

and the Internet. The Environmental Education 

Division produced CD-ROMs, satellite broadcasts, 

and electronic field trips and posted educational 

resources on the “Learning Landscapes” website. 

On Labor Day in 1994, the BLM and the TimesMirror Company—publisher of outdoor magazines 

and other publications—together launched a 

new initiative that became the largest hands-on 

volunteer program ever to benefit the nation’s 

public lands. In its inaugural celebration, Public 

Lands Appreciation Day enlisted 700 volunteers at 

three sites on the public lands. Over the next two 

decades, the program, renamed National Public 

Environmental Education on the Ground: Native Plant Restoration at Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument | By Beth Kampschror

On a field trip to Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Barbara Warner, a science teacher 

at Kanab High School, quizzed 10 students about plants on the scrubby flats of Petrified Hollow, some 

20 miles east of Kanab, Utah. “What’s this one here?” she asked, pointing at the compact, gray-green 

bushes dotting the plain. “Sage,” students called out. “Winterfat,” they agreed about another shrub.

Satisfied with their identification of the plants, Warner then scattered the students to collect 

winterfat seeds. “Don’t strip the plants—just fill these bags about half way,” she said, demonstrating 

with a plastic sandwich bag. The students fanned out on the plain. Within 10 minutes, they’d filled 

their quota.

Plant identification and seed collection are just a small part of a project that studies, grows, and 

reestablishes native plants within the monument. The native plant restoration project matches students 

in Warner’s natural resource management class with BLM staff from the monument and the Kanab Field 

Office. An education coordinator funded by Grand Staircase Escalante Partners (GSEP) (www.gsenm.org) 

works out the logistics of bringing students and the BLM together. 

As fall turns to winter, students plant the seeds they’ve collected in the school greenhouse; in 

springtime, they will plant the seedlings within the monument. The BLM plans to extend the project to 

other schools surrounding the monument. 

Warner’s class in Kanab is popular, with enrollment increasing every year. “The students in my 

natural resource management class really enjoy working with the BLM staff, and they take great pride 

in the winterfat plants they’ve raised from seed and transplanted to their new homes at the national 

monument,” she said.

At Petrified Hollow on a chilly fall morning, Allan Bate, a rangeland management specialist, 

and Web Staley, a biological science technician, taught the students how to systematically identify and 

count the number of plant species in a given area while GSEP’s education coordinator, Wade Parsons, 

showed another group of students how to map winterfat stands with global positioning system 

(GPS) technology.

Parsons, whose background includes nearly 20 years of teaching, as well as more than a decade of 

field archaeology, said the students learn quickly. “They’ve learned more than they realize,” Parsons said, 

adding that a former Kanab High School student landed a job with the BLM in St. George thanks to the 

GPS and mapping skills he learned in the class. “Those are real world skills, and students can use them in 

any land management agency.”

Beth Kampschror is the former communications coordinator for the Grand Staircase Escalante Partners, the nonprofit friends group that supports the monument. She also served as the executive director for Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument.

Winterfat, a native shrub 

within the monument.

The President, Congress, and the Bureau 

Recognize Special Places

Special designations of BLM-managed lands 

predated the enactment of FLPMA—Congress 

designated the King Range National Conservation 

Area, the BLM’s first, in 1970. FLPMA itself 

created the 25-million-acre California Desert 

Conservation Area, with 10 million acres of that 

area managed by the BLM. Over the next decade, 

Congress designated BLM-administered national 

conservation areas in Alaska, New Mexico, 

and Arizona. 

In 1980, the BLM completed the first step of the 

process required by section 603 of FLPMA, which 

was to identify areas with wilderness characteristics. 

It identified over 900 wilderness study areas 

encompassing more than 23 million acres of BLMmanaged lands.10 The second step of the process, 

which was to study each wilderness study area to 

make a recommendation to the President on “the 

suitability or nonsuitability of each such area or 

island for preservation as wilderness,” concluded 

in 1991. The central issue addressed by the studies 

was not to determine whether an area possessed 

wilderness characteristics, which was already 

established, but rather to determine whether the 

area was “more suitable for

wilderness designation or

more suitable for

nonwilderness uses.” 

Between July 1991 and

January 1993, President

George H.W. Bush submitted

these state-by-state

recommendations

to Congress.

King Range National Conservation Area in California.

President George H.W. Bush.
62 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 63

The BLM managed all of these wilderness study 

areas, as directed by FLPMA, “in a manner so 

as not to impair the suitability of such areas for 

preservation as wilderness” pending final action by 

Congress to either designate them as wilderness or 

release them from wilderness study area status.

The BLM also established special protected areas 

under its own administrative authorities, including 

recreation areas, primitive areas, outstanding 

natural areas, research natural areas, and resource 

conservation areas. 

In the mid-1990s, the BLM’s role in conservation 

went unrecognized; its conservation programs 

and policies spread across various organizational 

missions and implementation occurred in 

isolated field units. The BLM regularly transferred 

lands deemed suitable for national monument 

designation to protect objects of outstanding 

historic and scientific value to the National 

Park Service.11

This situation changed in 1996 when President 

Clinton designated the 1.9 million-acre Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument in 

southern Utah.12 The sheer scope of geological, 

paleontological, biological, historical, and 

archaeological resources outlined in the 

Presidential Proclamation that established the 

monument may have seemed overstated at first, 

but a 1997 science symposium confirmed the 

monument’s vast and diverse scientific riches. 

The Presidential declaration, made from Arizona’s 

Grand Canyon just hours after the administration 

had denied any intent of creating a monument in 

Utah, ignited a firestorm of controversy throughout 

the West. The State of Utah and the Utah 

Reminiscences of Wilderness and Training | Compiled by Jim Foote

In 1990, as the BLM was recommending 2.3 million acres in California for wilderness 

designation, employees were learning how to manage those special and unique areas. Following 

are excerpts from an article in that year’s October/November issue of the BLM’s “Newsbeat” 

magazine in which participants in a National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) training session 

relate their experiences as they learned how to come and go in these areas without leaving a trace: 

I knew what was coming. I knew what he was going to say even before he said it. As his 

hand reached for that smooth rock, I anticipated his every word. It had been a short hike from 

the vehicles to our first campsite, and necessarily so, as organizational matters and travel to 

the trailhead consumed the fleeting daylight hours. Not having been burdened with such a 

heavy pack in recent memory (which was made even heavier with copious quantities of such 

“contraband” as M&Ms and Tootsie Roll Pops), I was not about to argue a case for pushing 

farther along the trail. After a reasonable rest, the group gathered with a NOLS instructor to 

discuss minimum impact camping. As his hand reached for a smooth rock, I suddenly envisioned 

a photo of a similar hand holding a similar smooth rock in the NOLS publication “Soft Paths,” and 

the printed words under that photo sent chills down my spine: “Today, traveling light for many 

visitors also means doing without that recent invention of civilization—toilet paper.” 

The dread lasted but an instant for I knew that, along with the M&Ms and Tootsie Roll Pops 

stashed beneath my supplies, there was another “necessity” of civilization I had chosen not to 

leave behind.

Jim Foote, outdoor recreation planner, Needles Resource Area

My trip to the Santa Rosa Mountains reinforced my healthy respect for gravity. Carrying my 

60-pound pack up a series of sandy washes and the final 1,000 foot assault on the mountains 

more than tested my dubious endurance, and further taught me that just about every plant in 

the desert has a spine attached to it. But there was a payoff for all the hard work. The transition 

from the sun-baked, cactus-covered mountainside to the shade of the pinyon pine, fine soft sand, 

cool temperatures, and spring water made the tough climb all worthwhile. The NOLS instructors’ 

dedication to low impact use of the lands revitalized in my mind a land use ethic that is necessary 

to ensure that future users of our wilderness areas have as rewarding an experience as I did.

Gary Pavek, wilderness coordinator, Washington Office

Mecca Hills Wilderness in California.

Association of Counties joined the Mountain States 

Legal Foundation in a suit aimed at overturning 

the designation.13

Despite the furor that President Clinton’s dramatic 

use of the Antiquities Act created, Congress was 

also highly involved in protecting new units on 

BLM-managed lands, adding significantly to 

the BLM’s conservation management portfolio. 

From June 2000 to January 2001, Congress made 

18 new designations on BLM lands, including 4 

national conservation areas, 1 national monument, 

12 wilderness areas, and 1 national historic trail. 

These were in addition to the 14 BLM national 

monuments created by Presidential Proclamation 

and the 1 national monument created by Congress 

during the Clinton years.

Entrusting the BLM to manage and protect these 

areas signaled a gradual shift in the nation’s 

thinking about conservation—the BLM was to 

manage national monuments within the context 

of multiple use. The language designating the 

monuments included direction allowing traditional 

uses of the land (such as hunting, fishing, livestock 

grazing, and recreation) while protecting the values 

for which each area was designated. 

The Wild Horse and Burro Program 

Addresses Controversy

In the era following passage of the 1971 Wild 

Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, the darkest 

chapter for the program opened on the morning of 

January 4, 1997, when an explosive article by the 

Associated Press ignited a nationwide media frenzy. 

The article led with two highly sensational—

and erroneous—charges against the BLM. “A 

multimillion-dollar federal program created to save 

the lives of wild horses is instead channeling them 

by the thousands to slaughterhouses where they 

are chopped into cuts of meat,” the article stated. 

“Among those profiting from the slaughter are 

employees of the Bureau of Land Management, the 

federal agency that administers the program.”14

The Bureau Initiates an Investigation

Within hours of the story breaking, the Department 

of the Interior’s assistant secretary for land and 

minerals management, Bob Armstrong, ordered 

an immediate investigation of the allegations. The 

BLM sent teams of law enforcement agents and 

wild horse experts to all horse slaughterhouses in 

the United States and to one slaughterhouse 

in Canada.

The BLM’s assistant director for renewable 

resources and planning, Maitland Sharpe, later 

summarized the findings of the investigation: 

“The BLM conducted an extensive 

investigation that found that less than 

Saylor Creek Horse Management Area in Idaho.

It’s evening. We’ve finished cooking, cleaned our dishes, and scattered the dishwater. All food 

scraps are collected and bagged up, ready to be packed out with the litter. The first stars are 

coming out, a gentle breeze is stirring. Ah, for the comfort of a campfire. We look around at our 

campsite: the area shows no evidence of a campfire ever being there. Our camp and kitchen 

are in a non-vegetated area, and we know that when we leave, no one must know we were 

here. The site will be well camouflaged after we brush out our tracks and scatter soil. But a 

campfire? Blackened rocks? Soil sterilized by the heat? Wish there were some way to enjoy the 

companionship of a campfire without impacting the environment. The answer to our dilemma, 

as presented by the NOLS instructors, becomes obvious—a mound fire! Taking a tarp down to 

a small dry drainage, we fill it with sand and carry it back to camp. We’ve selected a huge, flat 

rock to build our fire on, big enough for us all to sit on. Laying the tarp down, we spread the sand 

in a layer about 6 inches deep and carefully build a fire on top of it. What an evening! After the 

wood has turned to ash, the remains are doused with water and we turn in for the night. The 

next morning, after dispersing the ashes and returning the sand to the drainage, we survey the 

campsite. What campsite? And it’s with real pride that we leave the area, knowing that the next 

person who chances by will experience the joy that comes of being the “first” to visit this place.

Lynn Watkins, wilderness specialist, El Centro Resource Area

Moonset and sunrise dazzle my eyes.

I feel as if I am at the site of a fantasy novel.

Cahuilla Indian signs are all around us.

Rocks stacked up. Monuments? 

Boundaries? Subtle trail markers—

rock on rock? There are so many

stories here. It’s so much a part of the

land that it’s hard to decipher. But now

that I’ve been tutored on what

to look for, my eyes see more.

JuLee Pallette, wilderness specialist,

Ridgecrest Resource Area

Jim Foote was the manager of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument in California from 2008 until his retirement in 2016.

Prior to that, he was an outdoor recreation planner in the BLM’s Needles Field Office, and later, the Palm Springs Field Office.

Joshua trees

and wildflowers

in Owens Peak Wilderness

in California.
64 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 65

one-quarter of 1 percent of all horses sent 

to meat-packing plants were ever wild or 

managed by the agency.

“Not one investigation has substantiated the 

claims of the Associated Press account.

“To conclude that adopters are sending 

wild horses to slaughter to make a fast 

buck just doesn’t add up. The BLM has 

strict requirements adopters must follow to 

ensure the proper care of their animals. The 

average cost of feeding and veterinary and 

farrier services for a horse is about $1,000 a 

year—more if you are boarding the animal. 

Slaughterhouses pay up to about $700 a 

horse. The implication that people who 

adopt horses are in it for the money does a 

terrible disservice to the thousands of folks 

who invest their time, funds and hear[t] to 

provide these animals with good homes.”15

While the investigation refuted the Associated 

Press’ principal allegations, the review by the 

BLM, as well as reviews by other independent 

investigators, pointed to a number of deficiencies in 

the management of the program.

Energy and Minerals Management 

Considers Environmental Changes

The decade of the 1990s opened with a brief war 

in the Persian Gulf that caused a temporary oil 

price shock and reignited public debates on energy 

independence. But a decade of cheap oil soon set in, 

and the emphasis of national energy policy shifted 

to the externalities associated with fossil 

fuel production. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

first warned in 1990 that human activities could be 

contributing to a climb in the average temperature 

of the Earth, and President Clinton took action on 

climate policy following his inauguration in 1993. 

He pledged to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions 

at 1990 levels by the year 2000 and advanced a 

“Climate Change Action Plan” to help achieve 

this goal.

Still, with price controls a thing of the past, fossil 

fuel production thrived on federal lands in the 

1990s. The share of overall domestic oil production 

that came from public lands rose from 20 percent in 

1992 to 32 percent in 1998, while the share of coal 

production climbed from 27 percent to 41 percent 

over the same period. Drilling for coalbed methane, 

the natural gas found in coal seams, soared in 

Wyoming’s Powder River Basin and other areas. 

The BLM approved tens of thousands of leases 

and drilling permits during the 1990s. Lease 

sale bidding reached astonishing sums, with the 

133 tracts offered in the May 1999 auction for the 

National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska fetching more 

than $124 million.

Congress Convenes a Hearing

It was at this critical juncture, with the program still 

in the harsh public spotlight and questions raging 

about the program’s management, that members of 

the House Resources Subcommittee on National 

Parks and Public Lands gathered in Reno, Nevada. 

The subcommittee was to conduct a field hearing 

on “Range Issues and Problems with the Wild 

Horse and Burro Act and Its Implementation.”

Utah Representative Jim Hansen, then chair of the 

subcommittee, opened the hearing with a stark 

assessment of the state of the wild horse and 

burro program: 

“The intentions behind the [wild horse 

and burro] Act were quite laudable. 

Unfortunately, things have not worked out 

quite as well as Congress anticipated. The 

range is becoming degraded, riparian areas 

are being destroyed, and adoptions are 

lagging and cost millions of dollars a year to 

administer. The health of the animals on the 

range is deteriorating, disease is becoming a 

problem in many areas and the animals are 

competing with and driving out wildlife. 

“The BLM faces a lot of challenges as it 

tries to manage its feral animals on the 

public lands. We have given them laws 

and mandates to live by that are often 

contradictory, and generally they try to do 

the best they can to make sense of the whole 

mess. I hope we can figure out a way to make 

their job a little easier.”16

The hearing gave stakeholders of all stripes an 

opportunity to present their views on the wild horse 

and burro program. Testifying on behalf of the 

BLM, Bob Abbey, the Nevada state director (who, a 

decade later, was appointed BLM director), outlined 

a set of improvements in population management, 

humane care and treatment, and use of science 

aimed at meeting the long-term objectives of 

the program.

The employees of the BLM’s wild horse and burro 

program achieved some notable successes, though 

they were lost in the storm of adverse attention 

over the years, and with little public appreciation or 

reward, they remained dedicated to their mission.

Wild horse medical exam. Wild burros in Hells Canyon Wilderness in Arizona.

Wyoming’s Powder River Basin.
66 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 67

The Bureau Proposes Mining Reform

While the Clinton administration generally applied 

a market-based approach to energy policy, some 

of its biggest clashes with industry occurred over 

mining regulation.

The mining industry had operated on public lands 

largely unsupervised for decades prior to the late 

1970s. When the BLM announced new regulations 

in 1980, it soon became apparent that the 

regulations needed financial guarantees to guard 

against potential environmental damage caused by 

failed mining operations. 

After the General Accounting Office released 

reports in the mid-1980s citing the BLM’s failure to 

inspect mining operations on public lands and take 

action on numerous unreclaimed mining sites, the 

Bureau formed a task force to examine revisions 

to its bonding regulations. In 1991, the BLM 

formally proposed revisions to these regulations. 

Industry attacked the plan to institute mandatory 

bonding, as companies feared the prospect of facing 

duplicative federal and state requirements. The 

BLM suspended work on the regulations in 1993 

to afford Congress a chance to reform the General 

Mining Act of 1872. When legislation died in 

conference committee, Interior Secretary Babbitt 

reinitiated the regulatory effort in 1997.

The BLM put forth the revised bonding regulations 

that year, but opponents successfully challenged 

them in federal court. Rather than appeal, the 

Department of the Interior folded the proceeding 

into its overall revision of section 3809 regulations 

of the mining law. When the BLM released those 

regulations in the fall of 2000, they included 

language requiring miners to provide a financial 

The Bureau Inherits Helium Responsibilities

The deficit reduction deliberations of the 1990s 

also led to the BLM inheriting responsibility for the 

National Helium Reserve. The Department of the 

Interior’s Bureau of Mines had run the reserve since 

the mid-1920s, and along the way, the agency had 

accumulated more than $1 billion in debt through 

its purchase of helium and interest accumulated 

on the borrowings. With 90 percent of the helium 

guarantee covering the estimated costs

of reclamation.

Claiming that their costs of doing business would 

significantly increase, industry representatives 

blasted the rules and sued to block them. The 

incoming Bush administration, saying they 

were last-minute regulations, subsequently 

suspended them.

The Department of the Interior, under Secretary 

Babbitt, also attempted mining reform through 

issuance of a series of Solicitor’s opinions. In 

November 1997, the Department released the 

most contentious of these, the so-called “millsite 

opinion,” and offered the Solicitor’s interpretation 

of language in the 1872 mining law that said there 

could be no more than one 5-acre millsite for 

each mining claim.17 In practice, miners often 

required more than one millsite for mining claims, 

but the opinion limited operations to a single 

5-acre millsite. 

After a mining plan in Washington State was denied 

based on the millsite opinion, an uproar ensued. 

Bob Anderson, a former BLM assistant director for 

minerals, realty, and resource protection, recalled 

that some miners reduced the size of their claims 

so they could add millsites. Congress intervened, 

attaching a rider to a spending bill that said the 

millsite limitation did not apply to applications 

grandfathered in from a 1994 moratorium on mine 

patents. The moratorium, ordered by Secretary 

Babbitt after the mining law reform failed, 

remained in place as of 2012.

The Bush administration reversed the Solicitor’s 

opinion in its entirety in 2003, saying that the 

mining law does not limit the number of millsites 

per claim.

Renewable Energy Efforts Begin

The first experiments with renewable energy 

production on BLM lands occurred in California 

with a series of actions to promote wind 

development in the late 1970s and the 1980s.

The California Energy Commission began mapping 

the state’s wind energy resources in 1977 and 

identified two areas on BLM land—Tehachapi 

Pass in Kern County and the San Gorgonio Pass in 

Riverside County—for development. In response, 

the BLM’s California State Office launched a plan 

to authorize wind energy in the early 1980s. This 

plan, combined with state and federal tax credits, 

caused interest in wind production to take off in the 

area. These early wind energy authorizations on the 

public lands included some inconsistent terms and 

conditions and various rental or royalty provisions. 

The BLM did not issue consistent policy on wind 

energy rights-of-way until 2002. 

Managing the BLM’s Helium Program | By Leslie A. Theiss

Wind turbines in California.

produced in the United States stemming from the 

private sector by 1995, Congress decided it was 

time to get out of the helium refining business.

Implementation of the Helium Privatization Act 

of 1996 gave the BLM control of the Bush Dome 

in Amarillo, Texas, which provided a third of the 

world’s helium supply. The BLM was to use any 

profits from the helium program to repay the 

helium debt. The law required termination of the 

helium production fund once the debt was paid.18

Various industries increasingly recognized helium 

for a variety of scientific, medical, and industrial 

applications, from the space program to magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) and laser surgery to the 

superconducting magnets of advanced physics 

research. The BLM operated the reservoir and an 

intermediate processing facility that delivered crude 

helium to refiners via a pipeline. 

When I agreed to take on the job as the manager of the federal helium program 

in Amarillo, Texas, the only thing I knew about helium was that it was used for blimps 

and balloons. Boy, did I have a lot to learn!

The federal helium program has a long, proud history in the Texas Panhandle. 

The original purpose of the program was to ensure supplies of helium were available 

to the federal government for defense, research, and medical applications. The 

government acquired the Bush Dome, a geologic structure containing a partially 

depleted gas reservoir, in the 1920s for this reason. During and after World War II, the 

demand for helium increased, and in the 1960s, the government purchased helium to 

fill up the dome. 

Over time, the program evolved into a conservation program with a goal of 

supplying high-grade helium for high-tech research and aerospace applications. 

By the 1990s, private demand for helium far exceeded federal demand. The 

Helium Privatization Act of 1996 redefined our primary functions, making the BLM 

responsible for operating and maintaining the helium reservoir and pipeline system, 

providing crude helium gas through contracts with private companies, evaluating the 

nation’s helium-bearing gas fields, and providing access to federal lands for managed 

recovery and use of helium.

Ours is the only helium storage facility in the world, so people are often curious 

about how we produce and process the helium. We frequently host visitors from 

other countries (including Russia, Poland, Germany, and Japan) who are interested in 

our operations. Crude helium is produced from our facility at the Cliffside Gas Field 

approximately 15 miles northwest of Amarillo. The helium is extracted from the 

Bush Dome, which contains helium, natural gas, and other gases such as nitrogen 

and methane. We have two dozen wells that extract the gas. The gas mixture is then 

run through our helium enrichment unit, which opened in 2004, where the natural 

gas, helium, and other byproducts are separated. The crude helium is then delivered 

to private industry refiners who are attached to our 425-mile pipeline. The pipeline 

runs from our plant through the Panhandle of Oklahoma to its endpoint in the middle 

of Kansas. Currently, 35 percent of the world’s helium and 42 percent of domestic 

helium are supplied by our helium enrichment unit.

The helium organization is unique in that it is financed by a government public 

enterprise fund (a partnership with private industry), not by annual appropriations 

from Congress. We run our operations using income from the sale of crude helium 

(78 percent pure) and management of the helium storage facility and pipeline. 

Monies in excess of amounts needed for operations are returned annually to the 

U.S. Treasury to be applied against the helium program’s debt incurred in the 1960s. 

Over the past 10 years, $939 million has been returned to the U.S. Treasury, paying 

off much of that debt. In addition, more than $20 million per year is added to the 

regional economy of the Texas Panhandle in payroll, goods, and services. 

From 2005–2007, there was a worldwide shortage of helium, which brought a 

great deal of media attention and market pressure to our operation in Amarillo. We 

fielded media calls from “The Wall Street Journal,” National Public Radio, and “Good 

Morning America” and visits from national and international correspondents from 

Canada, the United Kingdom, and other countries. We were even the subject of a joke 

on a late-night comedy show! 

As you can see, the Amarillo Field Office’s helium operations are not just about 

balloons. Kids might be happy if all we did was keep the balloons filled, but helium 

has many varied and important uses that affect our everyday lives. Helium is used 

for cooling the magnets in magnetic resonance image (MRI) scans, manufacturing 

fiber optic cable, pressurizing liquid propellants used in space shuttle launches, 

welding, filling balloons for the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, and lastly, filling 

party balloons.

Leslie Theiss was the field manager 

for helium operations at the 

Amarillo Field Office in Texas from 

2004 until her retirement. Prior 

to that, she was the field manager 

for the Carlsbad Field Office in New 

Mexico and the Pinedale Field 

Office in Wyoming and was also a 

senior fluid minerals geologist and 

area geologist for the BLM.

Helium production plant near

Amarillo, Texas (1943).

Crude helium enrichment unit

in the Cliffside Gas Field.
68 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 69

Wildland Fire Management

Reaches a Turning Point

In 1991, just 3 years after the Yellowstone fires, 

a grass fire that spread to large brush and scrub 

trees in the hills near Oakland, California, killed 

25 people, injured another 150, and damaged or 

consumed more than 3,000 single-family homes 

and more than 400 apartment and condominium 

units, causing an estimated loss of $1.5 billion.19

The Oakland Hills incident showed that fire issues 

pertaining to homes in forest environments also 

could be deadly and costly in rangeland and brush 

environments, which dominate the lands managed 

by the BLM.

Lives Are Lost in the South Canyon Fire

In 1994, during a year of drought, low humidity, 

and record temperatures, a fire ignited on BLM 

the focus was on just getting the job done,” Ryerson 

said. “South Canyon prompted what would become 

an entire interagency safety movement. It brought 

everyone together and put a new focus on our work 

as firefighters and safety. It was a major culture 

change, but it didn’t happen overnight.”21

The “Wildland Fire Safety Awareness Study” 

stemmed from the events at South Canyon and 

largely drove the culture change, which took nearly 

a decade to gel. The study, conducted by the TriData 

Corporation of Arlington, Virginia, with input from 

a number of independent consultants and federal 

wildfire experts, was a comprehensive examination 

of the fire community culture, human factors, 

external influences on safety, leadership, and more. 

This study, combined with the collaborative work 

of the federal fire agencies and the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, led to more 

than 30 changes in fire management practices 

and operations.

Primary changes included the creation of predictive 

services units—teams of meteorologists and 

intelligence personnel who model fire behavior—at 

coordination centers, new protocols for ensuring 

critical fire and weather information is shared 

with everyone on a fire, new safety training 

requirements, the creation of a “lessons learned” 

program, and more stringent work-rest and 

length-of-assignment guidelines. Additionally, 

there was a new focus on safety accountability, 

situational risk awareness and management, and 

guidelines that empowered all firefighters to refuse 

assignments they considered too dangerous 

(turn-down protocols).

“We all recognize there are some inherent risks 

associated with firefighting jobs,” Ryerson said. “But 

land on Storm King Mountain in Colorado that 

killed 14 firefighters. This tragic event, dubbed 

the South Canyon Fire, highlighted the severe 

conditions faced by firefighters, illustrated some 

shortcomings in the protocols for sharing severe 

weather information on the fire line, shed light on 

fire line decisionmaking concerns, and focused 

attention on discussions about landscape values at 

risk and firefighter safety. This single fire was the 

catalyst for major changes in the BLM fire program 

and across the wildland fire community. 

“It was a turning point for a lot of things related to 

risk management, how we had been doing it, how 

we could improve it, and how we thought about it,” 

said John Glenn, the BLM’s chief of fire operations 

at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, 

Idaho. “It really brought home the idea that no 

resources are worth a firefighter’s life.”20

The “Report of the South Canyon Fire Accident 

Investigation Team” highlighted numerous 

contributing factors that led to the fatalities on 

Storm King Mountain. Fuels were abundant and 

extremely dry from extended drought conditions. 

A period of hot weather, followed by a cold front, 

brought strong erratic winds as the front passed 

through the area and created severe fire behavior. 

Human factors included a failure to communicate 

weather predictions and fire conditions. The 

investigation also found fatigue to be a factor, citing 

one crew that had worked 26 consecutive days, with 

most shifts in excess of 12 hours, as it responded to 

several fires sparked by lightning in the same area. 

Another significant contributing factor was a “can 

do” attitude among the firefighters that led to 

neglecting or compromising a number of safety 

guidelines. For instance, firefighters constructed fire 

lines downhill in steep terrain and tall fuels, which 

precluded them from seeing the location and the 

severity of the fire. In addition, escape routes and 

safety zones were inadequate, and not everyone 

received briefings on critical information.

Firefighting Focus Shifts to Safety

Michelle Ryerson, who was among the first 

firefighters on the ground at the South Canyon Fire 

and who later became the safety and occupational 

health manager for the BLM’s fire and aviation 

program, agrees that South Canyon was a tipping 

point. “Before South Canyon, it seemed safety was 

fragmented among agencies and fire programs and 

Wildland fire in California.

Memorial honoring

14 firefighters who

died fighting a

wildfire on

Storm King

Mountain in

Colorado in 1994 

(sculpture by Arizona 

artist Joyce Killebrew).

where it was once a rules-based profession, it is now 

more principle-based. Where we once just raced 

in to get the job done, we are now more thoughtful 

about what we’re doing and we can step back, 

consider the risks, and take actions more in line 

with life and safety.”22

While an enhanced culture of safety was 

evolving, other events were taking place on 

parallel paths that also altered the perception 

and management of wildland fires. A year after 

the South Canyon incident, the nation’s federal 

fire community undertook a sweeping review of 

wildland fire policy. The “Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy and Program Review Final 

Report” recognized that managing wildland fire 

was increasing in complexity and magnitude 

across all jurisdictions and landscapes. Given the 

hazardous and unhealthy accumulations of fuels 

and invasive weed species across the landscape, 

and to an increasing extent in the wildland–urban 

interface, the report noted that cooperation 

among all agencies and among all disciplines in 

resource management was imperative. It was the 

first major report to recognize fire’s role in nature 

and the need to restore it on the landscape and to 

provide a roadmap for integrating fire and resource 

management into planning and implementation. 

Those principles continued to form a basis for 

planning and operations heading into the 

new century.

A Remote Automated Weather Station,

which transmits weather data critical

for effective fire management.
70 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 71

Congress Passes

Realty Management Reforms

Given the controversies and conflicts created by 

land sales in earlier decades, the BLM and other 

public land agencies came to emphasize land 

exchanges. Only through exchanges could the 

agencies gain any benefits from the disposal of 

lands under their jurisdiction.

Former Interior Solicitor John Leshy once 

explained, “Under long-prevailing law, revenues 

generated by BLM land sales disappear into the 

U.S. Treasury, leaving BLM entirely dependent 

on the congressional appropriations process for 

funds to acquire other land for its programs. This 

gives BLM no institutional incentive to sell, and 

every incentive to exchange, its surplus lands. But 

exchanges are slow and difficult, and they mean 

that negotiation rather than the marketplace would 

determine the value of the surplus federal land, 

heightening concern about whether Uncle Sam was 

getting full value.”23

The BLM was instrumental in devising a solution 

to address this dilemma in 1998 during the process 

of negotiating a major land exchange in southern 

Nevada. The solution came in the form of the 

Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act.

The act allowed the BLM to sell public land within a 

specific boundary around Las Vegas, Nevada. It also 

From Chains to Lasers and Global Satellites | By Robert Casias

From the earliest days of our nation’s history, the job of a federal land 

surveyor has been to identify the boundaries of the federal estate. By measuring 

both the direction (bearing) and distance of boundary lines that construct the 

network of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), surveyors have created the 

legal structure for maintaining title ownership of land in the West and large 

parts of the eastern United States. 

The art of measurement has significantly evolved over the past 200 years. 

Surveyors working at the turn of the 19th century were dragging a 66-foot 

chain across the landscape and sighting the sun and stars to determine their 

direction and distance measurements. With the advent of laser technology, 

surveyors working in the 1970s found themselves freed of their chains and able 

to measure up to 3 miles at a time with a “Total Station” and a single electronic 

distance measurement (EDM). Laser technology allowed surveyors to make 

highly accurate distance measurements over large expanses in very little time. 

Although this technology significantly improved efficiencies, there were many 

surveyors who continued, for some time, to take their chains to the field to 

validate the measurements reported by their new EDM instruments. 

In the late 1980s, the military began releasing an unencrypted signal 

from their constellation of global positioning system (GPS) satellites, and very 

soon, GPS technology allowed private and federal land surveyors to access 

continuous, worldwide, three-dimensional positioning information that today 

allows us to locate geographic positions on the ground to within a centimeter of 

accuracy. In 1980, the National Research Council released a report to Congress 

with a far-reaching vision of how cadastral data should exist in digital form. The 

“Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre” report stated that there should be a single, 

comprehensive, multipurpose cadastre that would be readily available at the 

parcel level for the entire nation. Two outcomes of this report brought BLM 

cadastral surveys into the spotlight, as PLSS data was a foundational element of 

the proposed national cadastre. 

The first outcome of the report was that Congress identified the BLM’s 

cadastral survey program as the responsible party for collecting all PLSS 

geometries in a digital format. This effort was termed the Geographic 

Coordinate Data Base (GCDB) Project, and it transformed all of those 

measurements formerly found only on the official survey plats into a digital 

representation. The GCDB has become an invaluable tool to BLM land managers, 

who now widely use geographic information systems (GIS) to make decisions 

regarding the management of public lands.

The second outcome of the report was that the Office of Management 

and Budget extended the idea of common “multipurpose” mapping data by 

identifying seven separate themes that would be provided free of charge by 

the BLM to the public. These themes, known as the National Spatial Data 

Infrastructure framework, include cadastral survey boundaries, vegetation, 

transportation, terrain topology, and other national datasets. The Federal 

Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) was formed in 1990 to develop standards 

enabling these themes to be incorporated into a national dataset. The 

Department of the Interior (DOI) assumed responsibility for the cadastral 

framework along with several other themes. A Presidential order in 1994 

specifically placed BLM in charge of data standards for the cadastral 

framework theme. 

The BLM’s cadastral survey program has led the FGDC Cadastral Data 

Subcommittee and has already developed three kinds of standards: data 

content, transfer, and publication standards. While standards were evolving, the 

work of collecting GCDB data was continuous. 

Since the 1970s, the BLM has collected many land records other than 

survey data. These records were combined with the GCDB into a GIS-based 

software the BLM built known as the Automated Land and Mineral Records 

System. Although there were merits to the system, it failed in staged 

operational testing and was subsequently abandoned. However, the test results 

noted the success of the spatial display of parcels, all of which were based on the 

GCDB portrayal of the PLSS.

In 1999, Congress encouraged the Forest Service and the BLM to combine 

their efforts into a single land information management system that would 

be useful to all other land management agencies and could be used by local 

jurisdictions such as states and counties. This system was known as the National 

Integrated Land System, which was the first digital multipurpose cadastre 

within the DOI. The vision was to have a coast-to-coast parcel dataset, with 

sources housed throughout the country, that would use GIS technology to 

automatically stitch the data together from these sources without the user 

needing to do anything more than ask for it. 

The BLM continues its efforts to integrate both the spatial component and 

the tabular data that define the scope of its work on the public lands. We truly 

have come a long way in this field . . . from chains to lasers and global satellites. 

Bob Casias is currently the associate director for the BLM’s National Operations Center in Denver. Prior to that, he was the deputy state director

for support services as well as a land surveyor and the chief cadastral surveyor for the New Mexico State Office.

Collecting survey data in Alaska.

Surveying in Wyoming (mid to late 1970s).

Arizona surveyors (1910). provided for division of the revenue from land sales 

between the State of Nevada general education fund 

(5 percent), the Southern Nevada Water Authority 

(10 percent), and a special account available 

to the Secretary of the Interior for a variety of 

conservation measures on Nevada public lands. 

The act had impacts beyond Nevada, serving as a 

model for subsequent legislation governing 

the distribution of revenues from the sale of 

public lands.

The Bureau Develops a Professional

Law Enforcement Program 

The BLM’s law enforcement program received 

a great deal of attention during the 1990s as the 

national media reported on several high profile 

events on public lands. With confidence high, the 

Bureau took small but necessary strides to continue 

to standardize its law enforcement program and 

enhance its professionalism. 

As the decade began, the BLM canceled the 

Barstow to Vegas motorcycle race due to the recent 

listing of the desert tortoise as a threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act and used its 

law enforcement officers to enforce the closure. 

The Saturday after Thanksgiving Day in 1990, a 

Motocross race in California.

large group of protestors showed up at the historic 

starting line to create a diversion as protest riders 

ignored the closure. The BLM deployed rangers 

at the starting line and along the racecourse as 

agents infiltrated the antagonistic crowd. BLM 

law enforcement officers arrested several riders 

for entering the closed area and impounded 

their motorcycles. 

The Law Enforcement Office Develops

Standard Policies and Procedures

The National Law Enforcement Office moved 

from Washington, DC, to Boise, Idaho, in 1992 

to place management in closer proximity to field 

operations. The BLM provided its officers with 

patrol rifles, added a fourth K-9 officer to the 

program in Utah’s Richfield District, and obtained 

funding to hire special agents to work hazardous 

materials investigations. 

California Desert District Ranger Felicia Probert 

transferred to the National Law Enforcement Office 

in 1992. She was instrumental in developing the 

BLM’s LAWNET, a centralized, electronic, law 

enforcement reporting database designed to comply 

with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National 

Incident-Based Reporting System. Compliance with 

K-9 officers at Imperial

Sand Dunes Recreation Area in California.

Surveyor using GPS 

technology in California.

Centennial Hills Park in Las Vegas, Nevada, 

funded by public land sales.
72 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 73

The BLM was also in the process of ordering 

replacement rifles. Many field-level rangers, 

emboldened by the Bureau’s firm law enforcement 

mission statement, were removing light bars from 

patrol vehicles so they could catch violators in 

the act. Then, just as a movement by counties and 

states to gain local control of federal land was in 

full swing, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument was established. 

Antifederal groups claimed the public lands 

belonged to the states and that the BLM had 

no authority to manage or police the public 

lands. Some local law enforcement officials even 

threatened to arrest BLM employees engaged 

in the performance of their official duties. 

Political pressure forced the BLM to cancel its 

draft rulemaking and rifle acquisition projects 

and required that all marked patrol vehicles be 

equipped with light bars to maintain a highly 

visible profile on the public lands. Further, the 

the National Incident-Based Reporting System was 

a federal mandate, and to Probert’s credit, the BLM 

became the first federal land management agency to 

comply when LAWNET went operational in 1998. 

After years of operation under loose guidance, the 

BLM issued the “Law Enforcement General Orders” 

in 1996, which established binding policy on all 

law enforcement operations, and revised the law 

enforcement manual to include a clear and firm 

mission statement: 

“The Bureau law enforcement program is 

responsible for implementing the protection 

aspects of the Bureau Mission. Protection is 

accomplished through the enforcement of all 

Federal laws and regulations related to the 

use, management, and development of the 

public lands and their resources, including 

activities related to the administration of the 

public lands.” 

The BLM also recognized that the duties of 

rangers were similar to those of special agents and 

developed standard position descriptions to reflect 

this. Thus, the BLM recognized rangers as law 

enforcement officers engaged in the investigation of 

criminal activity and the apprehension of violators; 

imposed mandatory physical fitness, drug testing, 

and maximum hiring age limitation standards; and 

provided rangers with the same special retirement 

coverage that was already available to BLM 

special agents. 

Law Enforcement Officers Face Adversity

By the mid-1990s, nationally diverse views and 

opinions about public land management were on 

a collision course. The debate over the long-term 

protection of public lands was heating up just as 

the BLM was drafting a rule to consolidate the 

prohibited acts throughout Title 43 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations into one easy-to-find chapter. 

Felicia Probert at the Yaquina Head

Outstanding Natural Area

lighthouse in Oregon.

BLM issued written guidance to all employees on 

how to react if arrested by local law enforcement 

during the performance of their official duties. 

Law enforcement morale plummeted, as some 

offices believed the BLM’s response was in direct 

contradiction to the new law enforcement 

mission statement. 

The BLM’s California state director, Ed Hastey, 

issued a written statement in 1997 admitting that 

the fallout of the recent regulatory effort “further 

complicated the mixed message problem,” referring 

to the BLM’s desire to have a high-profile law 

enforcement presence on the public lands while 

using the softest enforcement tactics. Hastey wrote:

“(Rangers) should be first and foremost 

BLM’s most visible ambassadors to the 

public land users—there to educate, assist, 

and protect. They should exercise their 

law enforcement authority . . . only when 

necessary to protect public safety or public 

land resources. . . . If the light bar does deter 

people from doing bad things on public 

lands, then they’re working. 

The focus of our job shouldn’t be to make 

users fearful of BLM Rangers sneaking up 

on them, emphasizing search and seizures 

without a warrant, or pulling motorists off a 

highway for speeding. Those jobs sometimes 

need to be done, but those areas are more 

under the purview of . . . county sheriffs, 

or city police. Our Rangers are a different 

breed of law enforcement officer and it is a 

noble calling.”

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah.

BLM law enforcement

officer helps visitors in Arizona.
74 Chapter 2 | 1990–2000 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 75

Notes

1. U.S. General Accounting Office, Public Lands: Limited 

Progress in Resource Management Planning, Report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public 

Lands, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House 

of Representatives, GAO/RCED-90-225 (1990), 4.

2. The planning budget went from $10.5 million 

in 1994 to $6.4 million in 1999 (in 2000 dollars). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Report to the Congress: Land Use Planning 

for Sustainable Resource Decisions (2000), 4. 

3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Ecosystem Management in the BLM: From 

Concept to Commitment, BLM/SC/GI-94/005+1736 

(Washington, DC, 1994).

4. John B. Loomis, Integrated Public Lands Management: 

Principles and Applications to National Forests, Parks, 

Wildlife Refuges, and BLM Lands, 2nd ed. (New York: 

Columbia University Press, 2002), 558.

5. Martha G. Hahn, “Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project: Management Review,” in 

Bioregional Assessments: Science at the Crossroads of 

Management and Policy, K.N. Johnson, F. Swanson, M. 

Herring, and S. Greene (eds.), (Washington, DC: Island 

Press, 1999), 295.

6. John B. Loomis, Integrated Public Lands Management: 

Principles and Applications to National Forests, Parks, 

Wildlife Refuges, and BLM Lands, 2nd ed. (New York: 

Columbia University Press, 2002), 556.

7. Tom Kenworthy, “Babbitt Condemns Public Lands 

‘Giveaway,’” the Washington Post, April 28, 1993.

8. Frank Clifford, “Maverick Babbitt Mending Fences 

on Range Reform: Land: Interior Secretary Travels 

the West, Trying to Reassure Ranchers He Hasn’t 

Forgotten His Rural Roots,” Los Angeles Times, 

December 25, 1993. 

Chapter 3 | Collaborative Management Helps Address 21st Century Challenges, 2000–2009

9. Bureau of Land Management, “Table 2-2. Condition 

of riparian-wetland areas, fiscal year 1997,” Public 

Land Statistics 1997 (Denver, CO, 1998). Note that 

this number varied from state to state. For example, in 

Alaska, 91 percent of riparian areas on BLM-managed 

lands were in proper functioning condition whereas in 

Nevada, only 16 percent met the criteria. 

10. Federal Register, vol. 45, no. 22 (November 14, 1980), 

75574. 

11. Examples of transfers to other agencies include the 

East Mojave Scenic Area in California, approximately 

2 million acres transferred to enlarge Death Valley 

National Park and establish the Mohave National 

Preserve in 1991, the central Nevada transfer of about 

78,000 acres to establish the Great Basin National Park in 

1986, and the transfer of all the islands and rocks on the 

Oregon and Washington coasts in the late 1990s to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

12. “Establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument,” Presidential Proclamation 6920, 

September 18, 1996. 

13. W.P. Pendley, “Natural Resources Policy Under the 

Bush Administration: Not What It Says, But What It 

Has Done in Court,” Duke Environmental Law and Policy 

Forum 14, no. 2 (Spring 2004), 314.

14. Martha Mendoza, “Trail’s End for Horses: Slaughter,” 

Associated Press, January 5, 1997, http://articles.latimes.

com/1997-01-05/news/mn-15653_1_wild-horses.

15. Maitland Sharpe, “Letter: Wild Horse Slaughter 

Reports Wildly Exaggerated,” Las Vegas Sun, April 15, 

1997, www.lasvegassun.com/news/1997/apr/15/letterwild-horse-slaughter-reports-wildly-exagger/ (accessed 

August 11, 2011).

16. Opening Remarks of Chairman James Hansen (UT), 

“Range Issues and Problems with the Wild Horse and 

Burro Act and Its Implementation,” Field Hearing before 

the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of 

the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, 

July 13, 1998.

17. Memorandum from the Office of the Solicitor, 

“Limitations on Patenting Millsites under the Mining 

Law of 1872,” dated November 7, 1997 (M-36988) 

18. The BLM was scheduled to pay off the helium debt 

on October 7, 2013. Congress passed the Helium 

Stewardship Act in 2013, which succeeded the Helium 

Privatization Act. The act allowed for continued federal 

operation of the helium reservoir and pipeline, which 

supplied 42 percent of domestic demand. The intent of 

the act was to allow for a smooth transition to private 

production as the reserve is drawn down.

19. Captain Donald R. Parker, “The Oakland-Berkeley 

Hills Fire: An Overview,” Oakland Office of Fire 

Services, January 1992, from The Virtual Museum of the 

City of San Francisco, http://www.sfmuseum.org/oakfire/

overview.html.

20. John Glenn, interview, 2011.

21. Michelle Ryerson, interview, 2011.

22. Ibid.

23. John D. Leshy, “The Babbitt Legacy at the 

Department of the Interior: A Preliminary View,” 

Environmental Law 31, no. 2 (2001), 199-227, www.

thefreelibrary.com/The+Babbitt+legacy+at+the+

Department+of+the+Interior%3a+a+

preliminary...-a075162657.

The BLM marked the beginning of the 21st century 

by creating the National Landscape Conservation 

System (NLCS) and fighting fires during a string 

of record fire years. Both activities, in very 

different ways, heralded changes that influenced 

the Bureau’s growing efforts to manage the nation’s 

public lands on a broader, “landscape” basis. 

The increasing scope of the BLM’s vision matched 

an unprecedented growth in public interest in 

its activities. 

The BLM’s visibility increased, in part, because 

of the growing populations of once rural western 

states and the new technology that introduced 

BLM public lands to a global and diverse audience 

through the emerging social media venues of the 

Internet. Now, people from all over the world could 

not only learn about the BLM, but they could 

also become involved in decisionmaking through 

electronic media. The bold mandate to increase 

development of conventional and renewable

energy resources on the

public lands that followed the

inauguration of President

George W. Bush in 2001

further increased public

interest and involvement in

the BLM’s activities. At the

same time, the BLM placed

renewed emphasis on locally

driven, collaborative

management as partnerships 

representing a diversity of interested groups and 

individuals emerged as the most valuable vehicle 

for addressing the challenges of the this century.

The Secretary Establishes the National 

Landscape Conservation System

The creation of the NLCS1 was one of the most 

significant actions affecting the BLM at the dawn 

of the century. By the end of President Clinton’s 

term, the BLM oversaw 15 national monuments. In 

July 2000, Secretary Babbitt established the Office 

of the National Landscape Conservation System 

to provide oversight for the BLM’s management of 

these and other special conservation areas.2

The new system of conservation lands initially 

received a mixed reaction. Some employees were 

elated, particularly those who had joined the 

BLM during the era of “new” environmental laws, 

including FLPMA. They expected the BLM to 

manage the public lands “in perpetuity for future 

generations,” and seeing the Bureau formalize an 

agencywide conservation system was good 

news indeed. 

On the other hand, some employees and members 

of the public wondered why the BLM needed a 

new organization. It was already managing many 

areas for conservation and doing it quite well, as 

demonstrated by the number of units qualifying for 

NLCS designation. Some were concerned that the 

creation of the NLCS would compromise the BLM’s 

multiple use mission, even though conservation 

and preservation had been components of multiple 

use as defined by FLPMA. Some program leaders 

openly fought the change, fearing it would mean 

loss of funding for their programs. Instead, in 

2001 and in subsequent years, the BLM received 

additional funding in support of the NLCS and its 

clearly identified conservation mission.3

The small NLCS staff spent months getting 

the organization up and running. There were 

discussions at all levels about what designations the 

NLCS would include. The BLM decided that units 

designated through Presidential proclamations 

under the authority of the 1906 Antiquities 

Act or through legislation for conservation 

purposes would be part of the NLCS. The new 

system included national monuments, national 

conservation areas, wilderness areas, wilderness 

study areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national 

scenic and historic trails. The BLM eventually 

referred to the lands within the system as 

“conservation lands.” 

President

George W. Bush Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area in Colorado.

Atigun River off the Dalton Highway in Alaska.
76 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 77

Conservation Lands Allow

for Working Landscapes 

The BLM’s conservation lands were different from 

national parks and other federally protected areas. 

Secretary Babbitt once stated that by creating the 

NLCS, “we were protecting landscapes, not 

making parks.”4

Each unit had unique legislation or proclamation 

language tailored to address its specific 

conservation needs while recognizing the many 

human uses of the lands. The intent was never 

to manage all units identically. The BLM was to 

evaluate land uses through the land use planning 

process, determine which uses were compatible 

with the guiding language on conservation and 

preservation, and make decisions accordingly. 

This approach also recognized that BLM lands 

were not all large, contiguous parcels; some were 

intermingled in a checkerboard pattern with 

private, tribal, and other federal and state lands. 

These circumstances required community-level 

planning to a degree not seen by other agencies but 

very familiar to BLM managers. 

NLCS units typically would not have boundary fences 

or gates to close at night. The lands would remain 

open, rugged backcountry landscapes. Land uses 

such as hunting, fishing, other recreational activities, 

and livestock grazing would continue in areas where 

they were compatible with the conservation goals of 

the unit. This “working landscape” model allowed for 

traditional uses of the land not permitted in national 

parks and promoted a greater level of conservation 

than for nondesignated areas in the BLM. The agency 

envisioned that gateway communities would provide 

visitor amenities, in partnership with the BLM, to 

help stimulate local economic opportunities while 

minimizing development within the units. 

A New Administration Reviews the Program

With the arrival of the Bush administration in 

2001, certain groups and individuals became 

vocal in pressing for a repeal or reversal of some 

NLCS designations. After a thorough review, the 

new administration concluded that the BLM was 

appropriately managing these designations according 

to existing laws and budget directives, and the 

only way to change the designations was by acts of 

Congress. Congress did not

take action on the matter. 

Soon after her

confirmation,

Interior Secretary

Gale Norton requested

input from local leaders

on recently designated

national monuments

and found strong local

support for many of the

designations. She

announced plans to

Establishment of the National Landscape Conservation System | By Tom Fry

Throughout its history, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has managed lands in a manner 

that protects special and unique scenic, biological, and other natural resources while at the same 

time managing multiple uses on those lands. Through its land use planning process, the agency 

has identified areas worthy of protection—some for agency administrative designation and some 

for recommendation for Presidential or congressional designation. The latter designations, such as 

wilderness areas, national scenic trails, and national historic trails, have sometimes allowed the lands to 

remain under the jurisdiction and management of the BLM. Often, however, the designations have been 

accompanied by the transfer of the lands to another agency. 

For half a century, from 1946 to 1996, every one of the 17 new national monuments established 

under the Antiquities Act of 1906 was transferred from the BLM’s jurisdiction to the National Park 

Service’s jurisdiction. BLM career professionals had long argued that these lands had remained in a state 

worthy of protection due to the BLM’s stewardship, and that therefore they should remain under BLM’s 

jurisdiction once they received special designation from Congress or the President. I heard this line of 

reasoning not only from career staff, but also from retirees and representatives of the Public 

Lands Foundation. 

This intellectual argument became real when the BLM identified a spectacular landscape in Utah 

with an array of scientific and historic resources worthy of monument designation. The BLM career staff 

put together the materials to support a monument designation under the Antiquities Act. As rumors of 

the project spread throughout the Department of the Interior, there were those who assumed the new 

monument would be transferred to the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. However, Secretary 

Bruce Babbitt and Solicitor John Leshy had been working with BLM’s career professionals and were 

intrigued by the idea of a new kind of national monument that would be managed by the BLM. The 

discussions with the Secretary centered around a designation that would allow the lands to be managed 

in a multiple use manner consistent with the protection of the resources identified in the designation. 

And when the President issued the proclamation in 1996, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument was entrusted to the care of the BLM.

Over the next several years, the BLM continued to identify areas worthy of protection and 

designation as either national monuments or national conservation areas. Some of these areas were 

identified for protection by local communities, and they all became the subject of public discussion and 

collaboration with those communities, states, and Congress. By early 2000, there were approximately 

20 proposals put together by BLM teams in the field that were reporting to the BLM Director’s Office and 

the Secretary’s Office. As these proposals became national conservation areas through legislation or 

national monuments through Presidential proclamation, all to be managed by the BLM, it became clear 

that President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt were building a new system of conservation units. 

BLM’s monuments and national conservation areas were different from the parks and refuges 

of its sister agencies. While they may contain wilderness units, they were not managed as de facto 

wilderness. The BLM designations identified the prime conservation values to be protected on the 

lands but also allowed any other uses that are compatible with the protection of those values. For 

instance, hunting and grazing can be compatible with the protection of lands in a BLM monument, 

while they would be excluded in a park. And a monument that is designated to protect archaeological 

resources can have oil and gas development where it is compatible with the protection of the primary 

conservation resources. 

There was a great deal of debate over what to name BLM’s new system of designated lands as 

well as over which lands should be included in the system. In the end, Secretary Babbitt named it the 

National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) and it was to include all areas designated as national 

monuments under the Antiquities Act and all areas established by Congress, including but not limited 

to national conservation areas, wilderness areas, national wild and scenic rivers, national scenic trails, 

and national historic trails. The system would protect some of the nation’s most remarkable and 

rugged landscapes for present and future generations and enable the public to experience the solitude 

and splendor of these last, great open spaces by providing numerous opportunities for exploration 

and discovery.

A director was established for the new NLCS, and the NLCS director reported to the BLM director. 

The NLCS office contained two groups of employees dedicated to the policy and administration of lands 

within the system. Those lands continued to be managed by field career professionals, who worked to 

build coalitions and partnerships with the surrounding communities. Managers of the NLCS lands and 

units were integrated within the structure of the BLM management system of state directors and field 

managers while still being part of this new nationally recognized system. 

The success of the NLCS is a victory for the professional career staff of the BLM. It is due to their 

stewardship before and after designation of the lands that each designation was sustained and that the 

entire system was accepted and codified in law and has continued to grow. 

Tom Fry was the BLM director in 2000; he also served as acting director and as deputy director for the BLM. Prior to that, Tom was the director of the Minerals Management Service.

He later served as president of National Ocean Industries Association, from which he retired in 2010, and he continues to serve on various corporate and foundation boards.

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument visitor center in Utah.

develop strong, locally based land use plans for 

the 15 NLCS monuments managed by the BLM.5

The Secretary challenged the BLM to make the 

planning process a model for involving the people 

who live and work closest to the monuments. 

Both the public and the BLM wanted these NLCS

management plans completed and implemented 

quickly, but budget, staffing, and other realities 

frequently interfered. The BLM’s planning 

and NLCS staffs worked together to design a 

simple cooperative approach to move quickly 

from land use plan development directly into 

implementation. NLCS field staffs worked with 

the individuals, groups, and elected officials who 

had been involved in the plan’s development 

to create an implementation “roadmap.” This 

roadmap resulted in a realistic list of priority 

action items. 

The Program Matures

Under the Bush administration, Congress took 

the lead in establishing new NLCS units between 

2002 and 2008. For example, the Clark County 

Conservation of Public Lands and Natural 

Resources Act of 2002 designated wilderness, 

released wilderness study areas, and designated a 

new national conservation area (Sloan Canyon) 

in Clark County, Nevada. Also during these 

years, Congress designated over 1.5 million acres 

of BLM-managed land as wilderness, including 

the King Range Wilderness in California, 

Ojito Wilderness in New Mexico, and Muddy 

Mountains and Parsnip Peak Wilderness 

in Nevada.6

By the end of 2008, congressional proposals for 

new designations that had strong public support 

Hunting in El Malpais National

Conservation Area in New Mexico.

Interior Secretary

Gayle Norton.
78 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 79

were pending in several western states. One 

example is the Dominguez-Escalante National 

Conservation Area in western Colorado. Local 

county commissioners funded research by Mesa 

State College (now Colorado Mesa University) and 

the Public Lands Partnership to assess the level 

of public support for the designation.7 A series of 

public forums in 2006 and 2007 led to a grassroots 

movement in support of conservation designation. 

Local county and community leaders approached 

Senator Ken Salazar, who spearheaded legislation 

in 2008.8 Congress ultimately passed the legislation 

as part of the Omnibus Public Land Management 

Act of 2009. The national conservation area 

encompasses about 210,000 acres of public land in 

Mesa, Delta, and Montrose Counties and includes 

the 66,280-acre Dominguez Canyon Wilderness.9

Another major development was the establishment 

of the Conservation Lands Foundation in 2007. 

Unlike the congressionally chartered National Park 

and National Forest Foundations, the Conservation 

Lands Foundation is a private endeavor. It strives 

to achieve on-the-ground results by supporting 

local friends groups and building support for new 

conservation designations. The Foundation was 

instrumental in establishing a bipartisan NLCS 

caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives and a 

bill to give permanent status to the NLCS. 

Also during this time, the BLM’s Executive 

Leadership Team was wrestling with new 

management challenges, including the selection 

of NLCS unit managers. In the end, the Executive 

Leadership Team decided to hire managers for 

national monuments and national conservation 

areas (hired at the local, not headquarters, level) 

and to leave other units under the jurisdiction of 

the local BLM office.10

The BLM’s management also addressed questions 

on budgetary and management accounting. 

Funding a geographically based system with a 

programmatically based budget complicated formal 

reporting systems. The agency had no budget 

category specific to the NLCS except wilderness. 

Funding and tracking of work in NLCS units 

crossed all programs in the BLM such as wildlife, 

range, and recreation. At one point, because of the 

number of programs and NLCS units, tracking 

funding allocations for the system required a 

graph almost 30 feet long. Clearly, this funding 

method was not workable. In 2009, the BLM 

created a budget category for national monuments 

and national conservation areas to fund base 

operations; contributing programs continued to 

fund other units. 

The National Landscape Conservation System Extends to the Subtropics | By Bruce Dawson

Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area in Colorado.

On May 8, 2008, Public Law 110-229 designated south Florida’s 

Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area (ONA) as part of the 

Bureau of Land Management’s National Landscape Conservation System 

(NLCS). Of the nearly 900 units currently within the NLCS, this ONA is the 

first unit east of the Mississippi River and certainly the first to manage 

habitat for the West Indian manatee, which is listed as endangered under 

the Federal Endangered Species Act. Designation of this “island of green” 

in heavily urbanized Palm Beach County is significant—it extends the 

NLCS from the Pacific to the Atlantic, making it a truly national system.

The Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA is home to a remarkable array of 

natural and cultural resources not typically found on BLM-managed public 

lands. It is one of the rare geographic points on the planet where these 

two sets of resource values intersect in such striking fashion. For example, 

this 120-acre site provides habitat for 25 special status species (including 

four on the federal endangered species list) and yet also has cultural 

resource values so rich that 5,000 years of human occupation has 

been documented. 

There are few places where history and the natural environment have 

so perfectly converged. The abundant natural resources, such as fresh 

water, rich fisheries, and wildlife, lured Juan Ponce de Leon in 1513 to take 

respite at Jupiter Inlet for several days. The bluff at the confluence on the 

Loxahatchee and Indian Rivers attracted indigenous people for thousands 

of years and provided the optimal location to construct a lighthouse in 

1860 to safely guide ships past the treacherous reefs and sandbars off of 

Jupiter Inlet. The Indian River, with its meandering mangrove islands, 

played a key role in concealing blockade runners during the Civil War. 

Today, the same Indian River, which graces the eastern border of the ONA, 

is home to one of the richest and most biologically diverse estuaries in 

North America.

The story of the Jupiter Inlet ONA is truly a BLM story. The lighthouse 

sits on land originally withdrawn from the public domain and transferred 

to the Lighthouse Service (which later became part of the U.S. Coast Guard) 

through an 1854 Executive order by President Franklin Pierce. Five years 

later, in December 1859, two schooners sailed from Philadelphia to the 

Bruce Dawson began his BLM career as a range conservationist in the Ukiah District in California in 1979. He held several positions in the Washington Office, serving on the

rangeland resources and budget staffs and as the chief of the BLM’s wild horse and burro program. He was also the manager for the Southeastern States Field Office. 

Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area in Florida.

Osprey clutching 

a fish.

Manatee approaching kayakers near the shore.

Pelicans flying near the lighthouse.

vast wilderness of south Florida on a mission to build the

Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse. The task was completed in a remarkable 

5 months—less than a year before the start of the Civil War.

Nearly a century and a half later, beginning in the late 1990s 

(and continuing today), the U.S. Coast Guard began returning land

it no longer needed to the public domain. The return of the Jupiter

Inlet area to the public domain inspired grassroots interest in

conserving and managing its special values. Jupiter Inlet was designated 

an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) in the BLM’s Florida 

resource management plan (RMP), and a unique partnership of federal, 

county, municipal, and nongovernmental entities known as the Jupiter 

Inlet Working Group, led by the BLM, was formed. The working group 

collaborated to strike a balance on a wide range of issues at the site, 

ranging from public access to preservation of imperiled habitat and from 

recreational opportunities to protection of the sacred trust of the people 

who came before us.

With BLM’s Yaquina Head ONA in Oregon as a prototype, local 

communities began working with their congressional delegations and 

BLM’s Southeastern States Field Office (then the Jackson Field Office) to 

pursue an NLCS designation. It literally did take a village (and a town). 

The Village of Tequesta and the Town of Jupiter, as well as the Palm Beach 

Board of County Commissioners and the Loxahatchee River Historical 

Society, passed resolutions in support of the NLCS concept for the Jupiter 

Inlet Lighthouse site. In fact, the mayor of Jupiter testified before the 

House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands in 

support of the proposed legislation. In April 2008, the group’s efforts 

were rewarded—they received the Secretary of the Interior’s Cooperative 

Conservation Award, and the 110th Congress passed legislation to 

establish the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA as a part of the NLCS.

The Jupiter Inlet acreage has come full circle, from being withdrawn 

from the public domain for lighthouse purposes in the mid-19th century 

to once again becoming public land as part of the NLCS in the beginning of 

the 21st century, allowing the BLM to “protect, conserve, and enhance” this 

treasured landscape and its myriad values. 
80 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 81

The Department Addresses

Wilderness Challenges

One of the early tasks of the NLCS staff was 

to provide field guidance on a new wilderness 

inventory handbook that the BLM released on 

January 10, 2001, 10 days before the change in 

administration.11 The handbook had taken several 

years to develop in concert with the BLM state 

offices. The BLM’s wilderness staff then developed 

the accompanying field guidance, but never issued 

it because of what was to follow. 

In 2003, the Department of the Interior settled 

a lawsuit with the State of Utah over the BLM’s 

wilderness reviews. Through the land use planning 

process, BLM field offices were making incremental 

adjustments in wilderness boundaries and areas 

with wilderness characteristics during the 1990s. 

These areas became known as “202” wilderness 

study areas since they came about because of a land 

use plan decisions under section 202 of FLPMA. 

In 1996, Secretary Babbitt, concerned that Utah’s 

original inventory was not comprehensive, initiated 

a reinventory of BLM lands in Utah. The State of 

Utah and others filed a lawsuit challenging the 

BLM’s authority to do this. 

The 2003 “Norton settlement” stipulated that the 

BLM no longer had authority to conduct wilderness 

reviews or establish new wilderness study areas. It 

did recognize the BLM’s authority under Section 

201 of FLPMA to inventory public lands, including 

wilderness characteristics, and to consider the 

results in land use planning under section 202 

of FLPMA.

As part of the settlement, the BLM rescinded its 

handbook on wilderness inventory and provided 

interim policy through instruction memorandums; 

they expired in 2004, leaving the BLM without 

adequate wilderness inventory policy and, thus, 

vulnerable to litigation. In fact, the BLM lost 

lawsuits in court on this issue in Oregon and 

Utah.12 Wilderness policy took a back seat until a 

new administration took the reins in 2009. 

Partners Help Manage National Scenic

and Historic Trails

The BLM manages land along 2 national scenic 

trails and 10 national historic trails in 10 western 

states—more miles of national historic trails 

than any other federal agency. When Wyoming 

experienced an energy boom in the early 2000s, the 

BLM pioneered trail protection work on historic 

settings, trail viewsheds, and visual simulations, 

working closely with trail partners. The OregonCalifornia Trails Association helped review 

visuals for more than 6,000 oil and gas drilling 

applications immediately. The BLM state directors 

worked closely with industry representatives, state 

officials, partners, and the congressional delegation, 

attempting to balance trail protection and energy 

development. Consequently, the 2011 draft Lander 

plan included a preferred alternative corridor that 

was more than 6 miles wide. 

The BLM organized a “National Trails Workshop” 

in 2004 in Riverside, California, and nearly 100 

people representing the BLM and various trail and 

federal partners attended. More than 250 issues 

raised were incorporated in a “National Scenic and 

Historic Trails Strategy and Work Plan” endorsed 

by BLM Director Kathleen Clarke in 2006.

Deep Creek Mountains Wilderness Study Area in Utah.

BLM Director

Kathleen Clarke.

Pulling Together to Preserve History | By Mike Abel

Dust, heat, wind, cold . . . hardships, joys, triumphs, challenges . . . 

the adventure, the gamble, the seemingly endless march—all were 

experienced by travelers heading westward along the Oregon, Mormon, 

California, and Pony Express Trails, and all are part of a great story. Many 

paths and many characters all converged on the east to west journey 

along the North Platte River at the site of present day Casper, Wyoming. 

Here, over 160 years after the first organized Euro-American footsteps, the 

stories are still told, no longer by campfire and on horseback, but through 

the BLM’s National Historic Trails Interpretive Center (NHTIC).

On the eastern edge of the Rockies, it is still many days journey 

to South Pass. Where the tall and short grass prairies have been left 

far behind and high desert plant and animal communities abound, the 

river corridor is restricted to a mere one-half mile or less because of 

low mountains to the south and sand dunes and broken terrain to the 

north. The westward trails, which had ranged up to several miles apart 

and in width in some areas, converge by the design of nature for the last 

crossing of the Platte. The dry overland route to the Sweetwater and other 

drainages awaits many miles to the west and south. 

How did the early emigrants tackle the daunting task of moving 

West to begin new lives? They formed partnerships, they banded together, 

and they became teams of many sizes and kinds, for they understood 

that working together ensured the best chances for success (and survival). 

Teamwork is also the mainstay of the NHTIC. Envisioned well over 

20 years ago by trail and history enthusiasts from the local area, the NHTIC 

concept was born of an idea to honor this amazing part of American 

history. As the concept grew, citizens formed the National Historic Trails 

Center Foundation to encourage support for accurately telling the stories 

of the mid-19th century pioneers traveling the trails across the state. The 

nonprofit foundation, facing many obstacles on its own journey, joined 

with the city of Casper and the BLM in a unique partnership to make this 

dream a reality.

By architectural design and color, the center reflects the influence 

of the land, water, and sky. It opened in 2002 on a high hill overlooking 

the Platte and the city. At nearly 24,000 square feet, it offers a 

100-seat theater and seven exhibit galleries describing the Native 

American presence, early European explorers, and the four major national 

historic trails, along with multimedia and interactive displays that bring 

the history of the West to life. The connections to the journeys are 

accomplished by using stories from actual pioneer diaries. 

This partnership is unique in that the city donated the land, the BLM 

built the building and staffs the facility, and the foundation raised funds 

for and owns and maintains the center’s exhibits and galleries. Each 

partner contributed millions of dollars, and together, through cooperation 

and joint determination, they reached their goal of establishing the center, 

just as the pioneers reached their goal of crossing the river only a short 

distance and many years away. The foundation’s executive director has an 

office in the center and focuses on fundraising and upkeep and planning 

for the exhibits. The BLM staff offers visitor orientations, information, and 

a regular schedule of speakers, programs, historic reenactments, and other 

special events. 

The center hosts thousands of schoolchildren from all grade levels 

throughout the year. A strong volunteer corps assists the staff with 

tours and provides the backbone for telling the stories of the pioneers as 

they recorded them. The BLM also taps another important resource by 

employing youth, especially college students, to assist visitors and help 

them understand the cultural significance of the trails. 

The National Historic Trails Interpretive Center, part of the National 

Landscape Conservation System, is a gateway to learning about the 

pioneers’ stories, the commitments they made that changed their lives 

forever, and their journeys across the country. Visitors are awed by the 

actual sites and locations across Wyoming and the West where history was 

made and is still preserved, treasured, and enjoyed. In Wyoming, the BLM, 

through the NLCS, offers unmatched beauty and unspoiled remnants of the 

historic trails of the greatest overland migration in this nation’s history. 

Mike Abel is the former director of the BLM’s National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper, Wyoming, and is currently the manager of planning, social,

and cultural resources for the Wyoming State Office. He has worked for municipal and state governments in Wyoming and Iowa in

recreation, education, resource protection, land management, and urban planning over the past 30 years.

Pioneer reenactors Rachel

and Kim Merchant.

Marker along the Oregon Trail near 

South Pass in Wyoming.

Reenactment of travel

on a historic trail at

Prospect Hill in Wyoming.
82 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 83

Public Lands Experience

Record Fire Seasons

In 2000, the nation experienced one of its worst fire 

seasons. For the first time in the history of available 

records, the number of acres burned on all lands 

across the country topped 8 million acres. Nearly a 

quarter of those acres were BLM-managed lands—

largely in the Great Basin States of Nevada, Utah, 

and southern Idaho—where there were a record 

3,485 fires.

As a result of the Great Basin fires, the BLM 

implemented the Great Basin Restoration Initiative 

Great Basin Restoration Initiative | By Mike Pellant

The Great Basin Restoration Initiative (GBRI) began in 1999 as a result of a catastrophic wildfire 

season that burned 1.7 million acres of rangelands, mostly in Nevada. BLM’s Nevada State Director 

Bob Abbey worked with the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) to address the cycle of invasive 

annual grasses and wildfires in the Great Basin. A team of BLM and state resource and fire specialists set 

out to identify the resource, social, and economic issues caused by invasive species and wildfires in the 

Great Basin and lay out a strategy to address these issues. This strategy became known as the GBRI, and 

it was outlined in two publications, “Out of Ashes, An Opportunity” and “The Great Basin: Healing the 

Land.” I was selected as the GBRI coordinator in 2003 and, understanding the great challenges facing the 

public lands of the Great Basin, I felt a strong responsibility to move the initiative forward. 

The GBRI strategy envisioned a basinwide restoration program grounded in science, monitoring 

and evaluation, technology transfer, and local involvement. The goal was a strategic, proactive 

program emphasizing the restoration and maintenance of rangeland health. The funding mechanism 

for GBRI was eventually incorporated into the national fire plan, “Managing the Impacts of Wildfire on 

Communities and the Environment: A Report to the President In Response to the Wildfires of 2000,” 

which called for restoring, rehabilitating, or maintaining fire-adapted ecosystems using appropriate 

tools to provide sustainable environmental, social, and economic benefits. The GBRI has provided a 

framework to incorporate good science into land treatments, develop native plant seed sources, and 

share information across the Great Basin. 

SageSTEP Project to test treatments to address cheatgrass and pinyon and/or juniper encroachment in 

sagebrush steppe ecosystems. I was involved in the design and implementation of this regional science 

program, helping to establish 17 research sites across the Great Basin and Columbia Plateau and serving 

as a liaison between BLM managers and project scientists.

The GBRI staff has also been involved in developing strategies and protocols for regional 

assessments and planning. In 2006, the BLM selected a site proposed under the GBRI, the Owyhee 

Uplands (in the corner of Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon), as one of two pilot regional projects supported 

by the national assessment, inventory, and monitoring program. This project provided a wealth of 

information on assessing and monitoring landscape-level resources, which has been integrated into the 

BLM’s healthy lands and sage-grouse conservation programs. 

Climate change and its effects on the resources and people in the Great Basin represent new 

challenges. Science tells us that temperatures will rise, precipitation will become more variable, and an 

increase in greenhouse gases will favor nonnative vegetation, such as cheatgrass, over native vegetation. 

It also tells us that wildfires will increase in size and intensity, which appears to be happening now. 

In fact, wildfires have continued to grow. I remember that the “big” wildfires back in the Boise 

District in the early 1980s were 100,000 acres. We are now entering the era of the “megafire” as 

evidenced by the 2007 Murphy Complex Fire, which burned 653,000 acres of rangeland in south-central 

Idaho, extending into the Jarbidge Mountains of Nevada. 

Over the past decade, the GBRI has had a positive influence on science-based restoration in the 

Great Basin, but huge challenges remain. I used to think that success would be measured by smaller 

and fewer wildfires and greatly reduced cheatgrass in the Great Basin. I now realize that success is 

maintaining intact native plant communities and strategically restoring the highest priority areas. 

Aldo Leopold wrote in 1949, “I listened carefully for clues whether the West has accepted cheat 

as a necessary evil, to be lived with until kingdom come, or whether it regards cheat as a challenge to 

rectify its past errors in land-use. I found the hopeless attitude almost universal.” GBRI has provided 

hope that with good science and dedicated land managers, the situation is not hopeless, even though 

the challenges are great. 

Mike Pellant was the coordinator for the Great Basin Restoration Initiative and the DOI representative to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

prior to his retirement. He started his BLM career in 1976 as a range conservationist and inventory team leader in Moab, Utah.

and established a team to address issues pertaining 

to wildfires and invasive plants. The Great Basin 

fires presaged a decade that continued to see fire 

records shattered throughout the West, spawning 

the term “mega fire” and resulting in soaring costs, 

changes in fire policy implementation, and new 

strategies to battle wildfires.

Agencies Develop a National Fire Plan

The 2000 fire season led to the development of 

the National Fire Plan, a series of documents 

addressing five key points: making all necessary 

firefighting resources available, restoring landscapes 

and rebuilding communities, investing in 

projects to reduce fire risk, working directly with 

communities, and being accountable to the public 

and to Congress. A surge in funding accompanied 

the plan to enhance both federal fire programs and 

collaborative planning with community partners.13

The BLM brought more engines on board, hired 

more firefighters, and strengthened its fire career 

ladder by creating new long-term and careerseasonal positions. Both community and hazardous 

fuels management programs received large boosts.

“Most fire managers across the BLM recognized 

that funding may not always be there, so they 

were conservative and smart about growing too 

fast,” said Tim Murphy, the BLM’s former assistant 

director for fire and aviation. “We have benefitted 

tremendously from the career ladders that stemmed 

from the National Fire Plan, the fuels management 

program that has made us more effective in 

reducing and managing hazardous fuels, and the 

community programs that have helped us establish 

ongoing partnerships with communities.”14

Through much of the decade, the BLM’s rural 

fire assistance program provided training and 

equipment for small fire departments that, through 

agreements and partnerships, were often the first 

to respond to wildfire ignitions on or affecting 

BLM land. The community assistance program 

brought citizens and local officials to the table 

in collaborative planning efforts with the BLM, 

resulting in community wildfire protection plans 

designed to identify and manage hazardous fuels; 

reduce wildfire threats to homes and businesses; 

and enhance overall protection and safety of 

firefighters, citizens, and communities.

As implementation of the National Fire Plan began, 

the nation continued to see more dangerous and 

severe fire conditions. Fuel accumulations, drought, 

an expanding wildland–urban interface, climate 

change, and the spread of invasive species, along 

with other factors, all converged, creating a “perfect 

storm.” These conditions led to an increasing 

number of fires and “megafires” that burned with 

greater intensity and severity, threatening more and 

more homes. Six of the 10 most active fire seasons 

on record, in terms of acres burned nationally, 

occurred between 2000 and 2007, peaking at 

8.7 million acres and 9.3 million acres burned in 

2005 and 2007, respectively. 

“There were tremendous challenges in managing 

the increasing complexity and scope of the fire 

seasons and the size, intensity, and scale of the fires 

we were seeing in those years,” said Tom Boatner, 

chief of fire operations for the BLM from 2003 

to 2008.15

The BLM, along with other federal agencies, was 

continuing to catch more than 90 percent of all 

fire starts and successfully suppress them in the 

initial attack stage; however, the small percentage 

of fires escaping initial attack grew larger and larger. 

Twenty-three fires exceeded 200,000 acres between 

2000 and 2009, with multiple fires exceeding 

500,000 acres, including the Murphy Complex Fire 

on the Idaho–Nevada border that burned 

652,000 acres in 2007 and the Taylor Complex Fire 

in Alaska that burned 1.3 million acres in 2004. Burned area from the Murphy Complex Fire on the Idaho–Nevada border.

In 2001, the GBRI staff led development and implementation of 

the Great Basin Native Plant Selection and Increase Project, part of 

BLM’s native plant program. This regional project involves 

27 cooperators working on increasing the availability of native 

plant seeds and developing strategies and equipment to increase 

managers’ success in restoration projects. A strong partnership 

with the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station has 

supported the direction and accomplishments of this applied research 

project. The GBRI staff also led the Joint Fire Science Program’s 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush 

steppe in Idaho.
84 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 85

Invasive Species Alter Fire Regimes and Fire Operations | By Ken Frederick

They have been called everything from the “bane of the rangeland” to a “biological 

emergency.” “They” are invasive species, and they tend to draw disdain from all corners of 

resource management. For the fire community, they mean more frequent, high-intensity fires 

that burn with extremely rapid rates of spread. 

Those invasives then return quickly after a fire and further dominate and encroach into 

new areas, leading to a cycle of “quickly burn and rapidly return” that eventually pushes native 

grasses and shrubs out of their habitat. Postfire reseeding and rehabilitation efforts under 

the right conditions and in the right locations can help stem that tide. Unfortunately, invasive 

species have already established an unhealthy monoculture across large areas of the West. 

Nearly every area is feeling at least some effect of these invaders.

While climate change and the explosive growth of the wildland-urban interface are often 

considered the most dramatic agents of change affecting wildland fire, invasive species are a 

significant culprit in the size and frequency of fires throughout the West. For instance, invasive 

species, with their flammability and tendency to carry fire, have been a major factor in some of 

the West’s largest fires in the mid-2000s. 

In 2005, fires in Arizona burned nearly 250,000 acres of the Sonoran Desert, many in areas 

where fire had never before been recorded. Fires encroached into these areas thanks to the 

spread and flammability of invasive species. In early 2006, hundreds of fires (aided by invasive 

species) burned nearly a million acres in the Chihuahuan Desert of west Texas.

In 2007, the Murphy Complex Fire burned more than 650,000 acres in Idaho and Nevada, 

and the Milford Flat Fire, the largest in Utah history, scorched more than 363,000 acres. Overall, 

between 1990 and 2008, more than 21 percent—16 million acres—of the Great Basin had 

burned at least once, according to a Great Basin Restoration Initiative report.

Although ecologists point out numerous invasive species with wildfire implications, several 

stand at the top of the list:

Cheatgrass – An annual grass, this species already dominates some 25 million acres in the Great 

Basin alone. Cheatgrass germinates in the fall, overwinters as a seedling, and grows rapidly in the 

spring. By early summer, cheatgrass has already completed its life cycle. The dead, dried out plants 

create an exceptional fuel bed for wildfire.

Medusahead – Another winter annual, medusahead occupied an estimated 2.3 million acres 

in the early 2000s. It commonly follows, and then replaces, cheatgrass. Because it is high in 

silica, dead medusahead plants decompose slowly and remain available as a fuel for wildfire for 

several years.

Buffelgrass – An African perennial grass, buffelgrass was introduced into the United States in the 

1930s as livestock forage. Currently, buffelgrass is present on an estimated tens of thousands of 

acres in 12 states, primarily across the southern third of the United States. Buffelgrass is a threat 

because it increases the frequency and intensity of wildfires in the ecosystems it invades. Like its 

cousins, buffelgrass responds well to fire and recolonizes burned areas faster than native grasses, 

shrubs, and cacti.

Western Juniper – Though native to arid western ecosystems, juniper has taken advantage of fire 

exclusion to move out of its historic habitat and invade new areas. Juniper affects fire regimes by 

displacing native plants from a landscape. Once juniper is well established, its thick stands fuel 

high-intensity wildfires when weather conditions favor ignition and spread. The hot-burning 

juniper fires often burn everything, essentially pushing the ecological “reset” button in the fire area. 

Unfortunately, all too often, the burned ground is quickly invaded by invasive annual grasses.

Whether they are a “biological emergency” or a “bane on the rangeland,” most experts agree that 

invasive species are here to stay and that they will continue altering fire regimes and affecting BLM 

firefighting operations. Firefighters will continue to face complex, rapidly spreading fires that burn with 

unusually high intensity across the BLM landscape. 

Ken Frederick was a firefighter for more than a decade prior to entering public affairs. His career has included stops in Washington, Arizona, and Idaho. He has been a public affairs specialist at the

National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, and is currently the acting deputy state director for communications in the BLM’s Idaho State Office.

According to Boatner, an increase in calls to 

respond to other hazardous incidents exacerbated 

the complexities of fighting fire during this time. 

The efficiency and organizational effectiveness of 

the fire community’s incident command system 

translated well to responses to other emergency 

incidents and disasters. BLM firefighters responded 

to incidents such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 

New York City and Washington, DC, in 2001, the 

Space Shuttle Columbia recovery in 2003, and 

Hurricane Katrina in 2005. 

“For me, personally, one of the biggest challenges 

was in figuring out how to make our agencies more 

flexible and agile to respond to the rapidly changing 

world we were seeing in fire and elsewhere,” 

Boatner said.16

Toward the end of the decade, the fire community 

responded to the worsening conditions on the 

landscape, the nearly exponential growth of 

wildland–urban interface areas, and the new era of 

extremely large fires by rethinking the management 

of those fires. That rethinking led to testing and 

implementation of new strategies and even new 

terminology to talk about fire management.

Cheatgrass.

Medusahead.

Buffelgrass.

Western

juniper.

Life on a BLM Engine | By Kari Boyd-Peak

We had a sense it would be a busy fire season when an early summer 

report of smoke in June 2006 grew to a large, complex, and severe incident 

in just a few, short, exhausting days. The Suzie Fire was the worst of 

several fire starts ignited on a single day by a dry lightning storm that 

moved through the BLM’s Elko District in Nevada. 

I responded with my BLM Type 4 heavy engine and crew, and before 

we were even on the scene, I could tell we would have our hands full 

and ordered more resources. Our engine and crew, working with others, 

were successful in suppressing some sections of line, but the fire was 

growing too fast and in too many directions. It seemed as if there were no 

flanks—a head fire in all directions. We needed all the help we could get 

and ordered everything available. 

Within 24 hours, and with strong erratic winds pushing in all 

directions, Suzie had engulfed three other fire starts and was threatening 

two towns in opposite directions, Elko to the east and Carlin to the west. 

My crew and I spent the following 3 days bouncing from task to task: 

providing structure protection at the University of Nevada Fire Science 

Academy, helping ranchers herd cattle to safety, directing helicopters to 

stock tanks for bucket fills, and running with drip torches to burn out from 

two-track roads to create a fire line. Suzie rolled through continuous sage 

and cheatgrass in spite of the best efforts by firefighters and an incident 

management team. The fire was not brought under control until many 

days later, after it had charred more than 70,000 acres. 

The BLM relies heavily on wildland fire engines for initial and 

extended attack. They can mobilize quickly, navigate through rugged 

terrain, and have the capacity to carry enough water to suppress most fires 

in the early stages. Fires that burn in relatively light fuels can be knocked 

down with what’s called “pump and roll” action, a technique that has the 

driver of the engine following the flank of the fire and a person on a nozzle 

walking to the side or front, knocking down the flames on the move. 

These engines carry enough hose to extend their reach by 800 feet 

as well as flares and other devices to ignite backfires or to burn out fuels 

to strengthen a control line. Chainsaws with safety equipment, pumps for 

moving water to the fire from another water source, and enough equipment 

to sustain a three- to five-person crew for up to 5 days are also on board. 

These items are inventoried daily to ensure all the proper equipment is in 

place and readily accessible. 

This standardized engine fleet throughout the BLM allows for cost 

savings and flexibility. Engine crews are interchangeable. It is fairly common 

for firefighters or engine bosses to fly to other parts of the country (or the 

next BLM fire yard) and staff another engine, very similar to their own, with 

little or no additional training. 

Fires typically move fast and burn hot in the grass and brushy fuels 

that dominate most BLM land. As a result, attacking these fires must be 

fast-paced and intense to suppress them before they become large and costly. 

Operating from some of the most advanced wildland fire engines available 

helps BLM firefighters accomplish their work with a high degree of success.

As it turned out, 2006 was an especially severe fire year. Close to 

10 million acres burned across the country; in Nevada, 1,279 fires burned 

more than 1.3 million acres. While the Suzie Fire was neither the largest nor 

the smallest fire on BLM land, it illustrates the challenges BLM firefighters 

face every year in managing wildland fire throughout the West. 

Kari Boyd-Peak is currently in the BLM external affairs group at the National Interagency Fire Center. Previously she was a firefighter and engine module leader

in Montana and Nevada and then served as a logistics coordinator at the National Interagency Coordination Center.

BLM fire engine near Elko, Nevada.

Engine working the Barth Fire near Carlin, Nevada.
86 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 87

Mapping Supports Firefighting Efforts 

Improvements in technology allowed the BLM 

to develop its Geographic Coordinate Data Base, 

which provided the foundation for using cadastral 

survey data in wildland fire decisionmaking. 

Starting in 2004, the U.S. Forest Service and the 

BLM worked with federal, county, and state officials 

to compile GIS-based parcel data from more than 

75 percent of the counties in the western United 

States, as well as from Alaska and the Southeast. 

Protection of structures during wildland fire is 

extremely important, but it increases the threats 

to firefighter safety and increases fire management 

costs. Processing the collected parcel data allowed 

A National Energy Policy Emerges

Energy policy was at the forefront of the national 

agenda from 2001 to 2009 during the Bush 

administration. Despite earlier efforts to stimulate 

production of domestic energy sources, by the year 

2000, the United States’ dependence on foreign 

oil had risen steadily for three decades. Crude oil 

imports increased from 3.2 million barrels per day 

in 1973 to 9.1 million barrels per day in 2000. The 

proportion of oil provided by foreign suppliers 

climbed during the same period from 35 percent 

to 53 percent.18 Prices fluctuated wildly as supplies 

tightened and as demand from the emerging 

economies of China and India swelled.

Two weeks after taking office in January 2001, 

President George W. Bush formed a White House 

team tasked with developing a national energy 

policy. One of its goals was to tackle the growing 

energy security crisis by establishing courses 

of action to ensure the development of reliable 

supplies of domestic energy.

In May 2001, the National Energy Policy 

Development Group submitted a report to the 

President. The report recommended, among 

other measures, that the Department of the 

Interior examine regulatory impediments to the 

development of oil and gas resources on federal 

lands, expand lease sales in the National Petroleum 

Reserve–Alaska, and work with Congress to 

authorize drilling in the coastal plain of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge.19

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act of 1980 specifically closed the refuge to oil and 

gas exploration and development “until authorized 

by an act of Congress.” With the coastal plain 

the creation of “building cluster points” where 

one or more occupied structures may exist. This 

method identified structures with more than 

90 percent accuracy. With GIS technology and 

location data on structures in the fire’s path, wildfire 

response teams could rapidly establish protection 

priorities, helping them get firefighters in the right 

places for the right reasons. 

The Wildland Fire Decision Support System, 

chartered in 2005, incorporated these building 

cluster points. The system enabled layers of spatial 

data (showing locations and shapes of various 

features) to be displayed on a map, and the building 

cluster points are part of a layer showing values 

at risk from fire. All federal firefighting agencies 

Milford Flat: Utah’s Largest Fire Rehabilitation Project | By Lola Bird

use the system to build, document, and justify fire 

management plans.

The Geographic Coordinate Data Base has become 

integral to fire decisions. For example, in June 

2008, a major lightning storm passed through 

northern California, igniting over 800 fires. 

More than 25 of the fires escaped initial attack 

and grew very large, presenting decisionmakers 

with difficult prioritization challenges. Building 

cluster summaries provided an effective means 

to compare critical values at risk from each fire. 

Maps displaying building clusters enabled rapid 

identification of pockets of structures that were 

most critically threatened and helped determine the 

appropriate assignment of resources.17

On July 6, 2007, lightning sparked a raging wildfire near Milford, Utah, that 

spread rapidly in cheatgrass, sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper stands. The fire burned 

on BLM, state, private, and Bureau of Indian Affairs lands. By the time the fire was 

contained on July 19, it had burned more than 363,000 acres. It became Utah’s 

largest recorded fire and subsequently led to the largest fire rehabilitation effort in 

Utah’s history.

Once the fire was controlled, managers knew that immediate action was 

needed, so stabilization and rehabilitation planning efforts began right away. 

Because burned areas had mixed land ownership, many people were involved in this 

effort. State and federal agencies came together under the umbrella of the Utah 

Partners for Conservation and Development (Utah PCD) to design and implement 

stabilization actions for the entire burned area regardless of land ownership. An 

implementation team, led by the BLM, was formed with members from each entity in 

the Utah PCD as well as county commissioners and private landowners. 

Land management agencies conducted postfire assessments of the burned 

areas and determined that stabilization and rehabilitation efforts were needed on 

202,000 acres (more than 300 square miles). A rehabilitation effort of this magnitude 

required more than 1.7 million pounds of seed at a cost of approximately $17 million 

for the seed and application. Seed mixes consisted of both native and nonnative 

species, including western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, bottlebrush, sand dropseed, 

and prostrate kochia. Beginning in October 2007, treatments were applied using 

four different methods: aerial seeding, drill seeding, single chaining, and imprinter 

seeding. In addition, the implementation team treated noxious weed infestations, 

replaced 74 miles of burned fence, constructed 78 miles of new fence, and developed 

315 sediment basins. 

Once the treatments were completed in spring 2008, monitoring began, using 

existing range monitoring sites and newly established sites. First-year monitoring 

focused on recording what was implemented on the ground. Second-year monitoring 

focused on the effectiveness of the applied treatments and how well they met stated 

objectives. Additional monitoring was conducted using remote sensing and big game 

habitat trend data from the State of Utah. Soil stabilization (dust) and impacts on 

avian populations were monitored as well.

The project was extremely successful because of the support and contributions 

of all partners involved. The State of Utah handled all the procurement of treatment 

contracts and contract administration oversight. The BLM arranged for all of the 

equipment, and all entities provided labor and support. This daunting task was 

complicated by size, complexity, seasonal and climatic limitations, and budget but 

was completed ahead of schedule because of the dedication and cooperation of all 

the partners involved.

Lola Bird is a public affairs specialist in the BLM Utah State Office. She has been with the BLM since 2001.

Results from single chaining method.

Results from drilling seeding method.

estimated to hold billions of barrels of technically 

recoverable oil, the debate over whether to 

authorize the BLM to conduct lease sales in the area 

simmered over the decades.

The pro-drilling camp—led by Senator Ted Stevens 

and Representative Don Young—grappled with 

environmental interests in the early 2000s 

over opening the refuge. The threat of Senate 

filibusters killed the measure 4 years in a row, 

with antidevelopment advocates barely surviving 

an endeavor by Senator Stevens to attach a 

drilling rider to a defense authorization bill in 

December 2005.20

The Department of the Interior also squared off 

against environmental groups over other areas 

of Alaska. A furor erupted in January 2005 when 

the BLM announced a plan for a lease sale in the 

northeast National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska. The 

sale included lands around Teshekpuk Lake that 

Secretary Babbitt banned from leasing because they 

contained sensitive caribou and goose habitat.21

Environmentalists sued successfully to block the 

sale. To protect wildlife and its habitat, the BLM 

designated 219,000 acres of Teshekpuk Lake and 

its islands as unavailable for leasing. The BLM 

deferred leasing on 430,000 acres north and east 

of Teshekpuk Lake until 2018 and on another 

1.6 million acres in the far northwest part of the 

National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska until 2014. 

After conducting additional NEPA analyses, the 

BLM finally held the lease sale in September 2008, 

attracting $31 million in bids.22

Northeast National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska.
88 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 89

Congress Passes the Energy Policy Act of 2005

The Energy Policy Act incorporated many of the 

National Energy Policy Development Group’s 

recommendations. Congress passed the act in 

August 2005 after a tumultuous 5-year battle 

on Capitol Hill. Among its provisions was an 

amendment to the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA) of 2000, which required the BLM 

and other agencies to inventory oil and natural 

gas resources on 99 million acres of public lands 

and examine impediments to development of 

those resources. 

The first EPCA report, released in 2003, addressed 

five areas. In 2006, an expanded report (phase II) 

that addressed 11 areas encompassing 99 million 

acres superseded the first report. The 2006 report 

found about one-half of the oil and one-quarter of 

the gas in the areas inventoried closed to leasing. 

As directed by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the 

report also examined impediments to development 

created by “conditions of approval,” restrictions 

the BLM attaches to drilling permits, such as a 

prohibition against drilling in areas where elk and 

deer range during winter months.23

Oil and gas operators had been complaining 

about delays in the permitting process for years. 

An industry report released in 2003 claimed, for 

instance, that the average time for the BLM to 

approve applications for permits to drill had risen 

from 84 days in 2001 to 175 days in 2003, despite 

language in the agency’s oil and gas regulations and 

procedures suggesting that the permitting process 

should take 30 days.24 The report came out during 

a dramatic rise in industry interest in oil and gas 

development on public lands, challenging the field 

managers to balance the uses of multiple resources. 

This increased interest and activity created 

bottlenecks in the required NEPA analyses, 

resulting in longer lead times to get an application 

approved. NEPA analyses grew more complex, and 

more members of the public were participating 

and commenting on all oil and gas activity, from 

planning to leasing and permitting. Reasonable 

foreseeable development analyses formed the basis 

for the NEPA analyses, which quickly rendered 

them obsolete because the level of actual activity 

extended far beyond the activity analyzed. In 

many cases, the BLM had to conduct new (often 

court-ordered) NEPA analyses, leading to delays 

in overall processing times. Still, from 2003 to 

2004, the number of applications for permits to 

drill approved by the BLM increased more than 

50 percent. Nevertheless, the backlog of permits 

filed by industry in the Powder River Basin and 

other areas with intense production activity grew 

to the thousands. Coalbed natural gas permits were 

a large share of the drilling permit activity, and the 

permit numbers soared; later, industry shifted to 

shale gas and oil.

The White House issued an Executive order in May 

2001 encouraging federal agencies to take steps to 

expedite energy projects. The BLM implemented 

a variety of mechanisms to address the permitting 

shortfall. In March 2007, the BLM issued its first 

revision to “Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1,” 

which had governed permitting and leasing since 

Oil rigs near the Wind River Mountains in Wyoming.

Powder River Basin Resurveys: 20 Years–16,000 Monuments | By Joel T. Ebner

In October 1988, I walked into BLM’s Gillette Project Office in 

Wyoming, which is in the heart of the mineral-rich Powder River Basin. I 

had been hired as a land surveyor to conduct dependent resurveys and 

had just stepped into the office of the most intensive resurvey project 

ever undertaken by the BLM. I was there to help the BLM fulfill its 

cadastral survey duties, which descended directly from the United States 

General Land Office.

The Powder River Basin is defined by a geological structure 

encompassing all of Campbell County and portions of seven other 

counties in northeastern Wyoming. The terrain is dominated by 

sagebrush prairies and open rolling grasslands punctuated by red, 

rimrocked buttes and deep sandstone canyons that drain into the Powder 

River. Wildlife in the area includes antelope, mule deer, coyotes, foxes, 

rabbits, and rattlesnakes. But because of its vast quantities of coal, oil, 

and gas reserves, the Powder River Basin is best described with one word: 

hydrocarbons.

Most of the surface in the basin (approximately 70 percent) is 

privately owned, but significant portions of the subsurface minerals were 

retained by the federal government when the lands were patented. In 

addition, in every township, two sections (16 and 36) were reserved 

as school sections for the State of Wyoming. The result is a mixture of 

mineral ownership, with the minerals in any given 40-acre parcel (lease 

unit) being privately, federally, or state owned. 

The energy crisis of the 1970s made developing domestic energy 

resources a priority, and to the Powder River Basin, an area identified as 

having the largest onshore federal mineral reserves in the United States, 

that meant boom time. So the boom was on, but because of antiquated 

surveys that were monumented with sticks and stones, reports of 

difficulties locating lease boundaries on the ground began pouring in 

from private surveying firms, landowners, and industry representatives. 

BLM managers soon became concerned that these high-risk boundaries 

were being incorrectly located.

Through the support of BLM district and state managers, Wyoming’s 

congressional delegation, and private industry, the Gillette Project Office 

was established. The office was opened on April 1, 1986, with the goal 

of resurveying 107 townships—an effort that encompassed some 2.5 

million acres—in the Powder River Basin. 

The office was staffed with a project manager, assistant project 

manager, six land surveyors, a geodesist, and a staff assistant. Eighteen 

temporary employees (three per crew) were hired to assist the land 

surveyors. Each of the surveyors was assigned the task of resurveying one 

full township at a time, and it typically took around 3 months to complete 

a township. Normally, a surveyor could complete two townships in a field 

season, which generally ran from the first week of April to the middle of 

October. The winter months were spent producing the official returns 

(field notes and plats) of the surveys.

From 1986 through 1994, the number of field crews and level 

of production remained consistent, 80 townships were resurveyed, 

and approximately 11,000 monuments were set. After 1994, due to a 

combination of declining funding, changing priorities, a slowdown in oil 

exploration, and the completion of much of the work, production levels 

gradually tapered off. 

But the resurveys of full townships continued, with another land 

surveyor and I carrying on the project through the 2006 field season. On 

May 25, 2007, I walked into the office for the last time, after 20 years 

of surveying in the basin; my main task for the day was closing the 

door and turning out the lights on the Gillette Project Office. Mission 

accomplished! In all, we completed the resurvey of 111 townships 

comprising more than 2.5 million acres, ran nearly 8,000 miles of survey 

line, and monumented approximately 16,000 corners.

Today the Powder River Basin is the nation’s preeminent coal 

producer, with the top ten producing mines in the country all located 

here, and Wyoming has led the nation in coal production since 1986.

The Powder River Basin is also a major oil producing area,

with 9.7 million barrels produced from wells on

federal estate in 2009. But perhaps the

biggest payoff from the resurvey project has

occurred in recent years. Intensive drilling

for coalbed natural gas began in 1998, and

as of 2012, nearly 27,000 wells had been

drilled (each needing to be located in its

proper 40-acre lease unit). Current plans

allow for another 51,000 wells to be drilled

in the future.

Joel T. Ebner worked as a land surveyor in the Gillette Project Office for 20 years. He is currently a senior land surveyor working at the BLM Wyoming State Office in Cheyenne.

Dave Meserve measuring the position

for a survey corner using GPS.

Dave Meserve (L) and Joel Ebner (R) pointing out

the marks on an original stone corner.

Leonard Mardikian (L) 

and Kane Hellebust (R) 

preparing to set an iron 

post survey monument.

Kurt Schenk (L) and 

Mike Whitmore (R) 

preparing the total 

station to begin a 

traverse. 
90 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 91

October 1983. The revision incorporated language 

from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandating 

that the BLM render a decision on permits 

within 30 days of receiving a complete 

permit application.25

Meeting permit deadlines continued to challenge 

the BLM, but permitting rates improved. An 

internal 2007 report found, for example, that the 

rate improved 3 years in a row in seven “pilot 

offices,” which were established by the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 to improve the efficiency of 

permit processing.26 The seven pilot offices initially 

issued about 80 percent of all BLM oil and gas 

permits; as development expanded and activity 

became concentrated in nearby offices, the pilot 

offices issued closer to 60 percent of the permits.

The amended onshore order addressed another 

growing controversy as well. The Stock Raising 

Homestead Act of 1916 divided millions of acres 

of western land so that private citizens owned 

the surface estate and the federal government 

owned the subsurface mineral rights. Ranchers 

complained for years that drilling operations, 

over which they had no veto power, had fouled 

their property. The revised order required oil 

and gas firms to communicate more with surface 

landowners on plans to develop subsurface federal 

mineral rights. In addition, if no “good faith” 

agreement was reached, operators had to post a 

surface owner protection bond to protect against 

possible damages.27 The BLM developed guidance 

to better mitigate these split estate issues as more 

homeowners awakened to find that they did not 

own the minerals; these issues especially affected 

ranch owners as well as people who purchased a 

second home or retirement home in areas with 

ongoing growth in oil and gas exploration.

The amended order also encouraged operators to 

adopt “best management practices,” such as drilling 

multiple wells from the same drill pad, to mitigate 

against potential environmental harm from 

production activities.28 Hydraulic fracturing, plus 

longer and more prevalent use of horizontal drilling 

and completion technology, pushed the BLM to 

keep up with industry advances. The horizontal 

technology enabled the BLM to work with industry 

to creatively condense the development footprint, 

apply best practices, reduce habitat fragmentation, 

and drill a large number of wellbores from the same 

drill pad. 

Reform Efforts Result In Protests and Litigation

Despite the attempts at reform, environmentalists 

employed various legal remedies to reverse the 

Bush administration’s efforts to open vast swaths of 

public land to development. Protests—which must 

be resolved prior to issuance of a lease—were filed 

on only 1 percent of all parcels offered at auction 

in 1988, but by 2009, nearly half of all parcels were 

being protested.29 Oil and gas field activity received 

greater scrutiny from a larger public audience that 

monitored the data and information the BLM 

posted on the Internet. The BLM hoped to restore 

order to the process in 2005 by promulgating a 

policy that required the filing of protests 15 days 

prior to a lease sale.30 But it was another 5 years 

before the BLM attempted a more thorough 

overhaul of the system. 

NEPA became the tool of choice for environmental 

advocates as they filed protests claiming inadequate 

resource analysis or consideration of impacts. In 

2004, the Natural Resources Defense Council and 

others filed suit against the BLM, saying an RMP 

that authorized drilling of up to 10,000 new wells 

in New Mexico’s San Juan Basin violated the law 

and would harm tribal lands, recreational activities, 

and ranching operations.31 The Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance and others sued in 2004 to stop 

a plan to allow seismic exploration surveys for oil 

and gas in Utah’s Nine Mile Canyon.32 The State of 

New Mexico filed suit in 2005 over a plan to lease 

a parcel in the Otero Mesa grassland, claiming 

potential harm to wildlife habitat and ground 

water.33 Earthjustice and others sued in 2008 to 

block issuance of $114 million worth of leases on 

Colorado’s Roan Plateau, decrying the potential 

damage to wildlife and streams.34

The suits had mixed results, with the courts 

dismissing cases in which they deemed the BLM’s 

NEPA analysis adequate, and requiring the BLM 

to conduct additional reviews before leasing or 

development could proceed in other cases. 

Nine Mile Canyon in Utah.

Otero Mesa in New Mexico.

The Legendary Roan Plateau | By Jamie Connell, with David Boyd

The story of the management of the Roan Plateau in western Colorado really begins 

nearly 100 years ago, when the Taft administration began designating naval petroleum 

reserves and naval oil shale reserves to ensure the U.S. Navy would have adequate oil 

resources. The 35,000-acre Naval Oil Shale Reserve (NOSR) Number 1 was designated on 

the southeastern edge of the Roan Plateau above the town of Rifle. The adjacent 22,000-

acre Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number 3 was designated below the rim of the Roan Plateau. 

It’s rather ironic that what would become a national debate about how to manage 

the NOSRs around the Roan Plateau would center on whether or not to develop the 

mineral resources, given that the area was specifically held in reserve for its mineral 

development potential. In the 1990s, the debate had mostly centered on the Department 

of Energy drilling its own oil and gas wells below the rim of the plateau. The land was 

not actually leased, so it was not subject to the Mineral Leasing Act. All the revenue from 

the 24 natural gas wells went straight to the federal government rather than being split 

with state and local governments. The question arose, “Do we lease the NOSRs for oil 

and gas and keep the lands in public hands or do we sell the NOSRs for private oil and 

gas development?”

Congress’ answer to the question came in 1997 with the transfer of jurisdiction from 

the Department of Energy to the Department of the Interior: Lease the lands already 

in production within 1 year, lease the rest as soon as practicable, and manage it all for 

multiple uses. That answer might seem straightforward, but by the time I arrived in 

Glenwood Springs as the field manager in 2003, which coincided with the beginning 

of the largest natural gas boom in decades, people were expressing diverse opinions as 

to what “as soon as practicable” and “manage for multiple uses” really meant. It soon 

became my job to help sort this out when the BLM amended the Roan Plateau Resource 

Management Plan in 2004. 

The NOSRs on and below the Roan Plateau were known to have a lot of natural gas 

underneath them. The federal recoverable reserve was estimated at 8.9 trillion cubic 

feet. The NOSRs are also well known locally for their big game hunting opportunities. In 

addition, the area holds some of Colorado’s genetically pure cutthroat trout and several 

rare plants. While not pristine in the never-touched-by-humans sense, the Roan has 

retained some pristine qualities because it is so remote. 

Most of the controversy leading up to the release of the draft Roan Plateau resource 

management plan amendment in 2004 had focused on managing the top of the plateau 

rather than the lands below the rim. We had looked for an innovative way to provide 

protections for sensitive resources while still following our interpretation of congressional 

direction, which was to lease the NOSRs as soon as practicable. 

The draft plan amendment analyzed a range of alternatives, but offered a unique 

approach as its preferred alternative: Make the lands below the rim available for leasing 

immediately, but defer leasing on top of the plateau until 80 percent of the anticipated 

wells below the rim had

been drilled. In that

time, which might be more

than a decade, drilling

technology should improve, 

thereby reducing impacts to

the top.

After a 120-day public

comment period on the draft,

the BLM had received nearly

100,000 comment letters.

One of the concerns with the

preferred alternative was

that concentrating

development below the rim would concentrate development in key wintering areas for 

big game that summered on top of the plateau. Amid almost daily media coverage from 

local as well as national outlets in 2005, the BLM met with its cooperating agencies for six 

all-day work sessions to hammer out a new compromise plan. 

To our knowledge, nothing like what we came up with had been tried: Lease 

the top all at once and require the leaseholders to form a unit prior to drilling the first 

well. Operators could then determine how they would meet requirements for highly 

coordinated development focusing on existing roads, one ridge at a time. No more than 

1 percent of the land on top could be disturbed at any one time, creating a strong 

incentive to effectively reclaim disturbed lands in a timely manner. The number of 

roads on top was reduced and then capped. Well pads could be no closer than one-half 

mile apart. Development would largely be contained to the roads on top of the ridges, 

away from the sensitive canyons. Development would occur only on the ridgetops, thus 

protecting sensitive canyon and stream resources. Drilling locations would be constructed 

on one ridge at a time to reduce the impacts to wildlife and recreation. 

The final record of decision was signed in early 2008. The parcels on top and 

the unleased lands below the rim totaled about 55,000 acres and were leased for 

$114 million—the highest amount ever generated from an oil and gas lease sale in the 

lower 48 states. 

The decision was challenged in court, and in 2012, a judge set the decision aside 

and remanded it back to the BLM for further action. Regardless of the outcome, the 

partnerships created by this effort and the creative solutions generated by the team of 

dedicated public servants will have a lasting positive impact on the Roan Plateau and 

other areas in the country where energy assets and sensitive ecologic resources coexist.

Jamie Connell is the BLM 

state director for Oregon/

Washington and has also 

been the state director for 

Montana/Dakotas. She 

previously served as the 

BLM district manager 

for Colorado’s Northwest 

District and the field 

manager for the BLM in 

Glenwood Springs.

David Boyd has been a 

public affairs specialist 

for the BLM offices in 

northwestern Colorado 

since 2006. Prior to that, 

he was the public affairs 

specialist for the Arizona 

Strip District.

Roan Plateau in Colorado. Photo courtesy of Ecoflight.
92 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 93

Interest in Oil Shale Development Increases

In 2006, with demand from Asian economies 

surging and Gulf of Mexico production reeling 

from a devastating hurricane season in 2005, crude 

oil prices rose above $50 a barrel for the first time.35

It finally appeared as if it could be economically 

feasible to renew efforts to harness the billions of 

barrels of shale oil believed to reside in the Green 

River Formation of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Armed with authorizing language in the 2005 

Energy Policy Act, the BLM tackled the issue on 

three fronts. 

In December 2006, the BLM issued five leases, 

giving a green light to research, development, 

and demonstration projects on public lands in 

Colorado’s Piceance Basin. Units of Shell, Chevron, 

and other firms used the land to test various 

technologies, both above- and belowground, for 

mining and processing of the shale formations.36

In November 2008, the BLM issued rules for 

commercial leasing of oil shale development rights, 

including lease size, royalty rates, and timely 

development of leaseholds.37 Simultaneously, the 

BLM completed a programmatic EIS that set aside 

1.9 million acres of Green River land for oil 

shale development.38

Rights-of-Way Provide Pathways

to Energy Security

One of the obstacles to traditional and renewable 

energy development is the lack of transmission 

capacity to transport the energy from production 

sites, which are usually in rural or remote locations, 

to where it is needed, which is typically in urban or 

suburban areas. In 2008, the BLM and its federal 

partners completed a final programmatic EIS for 

designation of energy corridors on western federal 

lands as part of their response to directives in the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. The programmatic 

EIS identified energy corridors to facilitate 

future siting of oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines; 

renewable energy development projects; and 

electricity transmission and distribution facilities 

to meet the region’s increasing energy demands 

while mitigating potential harmful effects to the 

environment. Eighty-two percent, or approximately 

5,000 miles, of the corridors identified were located 

on BLM-managed lands. BLM Director Jim Caswell 

called the effort “a significant step in addressing 

some of the critical energy infrastructure issues 

in the West” that will “help relieve congestion, 

improve reliability, and enhance the national 

electric grid.”39

States Implement Renewable Energy Standards

During the 2000s, the United States was sitting on 

a mountain of coal to fuel its powerplants. A 2007 

assessment found that BLM lands in the Powder 

River Basin alone contained 550 million short 

tons of coal or enough to power one-quarter of 

American homes each year.40

But with concerns growing over climate change, 

state governments throughout the United States 

began mandating generation of a minimum 

percentage of electricity within their borders 

from alternative energy sources. Arizona was the 

first western state to enact a “renewable portfolio 

standard,” requiring that 15 percent of the power in 

the state be generated from renewable energy 

by 2025.41

The new state standards spurred a “land rush” 

in the early to mid-2000s, inundating the BLM 

with applications for rights-of-way to construct 

wind and solar energy projects on public lands. 

The BLM’s California office received 17 new 

applications for wind energy rights-of-way in fiscal 

year 2003, the year following California’s enactment 

of a renewable portfolio standard to acquire 

20 percent of its power from renewable energy 

sources by 2017. The Nevada office received 25 new 

applications the same year. The number of pending 

wind energy right-of-way applications on public 

lands in the western states grew to more than 

150 applications by fiscal year 2007. 

Right-of-way for electric power lines west of Casper, Wyoming.

Wind energy right-of-way in California.

Just How Big Is That Right-of-Way Grant? | By Tom Hurshman

As a national right-of-way (ROW) project manager, I am used 

to dealing with big projects and big resource conflicts on big areas of 

public land. The BLM has approved ROW grants for many different 

kinds of energy generation and transmission projects on public lands, 

including wind and solar development projects. 

Interest in solar projects began to grow, when in 2002, the State 

of California established a renewables portfolio standard requiring 

energy companies to obtain 20 percent of their power from renewable 

sources by 2020 (it has since been increased to 33 percent by 2020). 

In 2005, Congress approved the Energy Policy Act, which set a goal of 

producing 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy by 2015. In 2009, 

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne signed Secretarial Order 3283, 

“Enhancing Renewable Energy Development on the Public Lands.” 

As a result, BLM field offices in the desert regions of California, Arizona, 

and Nevada were deluged by a virtual land rush of ROW applications 

for large-scale solar projects. The applications in California alone 

affected over 1 million acres. The scale of many proposals covered 5 to 

10 square miles or more. 

As applications came pouring in, BLM offices could hardly keep 

up with checking land records, verifying land status, establishing serial 

numbers, and sending out preliminary agreements for payment for 

processing the applications. Multiple ROW applications for the same 

public land tracts began piling up, requiring the BLM to consider those 

that were first in line before those that were second or third. The BLM 

had little policy for processing large-scale solar applications and no 

clear direction on what information needed to be included with a solar 

project ROW application. The continual influx of new applications left 

little time to think about processing the applications already on hand.

I was the first BLM project manager assigned to process one of 

these commercial-scale solar ROW applications in 2007. I was used to 

dealing with natural gas pipeline and electric transmission companies 

that knew what BLM wanted in an application. They understood the 

process of gathering data for an EIS and inventorying for threatened 

and endangered species and cultural resources. These new applicants 

were different. Most of the applications were from upstart renewable 

energy companies with a smattering of venture capital investors that 

had never heard of the BLM or a ROW grant, let alone the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, or National 

Historic Preservation Act. They wanted detailed explanations for 

every piece of information we asked them to provide. They did not 

understand why we needed an actual preliminary project design 

versus an artist’s rendition of their project. Special interest groups 

jumped into the mix. Broad-scale support for renewable energy was 

countered by NIMBY (“not-in-my-back-yard”) opposition from vocal 

and quite polarized interest groups. 

The first large-scale solar applications wound up on the “FastTrack” list. Compressed timelines were established, and never in the 

ROW program had so much emphasis been placed upon completing 

an analysis on time. NEPA documents and decisions were prepared, 

double checked, reviewed by multiple solicitors, and signed at the 

highest level within the Department of the Interior.

When I visited the site of a proposed commercial solar plant, I 

thought I understood the scope of the area that would be used and 

impacted. I’d wave my arms around saying the solar fields will extend 

from here to well beyond that transmission line way over there and 

then over to this little knob. However, when the bulldozers and 

earthmovers started rolling, and I saw tractors, pickups, and fencing 

crews, all accompanied by an army of biological monitors way off in 

the distance, I realized, “Man, this is bigger than I thought.” I walked 

around the first solar field as it was being fenced, which was less than 

one-third of the total area that was approved under the ROW grant. I 

walked for 21⁄2 hours before I was back to where I started, and I was not 

walking slowly. It had been a 5-mile hike. There were two more solar 

fields, each slightly larger than this one, that were going to be 

cleared next.

Within the principles of multiple use, the mandate to use public 

land for renewable energy development is clear. BLM’s decisionmaking 

processes, as well as time, public sentiment, the economy, and perhaps 

the courts, will tell us how many big solar developments will be built 

on public land in the future. At a groundbreaking ceremony, Secretary 

of the Interior Ken Salazar stated, “We made believers out of skeptics.” 

I admit I was a bit skeptical that the project would break ground, but I 

am proud to have been a part of this step toward energy independence 

taking place on our public land.

Tom Hurshman was a national right-of-way project manager with the Washington Office, stationed in Montrose, Colorado. He joined the BLM in 1979

and worked in the lands and realty program in field offices, district offices, and the Washington Office.

Solar block Solar panels in California.

installation in eastern 

Riverside County

in California.

Fence installation for a 

solar energy project

in California.
94 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 95

The BLM received the first solar energy right-ofway applications for the public lands in 2004; the 

number of those applications increased to more 

than 200 by fiscal year 2007. The majority of the 

applications received were for public lands in 

California, Nevada, and Arizona that had wind and 

solar energy resource potential and were closest to 

the power load demands for electricity in southern 

California. Eight western states had enacted 

renewable portfolio standards by 2012, 

and California had accelerated its standard to 

33 percent renewable energy by 2020.42

The President Launches

the Healthy Forests Initiative

Following the massive wildfires early in the spring 

and summer of 2002, President Bush, accompanied 

by Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, Secretary 

of Agriculture Ann Veneman, BLM Director 

Kathleen Clarke, and BLM Oregon State Director 

Elaine Brong toured the Squires Fire in the BLM’s 

Medford District to view the impacts. While in 

Medford, the President launched “Healthy Forests, 

An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger 

Communities,” also known as the Healthy Forests 

Initiative. The initiative had three goals: 

• To significantly step up efforts to prevent the 

damage caused by catastrophic wildfires by 

reducing unnecessary regulatory obstacles that 

hinder active forest management.

• To work with Congress to pass legislation 

that addresses the unhealthy forest crisis by 

expediting procedures for forest thinning and 

restoration projects.

• To fulfill the promises of the 1994 

Northwest Forest Plan to ensure sustainable 

forest management and appropriate 

timber production.

Initiative Addresses Hazardous Fuels

and Rehabilitation

The President directed the Secretaries of the 

Interior and Agriculture, together with the 

Chairman of the Council on Environmental 

Quality, to improve regulatory processes to reduce 

the risk of catastrophic wildland fires. In response, 

the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service developed 

two new categorical exclusions under NEPA. They 

allowed the agencies to implement high-priority 

With the National Energy Policy of 2001 

directing the Department of the Interior to review 

restrictions on energy production on public lands, 

the BLM undertook a series of moves designed to 

promote siting of renewable energy projects. In 

2003, the agency began work on a wind energy 

programmatic EIS that was completed in 2005. 

It would amend 52 land use plans in 11 western 

states to provide for expedited permitting of 

wind energy projects on some 20.6 million acres 

of the public lands with wind energy potential.43

In 2004, the BLM issued its first policy guidance 

to field offices on the processing of right-of-way 

applications for solar energy projects proposed in 

their planning areas.44 The BLM initiated a solar 

energy programmatic EIS in 2008.45 In 2007, the 

BLM launched a programmatic EIS that eventually 

opened 190 million acres to geothermal energy 

development and, in keeping with the National 

Energy Policy, worked towards eliminating the 

backlog of pending geothermal lease applications.46

BLM’s Innovative Approaches to Renewable Energy Development in Arizona | By Kathy Pedrick

As interest in renewable energy heightened in the early 2000s, 

the BLM experienced something akin to the gold and land rushes of 

prior centuries. Developers, utility corporations, and get-rich-quick 

promoters descended on southwestern deserts to file claims for a 

piece of solar pie. In Arizona alone, more than 450,000 acres of land 

were under application by 2008. Southern California and southern 

Nevada saw similar levels of activity. 

In response to these staggering numbers, the BLM initiated 

a solar programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) to 

address common issues, analyzing high-potential solar areas in 

six western states. The BLM identified three solar study areas 

in Arizona.

One of the major concerns identified by the public was the 

vast amount of fragile desert landscape that stood to be impacted 

by the development of solar energy. In addition to potential land 

disturbance, the amount of water used by many solar technologies 

was identified as a serious threat to states struggling after more 

than 10 years of drought. A common theme at public meetings 

was concern over using Arizona’s scarce water to generate power for 

export to the energy-hungry West. 

In 2009, the BLM in Arizona proposed a project that looked 

at siting renewable energy projects on previously disturbed or 

damaged lands and lands with low natural resource sensitivity. 

Dubbed the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the effort 

was funded from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

The BLM initiated an EIS to amend resource management plans in 

Arizona to allow the siting of renewable energy facilities on these 

disturbed or damaged lands.

The public, stakeholders, utility corporations, and landowners 

were asked to nominate disturbed sites to be considered for analysis 

in the EIS. These sites were used as “case studies” to analyze the 

disturbance and remediation or restoration a potential developer 

might expect on different types of disturbed lands such as closed 

landfills, retired agricultural lands, mine tailings or spoil sites, and 

sand and gravel pits.

The BLM’s goal was to be able to inform the public, 

policymakers, developers, and landowners where the best areas in 

Arizona might be for siting renewable energy on disturbed lands. 

By looking at previously impacted sites, areas of low resource 

sensitivity, areas without water concerns, and areas close to 

load demand and transmission lines, the RDEP blueprint targets 

appropriate public lands for renewable energy development. This 

approach minimizes the disturbance to Arizona’s amazing natural 

and cultural resources while capturing its abundant sunshine 

for energy.

Kathy Pedrick was a special assistant to the BLM state director in Arizona from 2008 to 2015. Kathy was also the Arizona strategies coordinator

and the project manager for the Restoration Design Energy Project as well as the Arizona borderland coordinator for the BLM.

hazardous fuels treatments and rehabilitation of 

areas without further analysis if a treatment selected 

collaboratively by the appropriate local, state, tribal, 

and/or federal representatives met specific criteria 

related to size, location, and method.47

For the BLM, the categorical exclusion authority 

proved to be valuable in reducing wildfire risks 

along the wildland–urban interface and in 

rehabilitating burned areas to prevent erosion. 

However, in December 2007, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared the 

Department of Agriculture’s categorical exclusion 

for hazardous fuels reduction invalid, and in 

March 2008, the BLM discontinued use of the 

Department of the Interior’s similar categorical 

exclusion for decisions within the jurisdiction of 

the Ninth Circuit.48

Another key provision of the Healthy Forests 

Initiative addressed the requirements for 

interagency consultation under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. New guidance directed 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service to balance the short-term 

impacts of fuel treatments on listed species against 

the long-term benefits to species and the long-term 

harm to species that could result from taking no 

action, a provision that remained under litigation as 

of 2012. 

Stewardship Contracting Becomes a Land 

Management Tool

Stewardship contracts were included in the 

Healthy Forests Initiative and authorized in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003 

as tools to improve ecological health and provide 

local economic stimulus.49 Agencies permitted 

private companies, tribes, nonprofit organizations, 

and others to keep and sell forest and rangeland 

products in exchange for performing services that 

improved forest and rangeland health. Because the 

BLM could issue long-term contracts—for up to 

10 years—community enterprises felt more secure 

in investing in the equipment and infrastructure 

needed to accomplish the work. The stewardship 

services generated forest products, including 

woody biomass and sawlogs, used to make specialty 

products or to produce biomass energy.

Christmas Mine, a nominated 

renewable energy site in Arizona.

Possible clean energy sites.

Fuels reduction project at Muddy 

Mountain Environmental Education Area 

near Casper, Wyoming.
96 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 97

The BLM moved quickly to put the new authority 

to use, expanding from 2 contracts on 300 acres in 

fiscal year 2003, to 22 contracts on 6,100 acres in 

fiscal year 2004, to 58 contracts covering 

15,700 acres in fiscal year 2005. By the end of 

fiscal year 2006, the BLM had used stewardship 

contracting authority cumulatively over 3 years for 

more than 100 projects covering over 35,000 acres 

of public lands.50

Early initiatives such as the Gerber Stew project, 

which began in 2004 in south-central Oregon, 

that the BLM was failing to meet the 1995 RMP 

goals in that the sustainable timber harvest fell 

considerably below projections and the economic 

benefits were lacking. The BLM agreed that the 

RMPs needed revision.

The six plan revisions covered some 2.6 million 

acres of public lands in a 25-million-acre area 

spanning 18 counties. The majority of these 

BLM lands were timberlands interspersed in a 

checkerboard pattern with other land ownerships. 

The O&C Lands Act of 1937 covered most of the 

BLM-managed lands. 

The BLM convened an interagency team to oversee 

the plan revisions. The team helped create GIS 

spatial models at regional scales to help establish 

plan alternatives and monitoring protocols. The 

BLM involved resource specialists, scientists, legal 

experts, and several cooperating agencies, including 

four federal agencies; the Coquille Indian Tribe; 

17 O&C counties; and 10 Oregon state agencies in 

one of the most comprehensive planning efforts 

in BLM history. The BLM completed the Western 

Oregon Plan Revisions on schedule in December 

2008, weeks before the change in administration. 

The plan revisions adjusted late-successional and 

riparian management areas, primarily decreasing 

them, based on the latest recovery planning efforts 

and critical habitat designations for the spotted 

owl and aquatic species. The comprehensive GIS 

data, coupled with sophisticated models, allowed 

the scientists to design northern spotted owl 

management areas that had a higher probability 

than those in the Northwest Forest Plan of 

providing suitable habitat in the future. The record 

of decision for the plan revisions identified a timber 

harvest level of 502 million board feet (as compared 

demonstrated the promise of stewardship 

contracting. Over 10 years, the project would 

treat 10,000 acres to improve forest and woodland 

health, improve rangeland health, reduce hazardous 

fuels in the wildland–urban interface, improve 

wildlife and fisheries habitat, and enhance riparian 

areas. In its first 3 years, with 1,500 acres under 

contract, the project resulted in the sale of 

750 million board feet of timber and 15,000 tons 

of biomass for energy development.51

In Cañon City, Colorado, the BLM awarded 

stewardship contracts in 2005 that reduced fuels 

on the wildland–urban interface, improved forest 

health, and enhanced wildlife habitat. Additionally, 

the contracts produced 3,000 tons of biomass and 

235,000 board feet of saw timber, providing woody 

biomass to Aquila Power and logs to local sawmills. 

The Aquila plant had generated 730 megawatts of 

electricity in 2004 using woody biomass and hoped 

to expand their use of biomass to 10 percent 

by 2015.52

The Bureau Revises

Its Western Oregon Plans

Overall, timber sales were still in decline during 

the 2000s. On the O&C lands in the Northwest, 

the BLM was not meeting the timber harvest goals 

of the Northwest Forest Plan because of continued 

litigation over timber sales. Consequently, in 

2001, the American Forest Resource Council, the 

Association of O&C Counties, and organized labor 

filed motions to advance a suit against the BLM 

that they had initially filed when the Northwest 

Forest Plan became final. In 2003, a settlement 

agreement required the BLM to revise its six RMPs 

for western Oregon, replacing the Northwest Forest 

Plan as it pertained to BLM-managed lands. The 

BLM was to complete the revisions by the end of 

2008 and include alternatives that complied with 

the Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management

decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 

1990. At least one alternative was to consider no 

reserves except as needed to protect listed species 

under the Endangered Species Act.

Concurrent with settlement negotiations, the BLM 

completed an evaluation of the 1995 Northwest 

Forest Plan-based RMPs. That evaluation revealed 

Forest in Oregon.

to 203 million board feet under the Northwest 

Forest Plan). It protected the majority of significant 

older and structurally complex forests within latesuccessional management areas. It also deferred 

timber harvest from most of the remaining older 

forest (stands older than 160 years) through 2023 

to support owl recovery efforts and allow time 

for scientists to study the interaction between the 

northern spotted owl and the invasive barred owl.53

Within a month of the BLM’s release of the Western 

Oregon Plan Revisions, conservation groups 

filed suits alleging that the BLM failed to consult 

adequately with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and National Marine Fisheries Service over its 

plan revisions as required under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. The BLM had determined 

that the plans would have no effect on listed species 

and that consultation would take place at the 

project level, where it could analyze site-specific 

effects. The timber industry also challenged the 

Western Oregon Plan Revisions in court, saying 

that they did not comply with procedural acts 

and the O&C Act of 1937. By this time, a new 

administration had taken office, which added yet 

another chapter to the story of western Oregon 

forest management in the BLM. 

The Secretary Announces

the Healthy Lands Initiative

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced the 

Healthy Lands Initiative in 2007 to “improve the 

health and productivity of public lands in today’s 

fast-changing West,” where “demand for public 

land uses and resources is at an all-time high.”54

The initiative primarily focused on areas where 

energy development intersected with important 

wildlife habitat.

Northern spotted owl. 

Barred owl. 
98 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 99

That year, Secretary

Kempthorne allocated 

$3 million for immediate

on-the-ground restoration

work. The Department

leveraged its Healthy Lands

Initiative funding with

millions of dollars’ worth of

in-kind and monetary

contributions from state and

local governments, the

Natural Resources

Habitat Assessments

Take a Landscape Approach

As it was addressing landscape-level restoration 

efforts, the BLM also began looking at habitat 

conditions across entire landscapes. The approach 

emphasized conservation activities that could 

reduce the effects of widespread habitat stressors 

that crossed jurisdictional boundaries, such as 

invasive species or climate change. 

These activities required working closely with 

partners, and the BLM strengthened its ties to many 

partner organizations, including state fish and game 

agencies. States completed their state wildlife action 

plans, which Congress requested to outline the 

steps needed to conserve wildlife and habitat before 

they become more rare and more costly to protect. 

The BLM staff worked with the states to implement 

measures on public lands.

Protecting Species at Risk Becomes a Priority

Increasingly, large numbers of at-risk species 

depend on public lands for crucial habitat. During 

the early 2000s, the BLM continued developing 

conservation plans for such species and their 

habitats. The most visible of these efforts was the 

BLM’s cooperative effort to conserve the greater 

sage-grouse and the sagebrush habitats it relied 

upon. Although the greater sage-grouse once lived 

Interior Secretary

Dirk Kempthorne.

Conservation Service, private organizations, and 

the energy industry, enabling the BLM to carry out 

landscape-scale conservation work in key areas. The 

effort helped restore millions of acres throughout 

the West by capitalizing on ongoing, locally driven, 

collaborative efforts tailored to local needs. 

One of these locally driven efforts was Restore 

New Mexico, which the BLM launched in 2005 

to reduce invasive and noxious species and allow 

more desirable plants to flourish on the state’s 

landscapes. Utah’s Watershed Restoration Initiative, 

a collaborative effort of the Utah Partners for 

Conservation and Development, which includes 

14 state and federal natural resource agencies and a 

wide complement of private groups, also benefited 

from Healthy Lands Initiative funding, as did the 

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative. 

Additionally, the Healthy Lands Initiative funded 

partnerships in Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, and 

Nevada. This work started to build a foundation 

for a new approach to managing vast landscapes 

across jurisdictions.

Restore New Mexico: A Model for the Nation | By Jesse Juen

Seven years ago, a program was launched that would change the history 

of land management in New Mexico and the nation. A vision to work with 

partners in restoring degraded landscapes across the state became action and, 

with 2 million acres restored since 2005, results on a historic scale.

Partners under the Restore New Mexico initiative started with an 

ambitious goal: to pool their resources to restore hundreds of thousands of 

acres of land each year within priority watersheds, regardless of land ownership, 

leading to the restoration of landscapes to their full ecological potential. By 

“restoration” we mean soils, native vegetation, groundwater supplies, and 

wildlife habitat, not to mention the fabled landscapes of the American West, the 

special places that give us our sustenance and spirit.

Truth be told, we didn’t know if this vision was doable on the scale we 

had hoped for. The bottom line was that we wanted to make a difference; 

everyone interested in restoring land was, and is, welcome to join us. It’s 

only because of the many partners involved in this effort—the BLM, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and other federal and state agencies, 

local communities, soil and water conservation districts, ranchers and other 

individuals, the energy industry, and conservation groups—that we have 

restored so much land. 

As fate would have it, in 2006 the NRCS was piloting an effort to allow the 

use of Environmental Quality Incentives Program funds on federal lands in 

Arizona and New Mexico, provided that these funds were matched by the 

agencies and private landowners within grazing allotments. By 2012, we had 

leveraged almost $10 million in contributions toward these efforts with more 

than 350 partners. 

Our motto has always been “Git R Done!” We have made tremendous 

strides in the amount of acreage treated, however, the restoration is not always 

immediate—sometimes it takes 3-6 years to see results. And there are still 

another 3.5 million acres in New Mexico that could use some sort of restoration 

work, such as thinning of overgrown forests; reductions in mesquite, creosote, 

and salt cedar; and reclamation of abandoned oil fields. 

Energy companies are implementing voluntary conservation measures 

and best management practices in their operations. In 2009, the BLM and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pioneered the use of cooperative conservation 

agreements on public lands leased for oil and gas development or livestock 

grazing to implement conservation measures for the lesser prairie-chicken and 

sand dune lizard, which are both candidates for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

So, what does the future hold? We will continue to expand restoration and 

reclamation efforts and recruit partners to join us. Our ground rules are simple: 

we’re not playing a blame game, identifying which group was responsible for 

damaging what landscape. Neither is Restore New Mexico an ideological or 

political undertaking; it is a historic effort that will continue for the long term 

because of the substantial benefits it creates for the citizens of New Mexico and 

the nation. 

Jesse Juen retired as the BLM’s state director for New Mexico in 2015. Prior to that, he was a wildlife biologist, a field manager, and the group manager for

national conservation areas and national monuments within BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System office in Washington, DC.

After mesquite treatment

in the same area.

in 10 western states, by the early 21st century, 

it occupied only about half of its historic range. 

Almost three-quarters of the remaining sagebrush 

habitat occur on lands managed by federal or 

state agencies; the BLM manages about half of the 

remaining sagebrush habitats in the United States. 

The greater sage-grouse has experienced extensive 

habitat loss throughout the 20th century. More 

recently, habitat loss and fragmentation has 

occurred from energy development (both oil 

and gas and renewable energy projects), roads, 

transmission lines, and other human-made 

structures; invasive plants such as cheatgrass; and 

wildland fires. 

In 2002, the BLM launched a national habitat 

conservation strategy for the sage-grouse, focusing 

on research to better understand the threats to the 

species and partnerships to maintain, enhance, 

and restore its habitat. Under the umbrella of the 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 

the BLM worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, U.S. Forest Service, and state wildlife 

agencies to develop the “Greater Sage-Grouse 

Comprehensive Conservation Strategy,” which was 

used to coordinate habitat conservation efforts 

from regional to local scales. In addition, the BLM 

made sage-grouse conservation a priority in its fire 

program and the Great Basin Restoration Initiative. 

Wyoming Develops a Strategy

for Sage-Grouse Conservation

and Energy Development

Wyoming became the focus of 

concerted conservation efforts for sage-grouse in 

light of increased energy development and the fact 

that the state supported about 40 percent of the 

entire population of greater sage-grouse. The BLM 

managed about 8 million acres of key habitat while 

also managing the development of vast federal 

energy resources in much of the state. 

In 2006, Wyoming Governor David Freudenthal 

met with BLM and Department of the Interior 

representatives to discuss sage-grouse conservation 

throughout the state. Governor Freudenthal 

established a team that included representatives 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM, 

landowners, industry, and conservationists to 

gather information on the species and develop a 

strategy to conserve it. 

The strategy, implemented by an executive order 

from Governor Freudenthal, identified priority 

habitat areas that would provide high-density 

breeding, brood-rearing, and other seasonal 

habitats. The goal within these areas was to 

maintain current populations of sage-grouse by 

limiting or prohibiting activities that could cause 

habitat loss or fragmentation. 

The scale of this effort was historic, according to 

the BLM’s Wyoming State Director, Don Simpson, 

who noted that the approach would protect more 

than 80 percent of sage-grouse in the core areas. 

The BLM’s Wyoming State Office subsequently 

adopted the state’s plan in support of the state’s 

management objectives.

Lewistown Field Office employees tagging fences

to make them more visible to greater sage-grouse.

White fence markers help 

greater sage-grouse avoid 

collisions with fences. Photo by

Tom Koerner, USFWS.

Greater sage-grouse hen.

Before mesquite treatment

near Roswell, New Mexico.
100 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 101

New Plans Protects Aquatic Species

The BLM also aligned its fish habitat conservation 

program with the “National Fish Habitat Action 

Plan,” a nonregulatory, locally driven cooperative 

effort to focus on fish habitat throughout the 

nation. The plan evolved out of the National Fish 

Habitat Initiative, created in 2001 through the 

Looking Beyond the Strutting Grounds: Changing the Way the BLM Manages Wildlife Habitat | By Dale Tribby

Historically, when BLM biologists assessed impacts to wildlife from oil and gas authorizations on 

public lands, they rarely look beyond the local impact an individual action had on a particular species or 

habitat. Most mitigation measures had likewise been designed and applied well by well. Cumulative 

impacts were assessed no further than the border of the field, and mitigation was rarely applied across a 

landscape, such as an entire oil and gas field or wildlife home range. 

At the turn of the 21st century, in the Powder River Basin, coalbed natural gas development was 

rapidly progressing from Wyoming into Montana. BLM biologists were beginning to question the effects 

of coalbed natural gas development on wildlife, and in particular, on sage-grouse. This was based on a 

known decline of sage-grouse populations throughout their range, and BLM biologists had documented 

a greater rate of decline of sage-grouse populations in and around areas of oil and gas development.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress designated several BLM “Energy Act” pilot offices, 

including the Miles City (Montana) and Buffalo (Wyoming) Field Offices. These offices received 

significant funding for analysis, permit processing, research, and monitoring. The funding came at 

a time when the sage-grouse population in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin was in 

decline, and the Buffalo Field Office sought to investigate relationships between energy development 

and the sage-grouse population. 

With little development having yet occurred within the Montana portion of the Powder River 

Basin, the Miles City Field Office saw an opportunity for a more holistic look at the impact of energy 

development throughout a landscape. The Montana portion of the Powder River Basin had little BLM 

surface acreage, and although a large portion of the mineral estate was federally owned, all sites had 

little existing wildlife resource data. How was the BLM going to gather all the needed wildlife data, and 

once this information was collected, how was the development going to be managed?

Existing resource management plans (RMPs) provided inadequate protections for sage-grouse, 

especially at what was quickly being recognized as a species in need of landscape-level management. 

As greater sage-grouse populations were declining across their range, there were petitions to list 

the sage-grouse as endangered, and the public was becoming increasingly aware of the sagegrouse’s plight. 

The BLM’s Miles City wildlife biologist, Larry Rau, along with the former BLM Montana/

Dakotas wildlife program lead, Roxanne Falise, pursued the idea of a landscape-level look at energy 

development. They recognized the need for a new set of oil and gas stipulations because the existing 

stipulations were not providing adequate protections. Concurrently, the BLM’s Buffalo wildlife biologists, 

Larry Gerard and Thomas Bills, were looking for partners to research energy impacts on sage-grouse. 

There was little support for this until the U.S. Department of Energy offered funding opportunities for 

agencies to evaluate impacts of energy development. Rau submitted an application for $300,000 with 

the hope of taking a “landscape” approach. This approach had not been tested previously, and in the 

view of many, the age-old approach of looking at impacts project by project was sufficient.

Undeterred, the proponents pursued their landscape-level idea and contacted Dr. David Naugle, a 

new professor at the University of Montana. Naugle had experience studying landscape-level impacts 

on grassland birds in South Dakota. Intrigued by the BLM’s idea, he expressed interest in the project and 

ultimately used science to help formulate solutions. Two Ph.D. students, Brett Walker and Kevin Doherty, 

joined the team.

Although building a coalition progressed slowly, BLM wildlife biologists in both Montana and 

Wyoming saw the value and the implications of this research. Eventually, other agencies joined in, as 

did several industry and nongovernmental organizations. Naugle was an expert at leveraging limited 

funds needed to meet the financial demands of research of this magnitude. Through Naugle’s work, 

his students, and personnel from the BLM, support and understanding started to build. Naugle and his 

students rarely missed an opportunity to tell their story. The research clearly illustrated that impacts to 

sage-grouse populations must be analyzed at a much larger (landscape) level than the traditional wellby-well approach. Presentations and peer-reviewed papers explained the landscape needs of greater 

sage-grouse and the subsequent need to manage species at a landscape level. 

This initial effort in the Powder River Basin spawned a new understanding and approach to wildlife 

research. In addition, the approach for managing sage-grouse habitats, as well as other wildlife habitats 

such as crucial big game winter ranges, has changed. Land use planning documents today reflect 

landscape-level management. The knowledge about impacts to greater sage-grouse has progressed 

from looking at the basic biology of the birds to research at a landscape level. Using this science and 

incorporating geographic information system technology, the BLM, in cooperation with its many 

partners, has moved toward identifying priority habitat for greater sage-grouse and other species 

of concern.

Dale Tribby was the lead wildlife biologist in the Miles City Field Office in Montana until his retirement in 2015. Previously he served as the assistant field manager for renewable resources.

Greater sage-grouse male

on BLM land in Montana.

Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, 

and the BLM modeled it after the “North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan.” The BLM joined 

the Federal Caucus to develop and implement 

the action plan and became an active participant 

in at least nine partnerships, including those for 

desert fish, western native trout, and southwest 

Alaska salmon. In 2008, the BLM joined the 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and its 

Western Regional Panel to address aquatic invasive 

species threatening BLM-managed waters. BLM 

state and field offices worked with their respective 

state agencies to address local concerns, provide 

educational materials, implement comprehensive 

state plans, and take on control projects such as 

eradicating the bullfrog in the Yellowstone River. 

Fishing the Delta River in Alaska.
102 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 103

The Bureau Implements Plant

and Soil Conservation Efforts

After the severe wildfire seasons at the start of 

the century, the BLM faced huge restoration 

and rehabilitation challenges requiring massive 

amounts of seed and native plant materials. In 2001, 

Congress directed the BLM to develop a longterm program to manage and supply native plant 

materials for various federal land management 

agencies. As an outgrowth of this directive, the 

Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Program 1992-2011 | By Lori Cook

saved partner funds while providing hands-on, military-related training. 

Multiple generations now use these facilities regularly. Fishing season never 

ends in this water! The bounty has since entertained and fed countless 

Americans, while giving them a deeper appreciation for our priceless 

aquatic resources.

Meanwhile, the partners pioneered the art of rearing endangered fish 

and stocking them in native waters. The endangered razorback sucker and 

bonytail chub are two fish endemic to this dramatically altered river system. 

Both are known as big river fish, reaching lengths of 2 to 3 feet at maturity. 

They were historically the most abundant fish in this system. Federal and 

state cooperators stocked these species for many years, but mature specimens 

were never recovered, likely due to heavy predation. The task for the partners 

was to raise these fish to 12 inches in length to minimize predation. Through 

trial, error, and refinement, they eventually discovered a method that 

was successful.

Program goals were met between 2001 and 2004, with positive 

social, economic, and environmental results. Lake Havasu angler use and 

satisfaction increased substantially, and fishing remains the top tourist 

attraction. The lake now has one of the largest razorback populations in the 

river basin. Environmentally, the fish serve as our most efficient waterquality monitor.

A 2001 economic survey concluded that sportfishing on Lake Havasu 

was worth more than $38 million per year to the local economy. Ultimately, 

program goals were accomplished at a cost substantially below the estimated 

cost, and local annual fishing revenues have brought in essentially double 

what the program costs. Volunteers have contributed nearly 250,000 hours. 

Yet, the local population, which has doubled over the past two decades, 

continues to grow, and user demands have increased proportionally. Stress 

on the system is difficult to measure. Invasive species have added a new 

wrinkle to managing the system. 

The BLM continues cooperative leadership with its partners, volunteers, 

anglers, and lake users to satisfy a mutual conservation mission. Volunteers 

continue to contribute an average of 9,000 hours each year. A former 

program leader used to say, “This is not so much a fish program as it is a 

people program.” The vast majority of stakeholders are pleased and proud of 

what the Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Partnership has accomplished.

Lori Cook was a public affairs specialist for the Yuma Field Office in Arizona prior to her retirement. She began

her BLM career in 1989 and worked as a staff assistant, purchasing agent, and budget analyst.

Boating recreation on Lake Havasu in Arizona.

Lake Havasu volunteers helping

BLM improve fish habitat.

BLM entered into a partnership with the Kew Royal 

Botanic Gardens of the United Kingdom in 2001 to 

collect, conserve, and develop native plant materials 

for stabilizing, rehabilitating, and restoring lands in 

the United States.

The program, called Seeds of Success, quickly 

expanded to include botanic gardens, arboreta, 

zoos, and municipalities all over the United States. 

Seeds of Success teams collected seeds from across 

the country, sharing a common protocol and 

coordinating seed collecting and species 

targeting efforts. Seeds of Success became a 

vital part of the BLM’s Native Plant Materials 

Development Program.

To further its plant conservation efforts, the 

BLM also launched the Conservation and Land 

Management Internship Program with the Chicago 

Botanic Garden in 2001. Interns worked on a 

variety of botany- or wildlife-related projects, 

including Seeds of Success projects. 

Collecting Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda) in Wyoming.

Fishing pier at Mesquite Bay

on Lake Havasu.

The lower Colorado River region is a unique desert environment. Over 

the past century, this environment has been influenced by dams, canals, 

agriculture, suburbia, and a water-oriented recreation industry that rivals 

others throughout the country. 

Lake Havasu is a 25-mile-long reservoir that filled in 1942. It forms the 

border between Arizona and California and is a primary water distribution 

source for 25 million Americans. The lake created a treasured sport fishery 

that began to decline in the 1970s. As communities grew, so did fishing 

pressure. Good shoreline fishing became harder to find, and native fish 

were disappearing.

Around 1990, the Lake Havasu community began searching for longterm solutions. The BLM, as the administrator of the majority of the shoreline 

and the reservoir bottom, recognized the need for a solution and assembled 

stakeholders. Since 1992, the BLM has led a group of seven Department of 

the Interior, state, and private partners, assisted by hundreds of volunteers 

and other interests, in implementing the Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement 

Program. The program aimed to improve and sustain the productivity and 

diversity of the fishery and enhance public access to it. The partners set three 

fundamental goals: (1) install 875 acres of artificial aquatic habitat structure 

in 42 separate coves, (2) construct at least six barrier-free public shoreline 

angling facilities, and (3) augment the populations of two endangered fish 

species by 30,000 fish each.

The partners implemented a 10-year plan at an estimated cost of 

$28.5 million. They developed and equipped two independent shoreline 

worksites at opposite ends of the lake. Volunteers built a variety of “reef” 

structures composed primarily of construction-grade plastics or recycled 

wood products with concrete bases for anchors.

These structures were installed from the deck of a large pontoon boat, 

giving a whole new meaning to the term “range improvements.” Crews 

began filling Arizona and California coves with habitat structures, working 

toward the middle of the lake. This adaptive process was geared toward 

optimizing the durability, performance, and cost-effectiveness of bass, 

crappie, bluegill, and catfish habitat. 

As work progressed, public docks with amenities were constructed. All 

sites were barrier free, fully accessible, and free of charge. Typical amenities 

included parking, interpretative signs, landscaping, restrooms, and benches. 

Marine and Navy reservists constructed several of these facilities. Their work 
104 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 105

The Bureau Focuses on Healthy, 

Sustainable Rangelands

As the new century dawned, Secretary Babbitt 

looked back at “Rangeland Reform ‘94” in an 

address to the resource advisory councils and noted 

that he did not harbor “any illusions that we’ve, 

once and for all, reached a grand consensus about 

an issue that has been plagued with controversy 

for the last century.” “Yet,” he added, “Look at 

the successes, where we’ve really made a visible 

difference, and just ask yourself, ‘Can’t we make 

The Native Plant Materials Development Program and Seeds of Success | By Peggy Olwell

The BLM is the largest native seed buyer in the Western Hemisphere, purchasing 

more than 11 million pounds of native seed between 2004 and 2008 for fire rehabilitation, 

reclamation, and restoration projects. Due to inadequate supplies of commercially 

available native seed, often the BLM must also use nonnative seed, purchasing 6.6 million 

pounds during the same time period. There is a critical conservation need to develop 

sources for native plant materials for use in the American landscape, and the BLM is 

uniquely situated to lead this effort. 

Good stewardship of our land is closely connected to the diversity of native plant 

communities in healthy ecosystems that function to support wildlife and enhance the 

quality of life for many people. Native plant communities are being affected not only by 

climate change, but also by wildfire, urban expansion, recreation, energy development, 

and nonnative plant invasion. 

The Native Plant Materials Development Program (NPMDP) was created by Congress 

in 2001 after the severe wildfire seasons of 1999 and 2000. In fiscal year 2001, the House 

of Representatives’ conference report tasked the BLM with developing an interagency, 

long-term program to manage and supply native plant materials for federal land 

management agencies. The Plant Conservation Alliance, a consortium of 10 federal 

agencies and more than 285 nonfederal partners, coordinates this effort. The NPMDP’s 

mission is to ensure that sufficient plant materials are commercially available to maintain 

the natural landscapes on federal lands, which includes ensuring that enough native seed 

is available for emergency stabilization and rehabilitation after severe wildfire seasons. 

To this end, NPMDP works to build capacity among federal agencies and private sector 

partners for 1,000 native species in the form of ecologically appropriate native seed.

Native plants, like food crops, take an average of 10–20 years to develop as 

consistent, reliable, commercially available species. There are many steps in the process 

of developing a stable crop from wild species. This process consists of native wildland 

seed collection, evaluation and development, field establishment, and seed production by 

private growers. The BLM is also working to increase seed storage capacity so that native plant 

materials are ready for restoration and rehabilitation projects. Additionally, higher seed storage 

capacity helps to stabilize the native seed market so that bulk purchases may be made and stored 

in advance of unanticipated events such as large wildfires.

Since wildland native seed collections are the foundation of native plant materials 

development, the BLM has taken a leadership role in creating the Seeds of Success (SOS) program. 

SOS, the United States’ national native seed collection program, is collecting seed from native 

wildland populations across the entire geographic ranges of the species to maximize the genetic 

diversity available in the native plant materials development process. SOS started with just the 

BLM in the western states and later expanded its partnerships across the country, with more 

than 60 teams making about 15,000 native seed collections since 2001. Seeds collected through 

SOS are divided into two groups for storage with the Agricultural Research Service in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. One part of the seed is in short-term storage and is used as a 

working collection for current research in the development of native plant crops. The other part of 

the seed is in long-term conservation storage for future use, if necessary. 

Seed collection is just the beginning of a challenging development process. The complexity 

and large scope of work requires that the development of native plant materials be a cooperative 

effort involving federal, state, and tribal agencies; the commercial seed industry; and the 

plant research and restoration communities. Sharing knowledge, skills, and resources through 

partnerships is key to the success of NPMDP. Because of this, the BLM works with over 

500 partners, including 118 private industry partners and 22 tribal agencies. The ultimate goal is 

to provide quality native plant materials for restoring native plant communities. 

All land managers want to maximize the chances for successful restoration and minimize 

the possibility of putting materials into a project site where they would have deleterious effects. 

By promoting all the steps of the process, the NPMDP is ensuring that native plant communities 

continue to thrive on all public lands.

Peggy Olwell is the plant conservation program manager for the BLM in Washington, DC. She is also the chair of the Plant Conservation Alliance’s Federal Native Plant Committee.

Student 

Conservation 

Association 

team collecting 

spiny 

greenbush 

seed in 

Oregon.

Standard rangeland drill reengineered by the 

Truax Company to improve planting technology for 

rugged western terrain.

the success the standard everywhere?’ If we could 

do that all across the country, with your efforts, 

I think we’ll be able to look to the people in the 

United States and say: ‘You know, grazing is good 

for communities; it’s absolutely compatible with the 

health and diversity of the western landscape.’”55

The incoming Bush administration likewise 

believed that grazing was fully compatible with 

the health and diversity of the public lands and 

that it was important to the viability of western 

communities and the nation’s economy. The new 

administration realized, however, that greater 

flexibility would be required to allow ranchers to 

play a broader role in range management decisions, 

particularly with respect to conservation objectives.

The Secretary Proposes a New Grazing Rule

In early 2003, under the banner of “Sustaining 

Working Landscapes,” the BLM launched a 

two-pronged approach to changes in grazing 

management involving both administrative 

policy changes and more fundamental regulatory 

Cattle grazing in San Simon Valley, Arizona.

Native plant 

materials and 

greenhouse 

facilities 

developed in 

partnership with 

the ShoshoneBannock and 

Shoshone-Paiute 

Tribes.

Grass raised

from seed in the

Columbia Basin by

Benson Farms, which now produces over

90 ecotypes of grasses and forbs annually.
106 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 107

changes. Then, in December 2003, Interior 

Secretary Norton unveiled a proposed new grazing 

rule that would reverse or amend some of the 

changes made under “Rangeland Reform ‘94.” 

While the new rule provided greater flexibility 

for ranchers’ participation in range management 

decisionmaking, it kept Secretary Babbitt’s land 

health standards and the role of the resource 

advisory councils in place.56

The BLM continued to focus on working with 

ranchers to meet, or make progress toward meeting, 

the land health standards developed in consultation 

with local resource advisory councils. Standards 

addressed watershed function, ecological processes, 

water quality, and threatened and endangered 

species habitat. The BLM attempted to assess 

the condition of 160 million acres of rangelands 

(154 million acres in grazing allotments), a timeconsuming process. Interdisciplinary teams 

assessed the biological integrity, soil stability, and 

hydrologic functioning of uplands and the proper 

functioning condition of riparian areas. The 

focus was on trends and sampling; the BLM did 

relief, but the backlog continued throughout the 

decade, despite significant progress. The BLM 

had to direct resources toward addressing the 

permit backlog instead of devoting them to range 

health issues. 

For ranchers, the permit backlog stress 

compounded the stress from an extended drought 

that resulted in reductions in grazing use in many 

areas from 2002 through 2004. In fiscal year 2005, 

due to drought and fires, livestock operations used 

about 6.8 million of the 12.7 million animal unit 

months of forage available under their permits. 

During this time, the BLM continued to work 

toward a more streamlined approach to permit 

administration while focusing attention on 

promoting healthy sustainable rangelands. 

The Wild Horse and Burro Program 

Reaches a Critical Crossroads

The challenge presented to the BLM with passage 

of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act 

of 1971, which seemed formidable even then, had 

only grown more daunting in the intervening years. 

By the year 2000, the overall wild horse and burro 

population had grown from 25,345 in 1971 to more 

than 48,000, far exceeding the upper limit of the 

appropriate management level of 27,379.62 The BLM 

launched a 4-year strategy to remove more horses, 

with the goal of reaching the upper limit of the 

appropriate management level by 2005.

Emergency gathers to rescue animals from 

drought and wildfires and a continued decline 

in adoptions resulted in a sharp increase in the 

number of animals in holding. The lack of facilities 

to hold more animals forced the BLM to revise its 

not inventory every acre. There was no national 

template for an allotment. The BLM could permit 

hundreds of thousands of acres to one individual 

or, as was more likely in its checkerboard 

ownership pattern, could divide 40,000 acres into 

100 allotments for 100 individual ranchers. 

By the end of 2005, the BLM had evaluated almost 

half of all allotments, and 78 percent were meeting 

all rangeland health standards. About 17 percent 

were not meeting at least one standard because 

of current livestock grazing management, and 

the BLM made adjustments on most of those 

allotments. The remaining 5 percent of allotments 

were not meeting at least one standard due to 

other factors. 

In 2006, the BLM completed a 3-year review of 

the proposed new grazing rule, during which it 

considered 8,000 public comments, along with 

concerns expressed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service over potential impacts to fish and wildlife 

species and habitat. The BLM published final 

grazing regulations in July and they took effect 

in August.

Soon after the regulations took effect, the Western 

Watersheds Project and a coalition of groups led 

by the Idaho Conservation League filed lawsuits 

in U.S. District Court in Idaho, claiming that the 

rulemaking process violated NEPA, the Endangered 

Species Act, and FLPMA. The court ruled in favor 

of the plaintiffs on the NEPA and Endangered 

Species Act claims. Based on the court’s decisions, 

the BLM directed field offices to continue to 

use the 1995 regulations, with the exception of 

conservation use permitting provisions. 57 The 

Wyoming District Court enjoined these provisions 

in 1996, and the Tenth Circuit Court affirmed that 

ruling in 1999.58 A subsequent appeal to the Ninth 

Circuit Court filed by the Public Lands Council and 

American Farm Bureau Federation resulted in the 

district’s judgment being vacated and remanded for 

further consideration of the FLPMA claims.59

Thus, the court’s decision prevented the BLM from 

using the tools provided by the 2006 regulations 

to administer grazing permitting. However, in 

late 2007, to reduce the processing time needed to 

authorize grazing use where grazing is compatible 

with maintaining healthy lands, the BLM 

established a new provision (known as a categorical 

exclusion) that exempted continued livestock use 

of such lands from detailed NEPA analysis.60 This, 

too, led to a Western Watershed Project lawsuit, 

which claimed that use of this categorical exclusion 

to satisfy NEPA requirements was illegal. To help 

settle that lawsuit, the BLM discontinued use of the 

categorical exclusion in 2009.61

Permit Backlogs Converge with Other Stresses

The BLM authorizes livestock grazing on public 

lands through a permit system and renews grazing 

permits issued under FLPMA every 10 years. The 

BLM usually averages about 2,000 renewals in a 

typical year; however, from 1999 through 2000, 

about 7,200 of the 18,000 total permits came due. 

This flood of permit renewals converged with 

a change in policy that required preparation of 

NEPA documents to analyze site-specific grazing 

effects and the initiation of land health evaluations, 

creating a crushing workload. 

The BLM was unable to issue all of the permits in 

a timely manner, and a backlog soon developed. 

The BLM devoted much staff time to addressing 

the backlog and Congress provided administrative 

Measuring

grazing

utilization.

targets and set a new goal of getting midway to the 

appropriate management level by 2006. In 2007, the 

BLM managed 33,100 wild horses and burros on 

199 herd management areas. By 2008, the BLM had 

nearly reached its goal of bringing wild horse and 

burro populations into balance with the appropriate 

management level.63 It estimated herd populations 

to be only about 1,000 animals over the target.

The strategy of accelerating gathers resulted in 

removing more than 74,000 horses and burros from 

the range between 2001 and 2008. Adoptions were 

still in decline, likely due in part to a long-term 

drought and increased hay prices. The BLM only 

adopted or sold about 46,400 animals, and by 2007, 

adoptions were down by 36 percent from the levels 

of the 1990s.64 From 2001 to 2008, the number of 

animals being held in facilities increased by more 

than 9,000 to a total exceeding 30,000.65

In October 2008, the Government Accountability 

Office issued the findings and conclusions of an 

extensive review of the BLM’s wild horse and burro 

program. The report countered the continuing 

charges of some wild horse activists that the BLM 

was ignoring the welfare of the animals.

“BLM has implemented multiple controls to help 

ensure the humane treatment of wild horses and 

burros, including standard operating procedures, 

random checks on adopted horses, and agreements 

with buyers to help prevent slaughter. For gathers, 

it has established standard operating procedures 

and reporting systems to help ensure humane 

treatment,” the report stated.66

The Government Accountability Office determined 

that the BLM had also made significant progress 

toward achieving appropriate management levels. 

BLM specialist working with a wild horse at the Wyoming Honor Farm.

However, the report noted that declining adoptions 

and limited alternatives for dealing with the 

growing number of animals being removed “have 

resulted in the agency managing almost the same 

number of animals off of the range as they manage 

in the wild.”

“Within the program’s existing budget, BLM cannot 

afford to care for all of the animals off the range, 

while at the same time managing wild horse and 

burro populations on the range,” the Government 

Accountability Office stated.

The report presented a series of recommendations 

to the Secretary of the Interior. One of the 

recommendations was that the BLM issue the “Wild 

Horses and Burros Management Handbook” it had 

drafted to standardize policy for setting appropriate 

management levels. The report also recommended 

that the BLM continue to develop and employ 

methods of estimating herd populations; maintain 

a central database on the number of animals killed 

or harmed during gathers; and consider ways to 
108 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 109

improve public access to information on animals 

gathered, maintained in holding facilities, and 

adopted. In addition, the report recommended 

that the BLM develop cost-effective alternatives to 

long-term holding and seek legislative authority for 

those alternatives.

A final recommendation of the Government 

Accountability Office report concerned a far more 

politically sensitive aspect of the wild horse and 

burro program: 

“BLM has committed to caring for these 

animals, even though the law requires 

their humane destruction or sale without 

limitation and the cost for their care off-therange is now overwhelming the program. 

The program is at a critical crossroads. 

Within the program’s existing budget, BLM 

cannot afford to care for all of the animals off 

the range, while at the same time managing 

wild horse and burro populations on the 

range. Resource limitations are forcing BLM 

to reconsider all available management 

options, and a workable solution must be 

developed to bring BLM into compliance 

with the act.”67

To resolve this dilemma, the report recommended 

that the BLM discuss options, with Congress and 

other stakeholders, for complying with the law 

or changing the law and for disposing of excess, 

unadoptable animals through unlimited sale or 

“humane destruction.” The BLM’s position was 

not to use its authority for such disposal methods, 

as they do not represent the public’s preferences 

for wild horses. The BLM continues to work on 

a strategy to address the issue in a more 

acceptable way.

Terror Comes to the High Desert: BLM Wild Horse and Burro Corrals Are Firebombed | By Joseph Fontana

The BLM’s Litchfield Wild Horse and Burro Corrals, constructed shortly after passage of the Wild and 

Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act, are nestled in a quiet and remote sagebrush-covered plain at the 

base of the Skedaddle Mountains in California’s Lassen County. It’s a peaceful setting in the high, cold 

desert along the California-Nevada border, yet it has been rocked over the years by attacks from those 

who violently oppose the BLM’s management of wild horses and burros.

BLM wranglers, who each day care for up to 1,000 animals, have been resilient in dealing with the 

aftermath of these attacks, which have included fence vandalism and arson. An incident in the fall of 

2001, only a month after the devastating terror attacks of September 11, was different. This time, the 

attack had the signature of an ecoterror organization.

On the morning of October 15, the crew was heading back to Litchfield after spending the weekend 

near California’s state capitol, where about 4,000 Californians attended a BLM festival celebrating the 

30th anniversary of the Wild and Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act. Nearly 80 mustangs and burros 

were adopted. Festivalgoers posed for photos with trained wild horses and burros. They enjoyed music, 

games, and food. It was a true family festival, a rousing success, and the BLM crew started the 200-mile 

drive home in high spirits.

The morning phone call quashed the mood: The corrals were on fire. The highway was closed. Law 

enforcement was on the scene.

Hours before the wranglers hit the road, members of a cell affiliated with the Animal Liberation 

Front (ALF), an organization connected to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), had been at work at the 

corrals. Under the cover of a dark Sunday night, and using knowledge gained in their earlier surveillance 

at Litchfield, five ALF members planted four gasoline-fueled firebombs and set simple electronic timers. 

They cut several perimeter fences. In the predawn hours, one of two devices in the huge haystacks 

detonated, and flames ripped through more than 200 tons of hay and into the dry wooden rafters of the 

pole barns.

As dawn broke, firefighters from multiple agencies arrived to fight what looked like a routine 

haystack fire. They quickly retreated upon discovering three 5-gallon buckets filled with gas and fitted 

with flares and timers. The devices were near the office, the hay, and under the personal pickup truck of 

a BLM employee. 

As a wrangler moved through the corrals to keep horses from running through several cut 

perimeter fences and onto a busy highway, agents from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 

Firearms; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and local law enforcement arrived. Some were on scene; 

others were in constant phone contact. 

A news helicopter from a Sacramento TV station orbited, its pilot unaware that the chopper was 

spooking the horses that had, after all, been gathered by helicopter. BLM’s wrangler was “spooked” as 

well as he hustled to keep the horses from bolting through the gaps in the fences. California Highway 

Patrol officers barricaded U.S. Highway 395, a major route linking the Pacific Northwest to Nevada and 

southern California, and kept the road closed for most of the day while investigators determined how to 

deal with the incendiary devices.

An answer to who may have set the fire came on November 5 in a “communiqué” from the ELF. 

While the date of the fire was incorrect and Litchfield was incorrectly identified, the message said 

the fire was set and fences cut to free animals from captivity and in opposition to “the Bureau of Land 

Management’s continued war against the Earth.”

Because it occurred as the nation reeled from the September 11 attacks, the story quickly gained 

national attention. It became clear that the Litchfield incident was related to other ELF/ALF actions 

in the West, including attacks on energy facilities, tree farms, car dealerships, federal government 

installations, meat packing companies, and other facilities.

The FBI continued its nationwide investigation in an effort dubbed “Operation Backfire.” 

Indictments on charges ranging from terrorism to arson were handed down in 2005 against a group of 

conspirators in these attacks, including the five alleged to have attacked Litchfield.

In June 2007, three Litchfield conspirators were sentenced to prison for their roles in the Litchfield 

arson and other attacks. In 2011, two other suspects who admitted participating in the Litchfield 

attack entered guilty pleas to arson attacks that occurred at the University of Washington during the fall 

of 2001.

Joseph Fontana is the public affairs officer for the BLM’s Northern California District, which stretches from the western edge of the Great Basin to

the ancient Redwoods on the California coast. He worked in community journalism before taking the public affairs position in the BLM. 

BLM’s Litchfield Wild Horse and Burro Corrals in California.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Take the Spotlight

The “Preserve America” Executive Order signed 

by President Bush in 2003 put cultural resources in 

the national spotlight and changed the culture of 

the Department of the Interior. “Preserve America” 

established a policy that federal agencies would 

actively advance the protection, enhancement, 

and contemporary use of historic properties 

owned by the federal government. It instituted 

new accountability standards and promoted 

preservation through heritage tourism. The 

initiative also instituted new recognition programs 

for preservation projects and history teachers. 

Interior Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett cochaired 

the Preserve America Steering Committee with 

John Nau, III, chair of the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation. BLM Director Jim Caswell 

partnered with the advisory council to administer 

the Preserve America Stewards component of the 

program, which recognized volunteer 

preservation organizations. 

In November 2003, the BLM’s cultural heritage 

program released “America’s Priceless Heritage.” 

According to the report, volunteers and partnership 

agreements were adding the cash equivalent of 

$3 million per year to

the BLM’s cultural

heritage program. The

BLM also obtained

outside, nontraditional

funds through state

lotteries and gambling

profits in Colorado

and Arizona as well as

funds from national

sources such as the

Save America’s Treasures program, grants from the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and 

“green sticker” funds paid by off-highway vehicle 

riders. The BLM sponsored site steward programs 

to enlist volunteers to record, patrol, or monitor 

sites in a number of states. 

The BLM also instituted innovative approaches 

to meeting requirements of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. For example, in 2008, the BLM 

Carlsbad Field Office signed the Permian Basin 

Memorandum of Agreement, representing a 

fundamental change to compliance under section 

106 of the act for one of the busiest oil and gas 

fields in the United States. Inspired by the Fruitland 

project in the Farmington Field Office, the BLM 

developed the agreement through a partnership 

with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation 

Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

New Mexico’s professional archaeological and 

energy production communities, and through 

consultation with Native American tribes 

and pueblos. 

Rock art in Ojito Wilderness in New Mexico.
110 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 111

The memorandum of agreement is a voluntary 

mitigation program that uses GIS technology and 

offsite mitigation to address cumulative impacts 

to archaeological resources. It allows energy 

companies to use resources intended for individual, 

sometimes redundant surveys, to fund development 

and management of a more comprehensive 

archaeological record of the 1.1 million-acrearea.68 As of 2012, participants had contributed 

more than $3 million in pooled resources to 

build a comprehensive field program, creating 

a solid foundation for managing the area’s rich 

archaeological resources. 

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 | By Lucia Kuizon

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act signed on March 30, 2009, protected 

millions of acres of public lands, designated thousands of miles of trails, and gave 

permanent status to the National Landscape Conservation System. A less known 

section of the law enacted the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA). More 

than 10 years in the making, this law provides enhanced legal authority for managing 

paleontological resources on public lands. It addresses both fossil collection that requires 

a permit and casual collection without a permit. It recognizes that some fossil finds are 

“national treasures” and that many have immense scientific value. In light of this, the law 

authorizes keeping some locations confidential and provides for prosecution for fossil theft 

and vandalism. 

Fossils are scattered throughout BLM-managed lands in the West. Many 

extraordinary discoveries have been made on these lands, including one of the largest 

dinosaur bone beds in the world at the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry in Utah, the first 

North American Jurassic ankylosaurian dinosaur (Mymoorapelta) from the Mygatt-Moore 

Quarry in Colorado, and one of the most unique dinosaur localities along the Colville River 

area on the North Slope of Alaska. Such discoveries are of interest not only to scientists, but 

also the public, and some, such as the Therizinosaur dinosaur discovered in the Zuni Basin 

area of west-central New Mexico, along with the Zuniceratops, have been featured in the 

Discovery Channel’s “Walking with Dinosaurs” program.

Before the PRPA was passed, the BLM and other agencies charged with managing 

fossils on federal lands were challenged by a lack of adequate authority to prosecute for 

fossil theft and vandalism. Until 1974, federal agencies had authorized vertebrate fossil 

collection permits under the Antiquities Act of 1906. In 1974, the United States Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the term “objects of antiquity” was unconstitutionally 

vague and lacked a definition (United States v. Diaz). As a result, in 1978, the DOI proposed 

to redefine “objects of antiquity” and announced its policy to continue to protect vertebrate 

paleontological resources under the Antiquities Act until further notice of either separate 

“protective legislation or administrative actions under the existing statute.” 

In 1982, the BLM proposed regulations for managing geologic and hobby collecting 

on public lands, including the collecting of fossils. South Dakota Senator Larry Pressler 

placed a “hold” on the regulations and requested that the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) report back to Congress on the issue of paleontological collecting on federal lands. 

The NAS formed a committee of scientists, federal and state government representatives, 

mining representatives, and commercial collectors. 

The final NAS report, “Paleontological Collecting,” was published in 1987 with 

10 recommendations regarding managing and protecting federal paleontological 

resources, including the commercial collection of vertebrate fossils. But administrative 

attempts to develop regulations to protect paleontological resources were challenged by 

the public’s concern about regulations on commercial collecting. 

In 1990, the Tyrannosaurus rex known as “Sue” was found in South Dakota, which set 

off the 20th century “bone wars” between professional paleontologists and commercial 

collectors. The debate focused on the sale of scientifically important fossils before 

they could be properly documented and studied. In 1991, a scientifically significant 

Allosaurus discovery (“Big Al”) in Wyoming was inadvertently almost lost to science by 

an unauthorized excavation on public lands. “Big Al” was the first articulated (i.e., intact 

and almost complete) skeleton of an Allosaurus found in Wyoming and is featured in the 

Discovery Channel’s “Allosaurus: A Walking with Dinosaurs Special.” 

Because of these cases and the controversy surrounding the development of proposed 

regulations, Montana Senator Max Baucus introduced legislation in 1992 to protect 

paleontological resources with scientific value and prohibit commercial collection of 

vertebrate fossils while allowing hobby collecting without a permit. However, the bill had 

no cosponsors and, therefore, died in committee. 

In the late 1990s, however, a series of studies by the National Park Service and 

U.S. Forest Service revealed shocking statistics on the theft of fossils from federal lands. In 

1998, Congress asked the Secretary of the Interior to consult with other agencies and report 

back on “the need for a unified Federal policy on the collection, storage, and preservation 

of these fossils.” The final report, “Fossils on Federal and Indian Lands,” was issued in 2000 

and recommended that future legislation or agency policy for paleontological resources be 

guided by seven principles:

1. Fossils from federal lands are a part of America’s heritage.

2. Most vertebrate fossils are rare.

3. Some invertebrate and plant fossils are rare.

4. Penalties for fossil theft should be strengthened.

5. Effective stewardship requires accurate information.

6. Federal fossil collections should be preserved and available for research and public 

education.

7. Federal fossil management should emphasize opportunities for public 

involvement. 

Meanwhile, the BLM continued to develop its paleontological resources program 

during the 1990s, focusing on permits, planning, confidentiality, and mitigation. By 1993, 

the BLM had hired four regional paleontologists to support the program and, in 1998, 

had issued new policy for paleontological resource management. All of these activities 

proved instrumental in supporting the successful efforts in Congress to protect the nation’s 

irreplaceable paleontological resources.

Lucy Kuizon was 

the national 

paleontologist 

for the BLM in 

Washington, 

DC, until her 

retirement in 2012. 

Her federal career 

spanned more than 

30 years, including 

16 years with the 

BLM, 9 years with 

the Bureau of 

Mines, and 8 years 

with the U.S.

Forest Service.

A bone bed at the Cleveland 

Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry

near Price, Utah.

Paleontological resources were also coming into 

the spotlight. The BLM’s Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur 

Quarry contained the largest concentration of 

fossils from meat-eating dinosaurs ever found. 

Significant fossil discoveries on public lands 

continued to increase. Since 2000, hundreds of 

new dinosaur and other fossil species discoveries 

have occurred within the BLM’s Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument alone. The BLM 

entered into partnerships with numerous museums 

to document and preserve paleontological 

resources and display fossils or replicas for 

educational purposes. However, the BLM struggled 

Managing a Modern Day Fossil Bone Rush | By Alan L. Titus

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) was established 

by Presidential proclamation in September 1996. The proclamation made 

specific reference to “world class” fossil resources of the Late Cretaceous age 

(100 million years to 65 million years ago) in the Kaiparowits Plateau region. 

This “world class” label was based, at that time, primarily on the tiny fossil bones 

and teeth of mammals, fish, lizards, turtles, and frogs recovered by researchers 

in the 1980s and early 1990s. By 1996, the Kaiparowits Plateau had yielded 

only two largely incomplete dinosaur skulls and very little else in the way of 

diagnostic larger fossils. There had been no discoveries that compared to other 

Late Cretaceous dinosaur finds in Canada, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, 

and Texas. 

In May 2000, I was hired to manage GSENM’s paleontology program. The 

basic challenges we faced included obtaining inventory data to define the 

spatial distribution of high-value resources, educating management and interest 

groups about the resources, and protecting the resources. My first priority was 

forming partnerships with institutions having a longstanding intrinsic interest 

in the monument’s resources. The Utah Museum of Natural History, the Utah 

Geological Survey, and the Museum of Northern Arizona all became close 

collaborators in both resource management and research. Combined crews of 

BLM employees and partners were in the field by early 2001. 

Thousands of dinosaur fossil sites have been documented since then, 

including dozens with soft tissue impressions and numerous new species, 

proving that the proclamation’s claim of “world class” sites was more than 

justified. The ever growing list of discoveries includes five new kinds of horned 

dinosaurs, including two that made it into TIME magazine in 2010, a new 

armored dinosaur, two new kinds of bone-headed dinosaurs, two new animals 

similar to Tyrannosaurus rex, four new kinds of raptor dinosaurs, and possibly 

six new kinds of hadrosaurs. The first Utah remains of the giant alligator 

Deinosuchus (dye-noh-sue-kus) and dozens of turtle, fish, crocodile, mammal, 

lizard, snake, bird, and flying reptile (pterosaur) species were also found. One of 

the horned dinosaurs, Kosmoceratops (kos-mo-ser-uh-tops), currently holds the 

record as the most ornate-headed dinosaur ever found. Other new species, like 

Hagryphus giganteus (hag-riff-us jy-gant-tee-us), Gryposaurus monumentensis

(grip-oh-sore-us mahn-you-men-ten-sis), and Utahceratops gettyi (U-tah-seruh-tops get-ee-eye), are heavyweights in their class, suggesting that southern 

dinosaur faunas actually had larger species than their northern counterparts. 

The significance of the finds made between 2000 and 2010 transformed 

GSENM’s basic fossil resource inventory and management project into an 

integrated, multidisciplinary research program that is spurring a renaissance in 

North American Late Cretaceous paleontology. 

The quality and scientific significance of the Kaiparowits fossil resources 

alone are primarily driving this remarkable modern “bone rush.” However, 

without the BLM’s active support, particularly in having a field-level 

paleontologist, the treasures of the Kaiparowits could still be languishing in 

obscurity. With over a dozen institutions engaged in long-term research projects 

in the Kaiparowits Plateau region, it is truly exciting to think of what this 

paleontological frontier will show us in the coming decades.

Dr. Alan Titus has served as the paleontologist for 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument since 

2000. Prior to that he worked for the Department 

of Energy’s Nuclear Weapons Testing Program and 

lectured at Washington State University, Snow 

College (Utah), and the College of Southern Idaho.

with protecting fossils on public lands from theft 

and vandalism. In 2009, Congress passed the 

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act as part 

of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act. 

The act recognized the scientific value of these 

resources, enhanced the BLM’s ability to protect 

them, and allowed for prosecution for theft 

and vandalism.

Dr. Alan Titus at a hadrosaur excavation

on the Kaiparowits Plateau.

Mapping dinosaur

bones at a quarry in

Grand Staircase-Escalante

National Monument.
112 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 113

Recreation Management

Focuses on Outcomes

In 2003, the BLM also began to shift the recreation 

program from one that managed for specific 

recreational activities to one that focused more 

on “outcomes,” or the physical, mental, and social 

benefits that visitors would achieve on public lands. 

local publics to identify beneficial outcomes 

to affect the quality and kinds of public land 

recreation opportunities it provides. 

In light of increasing demands for recreation on 

public lands amid tight budgets, in 2004, Congress 

passed the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act to extend the interagency fee demonstration 

In 2007, the Bureau released a “Unified Strategy 

to Implement ‘BLM’s Priorities for Recreation and 

Visitor Services’” (commonly referred to as the 

“Purple Book”). With this action, the BLM 

formally implemented benefits-based recreation 

planning (also known as outcome-based 

recreation planning).

The strategy provided a philosophy for managing 

recreation and visitor services on public lands that 

focused on people by using a customer-driven, 

outcome-based approach; on places by identifying 

outdoor settings for recreation; and on partnerships 

by building relationships to enhance recreation 

opportunities. Through this strategic approach, 

BLM employees worked with communities and 

Travel Management Is Everyone’s Business | By Mark Goldbach

Would BLM lands really be “public lands” without public access? 

Whether you are a rancher, recreationist, oil and gas operator, surveyor, 

or an archaeologist, everyone needs access to public lands. Getting 

to your favorite public lands destination can be half the fun or an 

adventure in itself. With the tens of thousands of miles of two-track 

roads on public lands that provide access to a variety of destinations 

within many different landscapes, the public loves the freedom of travel 

on BLM lands. 

In the late 1970s and early 1980s this freedom of travel led to 

an increase in unregulated motorized and nonmotorized vehicle use 

on public lands and soon became a detriment to achieving many 

resource management objectives. Managing public access, including 

roads, trails, and areas for vehicle use, quickly became a significant 

management issue in most, if not all, resource management plans. 

Accommodating the proliferation of motorized and nonmotorized 

vehicle use in an environmentally sensitive way became a major goal in 

these plans.

In Wyoming, starting in the early 1980s, we took the approach 

of designating (through the land use planning process) the majority 

of public lands as “limited” to motor vehicle use. We closed sensitive 

areas, such as areas of critical environmental concern, and designated 

small “open” areas adjacent to population centers to accommodate 

the growing number of requests by the public for cross-country travel. 

Many other states designated the majority of the public lands as “open,” 

allowing cross-country travel on vast acreage. Regardless of which 

approach was used, consistency became a public issue. 

Implementing comprehensive travel management became an 

urgent need as well as a major opportunity and challenge for the BLM. 

In 2001, the BLM prepared the “National Management Strategy for 

Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands,” more commonly 

referred to as the “OHV Strategy.” The public wanted consistency among 

states not only in how public lands were designated but also in the use 

of common terminology for travel management. The BLM’s Executive 

Leadership Team supported these concepts and an OHV specialist was 

established within each state. Soon afterwards, a Bureauwide “Trails 

and Travel Management Team” (TTMT) was chartered. These steps were 

milestones for the BLM as the agency took a much more aggressive 

approach to travel management. 

In 2006, the Bureau’s recreation and engineering division 

developed a “Roads and Trails Terminology Report.” This report provided 

the foundation for commonly accepted definitions for implementing 

travel management on public lands. Accomplishing this task had major 

resource management implications and established consistency among 

both public land managers and users. 

The BLM’s desire for good resource management and associated 

travel management planning continues to be challenging. Establishing 

effective partnerships at the local, state, and national levels has been 

crucial to the BLM’s efforts to meet this challenge. A prime example is 

the collaborative partnership established between state agencies, which 

license all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and the BLM, which provides the 

on-the-ground opportunities for ATV use. Through these partnerships 

and a flexible management approach, the BLM continues to remain 

well suited for the difficult task of implementing comprehensive travel 

management on public lands.

program created in 1996, which recognized the 

need for additional funding to maintain federal 

recreation sites. The act enjoyed strong support 

from recreation and tourism interests, largely 

because it required agencies to use at least 

80 percent of the fees collected at local sites to 

improve visitor experiences at those sites. The 

BLM charged fees only in areas where it provided 

recreation services or facilities. The agency decided 

to allow sites to keep all of the fees they collected to 

pay for management, maintenance, or services. In 

2010, the BLM collected approximately $18 million 

in individual user and commercial recreation fees 

and rentals.69

Mark Goldbach was formerly the OHV specialist for the BLM Wyoming State Office and the senior outdoor recreation planner for the Washington Office.

OHV trail in the hills above Rock Springs in Wyoming.

Shelf Road Climbing Area: The BLM and the Climbing Community Scale the Heights of Partnership | By Mark Hesse

The Shelf Road climbing area, located approximately 11 miles north of 

Canon City, Colorado, along the Gold Belt Scenic Byway, is recognized as one 

of America’s premier sport-climbing areas. More than 30,000 climbers from 

across the country, as well as a large number of international climbers, visit 

the area each year to test their skills on the challenging limestone cliffs. 

The Shelf Road climbing area was “discovered” by climbers in the 

mid-1980s. The area now boasts over 800 routes of varying difficulty. Its 

characteristic bulges, solution pockets, and other uniquely weathered 

features offer a wide selection of high-quality routes. 

Relatively undeveloped, with a mix of public land and historic ranches, 

the area provides sanctuary from the congestion and noise of the Front 

Range. It is situated in the protective shadow of nearby Pikes Peak, making 

it a warm retreat during the winter months when most other regional 

climbing areas are typically locked in a deep freeze. In addition to having 

these unique characteristics and recreational values, the area at-large is one 

of the most interesting geologic sites in the region. The nearby Garden Park 

Fossil Area is one of the most important Late Jurassic vertebrate localities in 

North America. 

One major characteristic that makes the Shelf Road climbing area so 

special, as many visiting climbers have noted, is that it is one of the best 

managed and cared-for rock climbing areas in the nation. Certainly climbers 

were fortunate to begin with. Apart from private property conflicts at 

Cactus Cliff (since resolved) and the initial “ethical” debate amongst climbers 

regarding the use of expansion bolts for protection (a technique that was 

adopted by European climbers to develop similar limestone cliffs), the area 

was relatively “issue-free.” And unlike nearby Garden Park, the cliffs at the 

climbing area (made up of Paleozoic sediments) hold relatively minimal 

paleontological interest. The site just so happened to be an extremely 

appropriate location for a “magnet” recreation area. 

Working with the BLM in the early 1990s, the climbing community, 

led by the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Field Institute (formerly the American 

Mountain Foundation), helped to put in place a world-class infrastructure 

that now consists of approximately 5 miles of climbing access/hiking trails, 

two developed campgrounds, and access roads and parking areas. You only 

need to look at other U.S. climbing areas that lack this infrastructure to 

appreciate what has been accomplished as a result of this partnership. 

There are several key reasons why the partnership at Shelf Road 

has been so successful. Representatives of the climbing community have 

participated with the BLM in virtually every stage of the area’s development. 

And much of the work was done proactively in anticipation of the area’s 

popularity. Adequate funding is another key to success. The area’s location 

along the Gold Belt Scenic Byway helped the BLM to secure necessary funds 

to support the construction of the campgrounds and to support vital trail 

work. The purchase of Cactus Cliff by the Access Fund in 1999 (the parcel 

was subsequently transferred to the BLM) opened up public access to one of 

the most popular cliffs. And, the Rocky Mountain Field Institute’s (RMFI’s) 

ongoing commitment to the stewardship of the area provides a dedicated 

volunteer workforce that continues to help maintain the area today. Since 

1992, the RMFI has mobilized over 1,200 volunteers from within and outside 

the climbing community who have in turn contributed over 10,000 hours of 

“sweat equity.”

The Shelf Road climbing area, however, remains a work in progress, 

as significant management challenges remain. As it continues to grow in 

popularity, the area is facing increasing pressures. Despite these challenges, 

the future of the area is bright because of the strong partnership that 

remains in place. With this as a foundation, Shelf Road will continue to 

stand as a testimony of what can be accomplished when a user group works 

cooperatively in partnership with land managers to achieve a common goal. 

Mark B. Hesse was the founder and past director 

of the Rocky Mountain Field Institute, a nonprofit 

environmental service, education, and research 

organization based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He 

served on the RMFI’s board of directors and consulted on 

special projects and programs.

Rocky Mountain 

Field Institute 

volunteer working 

on a trail.
114 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 115

The Lands and Realty Program

Tackles Challenges

The BLM’s lands and realty program tackled a 

number of pressing challenges in the new century, 

from assessing how it appraised land values for 

increasingly complex land exchanges to authorizing 

unprecedented numbers of renewable energy and 

transmission projects on public lands. 

Report Launches Review of Appraisals

By the late 1990s, a decade of audits and reviews 

had documented some genuine weaknesses in the 

BLM’s lands and realty program. The Bureau faced 

an ever-growing workload of increasingly complex 

land exchanges, many with strong and vocal 

political constituencies, often involving partners 

with technical and legal resources far exceeding 

those of the BLM’s staff.

In 2002, a land exchange agreement involving 

BLM-managed lands on Utah’s San Rafael Swell 

became the focus of intense controversy and 

criticism over appraisal and property valuation 

practices associated with the exchange. The 

controversy led to a series of investigations by 

the Office of the Inspector General, the General 

Accounting Office, Congress, and others.

An independent audit conducted by The Appraisal 

Foundation and cited in a later Government 

Accountability Office (the General Accounting 

Office was renamed in 2004) audit, concluded 

that “appraisers at BLM lacked the institutional 

independence necessary to conduct objective 

appraisals and faced heavy pressure from their 

realty managers to conduct appraisals that would 

expedite land transactions.”70 The BLM ultimately 

cancelled the San Rafael land exchange and the case 

served as a catalyst for positive changes in the lands 

and realty program.

In response to the report by The Appraisal 

Foundation, the BLM launched a review of all land 

exchanges in process or under discussion at that 

time. “Our decision to begin this review is based 

in part, on findings in the Appraisal Foundation 

Report, which was paid for and requested by the 

BLM in June 2001,” said BLM Deputy Director 

Jim Hughes. “The BLM is committed to ensuring 

that the land exchange program is impartial, 

credible, and consistent nationwide, and, most 

importantly, one that protects the public interest.”71

Hughes also announced the creation of a working 

group to conduct a “top-to-bottom” evaluation of 

the land exchange and land appraisal processes 

for all four of the land management agencies with 

exchange authority: the BLM, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and the 

U.S. Forest Service. Larry Finfer, then deputy 

director of the Department of the Interior’s Office 

of Policy Analysis, was the team coordinator 

for the review. The working group analyzed the 

recommendations that had emerged from the 

various audits of the program and, in cooperation 

with The Appraisal Foundation, developed a report 

with specific recommendations to be submitted 

to the BLM, the Department of the Interior, 

other federal agencies, and state government 

officials familiar with the land exchange process 

and appraisal activities. In the interim, the BLM 

submitted its land exchanges to the Department of 

the Interior for review prior to completion.

The working group concluded that a lack 

of appraiser independence and inconsistent 

application of appraisal standards were problematic 

within all four agencies. They also concluded that 

past efforts to address appraisal problems had 

not succeeded because they had not addressed 

the issue of appraisers’ independence. The 

group recommended establishing a centralized 

independent appraisal function under the 

Department of the Interior’s chief appraiser.

In November 2003, each agency transferred 

appraisers from its realty office to the newly 

created appraisal services directorate, reporting 

to the Department of the Interior’s National 

Business Center. Meanwhile, the BLM moved 

forward to implement other recommendations 

of the working group: strengthening overall 

management of exchanges, developing new 

authorities, enhancing training to advance the 

skills of lands and realty personnel, emphasizing 

exchanges with states, strengthening the ability 

of negotiators to reach agreement on property 

valuation, and developing guidance for processing 

congressionally directed exchanges.

Land Sales Provide for Acquisitions

The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, 

signed into law in July 2000, established an 

acquisition account where revenues generated from 

the sale or disposal of certain public lands would be 

available to the BLM and other land management 

agencies for the purchase of land located within 

federally designated areas. The program, which 

Congress authorized for 10 years and extended for 

1 year, left an extraordinary legacy. Funds from the 

sales contributed to the acquisition of 28 parcels of 

land later preserved in landmarks such as the Lewis 

and Clark National Historic Trail in Montana, 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in 

Colorado, Hells Canyon Wilderness in Arizona, 

Zion National Park in Utah, and others.

New Century Brings New Funding for Land Acquisitions | By David Beaver

David Beaver was the national program lead for BLM’s LWCF and FLTFA land acquisition programs in the Washington Office 

from 1991 until his retirement in 2015. Prior to that, he worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was a realty 

specialist in the Great Divide Field Office and a natural resource specialist in the Casper District Office in Wyoming.

Ruins in Canyons 

of the Ancients.

Rafting on the 

Rogue River.

Hiking in

Hells Canyon.

encircle the area, effectively isolating it from the surrounding countryside. The wilderness is noted (and 

named) for a deeply incised and rugged desert canyon with perennial flowing water supporting an 

important Sonoran Desert habitat, a rare juniper woodland/saguaro cactus ecosystem with thriving bird 

and mammal populations. It offers the public opportunities to experience primitive recreation within 

20 miles of metropolitan Phoenix. 

In June 2007, the BLM sold an isolated parcel of public land on the western outskirts of Phoenix at 

auction. The 272-acre parcel, neighboring an expanding gated residential subdivision and crossed by an 

electric transmission line, sold to the highest bidder for $7 million. In December 2008, the Secretaries 

of Agriculture and the Interior jointly approved using $2.9 million of these funds to acquire the 640-acre 

Brooks property within Hells Canyon Wilderness. 

After the designation of Hells Canyon Wilderness in 1990, the Brooks property (approved for a 

four-unit residential subdivision by Yavapai County) was the only piece of private property within this 

wilderness—the proverbial “donut hole” in an otherwise untamed federally managed landscape. The 

successful purchase of this single inholding was accomplished following

months of complex negotiations between the landowner and The

Wilderness Land Trust. Acquisition of the Brooks property will allow

visitors to forever experience a feeling of solitude, a cherished

hallmark of wilderness.

Rogue National Wild and Scenic River, Oregon

Originating in Crater Lake National Park, the 215-mile-long

Rogue River joins the Pacific Ocean at Gold Beach, Oregon. Forty-seven miles

of the river are administered by the BLM as a national wild and scenic river (NWSR). Between 1970 and 

1980, with more than $10 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) congressional 

appropriations, the BLM acquired 99 fee parcels and 168 conservation easements on private properties 

lying within the NWSR boundary to permanently eliminate commercial and residential development. 

In May 2007, the BLM received Secretarial approval to utilize $600,000 in FLTFA receipts to purchase 

the 32-acre Haas property, the last remaining privately owned parcel within the corridor not covered by 

the comprehensive acquisition program put in motion 40 years ago. Swift action by The Trust for Public 

Land in 2006 presented the BLM with the opportunity to consolidate public ownership of the property, 

requiring an additional $240,000 of land acquisition funding (provided by the LWCF) to complete the 

fair market value purchase. The Haas property, locally known as “Winkle Bar,” includes a historic cabin 

originally built by the American author Zane Grey (a former owner of the property), who made this 

river the basis of his 1929 novel “Rogue River Feud.” Acquisition of this property preserves remarkable 

historic, natural resource, and scenic values for future generations.

When the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) passed in July 2000, the BLM was given 

authority to dispose of lands through sale and exchange and use the receipts for the acquisition of 

conservation lands within eligible BLM, National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

U.S. Forest Service-managed units. Prior to FLTFA, receipts generated from the disposal of lands by the 

BLM were deposited with the U.S. Treasury to meet the general expenses of the government. The FLTFA 

authority has proven to be a boon, with significant additions to lands managed by all the agencies, and 

the BLM has accomplished many notable land acquisitions.

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Colorado

This 164,000-acre rugged, eroded landscape and its remarkable

cultural resources have been a focal point of explorers and researchers

for more than 125 years. The monument contains the highest density

of cultural resource sites in the nation, with more than 100 sites per

square mile. In some places, more than 6,000 sites are documented and

recorded, and an additional 20,000–30,000 sites are predicted. 

Site types include cliff dwellings, villages, great kivas, shrines, and petroglyphs. Many sites have 

standing walls; 10 are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and one is a national historic 

landmark. The monument is contiguous to three units of Hovenweep National Monument, managed by 

the NPS. Approximately 45,000 people visit the area annually.

In November 2009, the BLM, after a long and challenging history of landowner differences, 

received Secretarial approval to utilize $3.3 million in FLTFA receipts to purchase the 4,573-acre Wallace 

property. The Conservation Fund and the National Trust for Historic Preservation played instrumental 

roles in assisting the BLM with the purchase. 

At the time, the Wallace property (consisting of seven noncontiguous parcels) comprised about 

25 percent of the private lands within the monument. It contains a remarkable array of highly 

significant cultural resources, including 25 documented and recorded sites. An additional 700 sites are 

predicted to exist on the property. As a result of this acquisition, Jackson’s Castle—one of the most 

important archaeological sites in the southwestern United States (it was photographed by William Henry 

Jackson in 1874 and referenced in an 1876 report to the Secretary of the Interior)—and the “Skywatcher 

Site,” a one-of-a-kind, 1,000-year-old Ancestral Puebloan solstice marker, now contribute to the 

monument’s interpretative legacy. Publicity generated by the BLM’s purchase

of the Wallace property and a stagnant farm and ranch real estate

market triggered neighboring property owners to contact the BLM

regarding the potential purchase of their private landholdings

within the monument.

Hells Canyon Wilderness, Arizona

This 9,900-acre wilderness preserves a scenic portion of the

Hieroglyphic Mountain Range. Prominent 3,000-foot peaks
116 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 117

Reforms Strengthen

Cadastral Surveys of Indian Lands

In 2004, Secretary Norton developed a Fiduciary 

Trust Model to reform the management of Indian 

trust assets by the Department of the Interior. The 

Alaska Land Transfer | By Ramona Chinn and Christy Favorite

Department implemented this model in an effort 

to create a more efficient and effective method for 

delivering trust services. The model implemented 

four components pertaining to cadastral survey: the 

BLM Indian Land Surveyor Program, a cadastralbased GIS, a Certified Federal Surveyor Program, 

and modernization of the Public Land Survey 

System within Indian Country. An effort derived 

from these initiatives was the BLM’s Cadastral 

Indian Program, funded by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, which prioritizes boundary determination 

needs on Native American lands. 

Statehood came late to Alaska—it entered the Union on January 3, 

1959. About 10 years later, the discovery of huge oil reserves on the North 

Slope prompted a call for development. Before development could commence, 

however, Congress had to address the Alaskan Native land claims.

On December 18, 1971, the Alaska Federation of Natives convened in 

Anchorage to vote on the proposed Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). 

The federation set up a phone link between the convention hall and the White 

House. The delegates voted 511 to 56 to accept the bill and informed President 

Nixon of the outcome. The delegates waited quietly. Finally, the President spoke: 

“I want you to be among the first to know that I have just signed the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act.”

By October 21, 1976, the BLM in Alaska was inundated with land title 

applications to adjudicate. Under the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906, 

Alaskan Natives could acquire title to up to 160 acres of nonmineral land, and 

approximately 16,000 parcels of land required field examination, adjudication, 

and survey. Almost all of the 105 million acres granted to the State of Alaska 

under the Statehood Act, and the vast majority of the 46 million acres mandated 

for conveyance to Native corporations pursuant to ANCSA and to individuals 

under the Native Allotment Act, also remained to be adjudicated and surveyed. 

The state and the Alaskan Native corporations were allowed to select land 

simultaneously, and much land was selected by more than one entity, village 

corporation, or regional corporation as well as the state. Thousands of individual 

Native allotment claims survived ANCSA’s repeal of the 1906 act, and many claims 

were amended, causing much change in land status. The repeal of settlement 

claim laws by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as well as 

the legislative approval provision, affected the many settlement claims that were 

still pending. In 1980, the selection period for the Alaska Statehood Act was 

extended to 1994 by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. 

ANCSA was a complex settlement to a complex situation—implementing 

ANCSA alone would have been far from simple, but the simultaneous need 

for adjudication of Native allotment claims together with overlapping state 

selections created additional complications. Myriad appeals, lawsuits, and 

disparate legal interpretations among the state, the corporations, the public, 

and the Department of the Interior all contributed to delayed conveyance. New 

regulations, policy changes, case law, and legislative amendments resulted from 

such disputes, sometimes causing further delays as they were interjected into the 

process over time during the adjudication of overlapping selections and claims. 

In 2002, the executive officers of the ANCSA corporations met with the 

Secretary of the Interior and expressed frustration with the pace of conveyance, 

particularly for claims under the Native Allotment Act. No less frustrated than its 

constituents, the BLM worked with the state and the corporations to identify and 

seek solutions. They established an ambitious goal of sunsetting the land transfer 

program, which required federal legislation so that the ANCSA, the Statehood 

Act and the Native Allotment Act could be worked more in concert. To that end, 

Senator Lisa Murkowski sponsored the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, 

which was passed in 2004. It gave the BLM tools such as the authority to amend 

title for conveyed land claimed by allotment applicants and set deadlines for 

selection priorities

Almost all of Alaska was unsurveyed on the date of statehood. Unsurveyed 

lands were conveyed to the state and the Native corporations through tentative 

approvals (TAs) and interim conveyances (ICs), respectively. While TAs and ICs 

transfer all right, title, and interest of the United States, the law requires survey 

and confirmation by patent. By 2012, approximately 96 percent of ANCSA and 

state entitlements had been transferred under a combination of patent and ICs 

or TAs as appropriate. Approximately 98 percent of the more than 16,000 parcels 

filed in the Native allotment program are patented or closed, while approximately 

38 percent and 43 percent remain to be patented to the Native corporations and 

the state, respectively.

It is through the creativity and dedication of BLM employees and 

partnerships with land transfer clients that completion of land title transfers in 

Alaska is realized. 

Ramona Chinn is currently the resolution chief 

and has been the deputy state director for the 

Alaska Lands and Cadastral Division. She moved 

to Alaska to work in the lands program in 1974 

after beginning her career with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Seattle, 

Washington. In 2008, Ramona was recognized 

as the National Public Lands Manager of the Year 

by the Public Lands Foundation. Ramona is also 

an award-winning quiltmaker whose work has 

been featured in numerous publications.

Christy Favorite started with the BLM in 1977 

and became the coordinator/clearinghouse for 

ANCSA issues. Christy, who has been an Alaskan 

since before statehood, is the mother of two 

children and a bead and fiber artist.

Surveying land for conveyance in Alaska.

Stones and “Bones” Set by William (Billy) Octavius Owen in Wyoming | By J.D. “Sam” Drucker

In November 2000, while helping to create the BLM’s geographic 

information system (GIS) base layer, termed the Geographic Coordinate 

Data Base (GCDB), I stumbled upon a General Land Office survey 

plat that fascinated me. It was drawn from work conducted by 

William (Billy) O. Owen in March and April of 1881 in southern Wyoming.

Noted on the plat is a line of section corner monuments labeled as 

“Mastodon Bones.” The idea of relocating and collecting some of these 

“bone” section corners was intriguing. I mentioned my intent to John Lee 

(cadastral chief, Wyoming State Office) and learned that his staff had first 

brought the idea to paleontologist Laurie Bryant in 1999. I soon realized 

that finding these corners was also interesting to others within the BLM.

Through research at the Albany County Courthouse, we found that 

some of the fossil corners did, in fact, monument the location of federal 

lands. Dr. Danny Walker, the assistant state archaeologist, suggested 

that we contact Brent Breithaupt of the University of Wyoming’s (UW’s) 

Geological Museum for information concerning the history and the types of 

fossils discovered in the survey area. Breithaupt introduced the potential 

for finding not mastodon, but dinosaur fossils, and excitement for the 

project grew. Beth Southwell, Breithaupt’s assistant, began preliminary 

research in the American Heritage Center on the UW campus and located a 

partial autobiography written by William O. Owen (Owen 1930) that made 

reference to the survey of the area and described what happened early in 

April 1881:

We had our team and wagon with us, and it was our custom, when 

possible, to load in the necessary number of stones at any favorable 

place and haul them along with us against the frequent happening 

that no corner material could be found when we have to have it. 

There was no sign of a stone near our corner point so I ran on north 

half a mile hoping to find a supply near the quarter-section corner. 

But in this we were disappointed. . . . Tom Hale, my old side-partner, 

was my cornerman and in our extremity he pointed to the east 

where, about half a mile distant, lay two hillocks where, in his 

opinion, might repose the material we needed.

Two of the boys jumped into the wagon and off they set for the 

hillocks. . . . After some time they started back and as they drew near 

I could tell they had considerable of a load. . . . ‘We’ve got something,’ 

said Tom, ‘but God knows what it is - I don’t. It’s harder then h___ 

and every piece weighs a ton!’ Now, what do you suppose those boys 

had in that wagon? Fossil bones of a dinosaur!

Upon reading this, the anticipation of discovery buzzed in the office, 

and soon a date was set for our long-awaited field trip. After acquiring 

GCDB coordinates for selected corner locations and inputting them into a 

hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit, we began preparing for 

the field work.

On May 31, 2001, Lee, Mike Whitmore, and I, from the BLM cadastral 

staff, BLM paleontologist Dale Hanson, and Marty Griffith, from the BLM 

Wyoming State Office, set off for a day of investigation. Breithaupt and 

Southwell joined us in Laramie. We visited the site of the Bone Cabin 

Quarry to give us an idea of the type of material that Owen’s crew probably 

collected for corner material.

Our search began at the closing corner on the north boundary of the 

township. Whitmore was the first to see the corner stone, and almost in 

a daze of exhilaration, we photographed and chattered ecstatically about 

the piece of Sauropod fossil leg bone situated in a fence line. Sauropods 

were very large, plant-eating dinosaurs. The Apatosaurus (formerly known 

as the Brontosaurus) is one of the best-known sauropod dinosaurs. 

Following our projected section lines and using GPS coordinates, we 

continued our search for one-half mile south of this corner stone and found 

the next quarter-section corner. This position had been monumented 

with a portion of a large fossilized Apatosaurus tail vertebra that, to our 

amazement, was plainly marked with “1/4” on the upper right corner. 

Owen had stated that these stones were too hard to scribe, so finding one 

that was marked only added to the historical significance of the original 

survey. It is possible that we were the first people to see this particular 

monument in 120 years. This fossil corner was collected and replaced with 

a BLM brass cap. It is currently housed at UW. Although we located several 

more bone monuments, there are several more we have yet to locate.

As we gather more information on the life and times of Owen, it 

seems fitting to call him a long-lost friend and comrade, a surveyor from 

the past, but one we all feel akin to. His accounts of surveying the high 

plains, deserts, and mountains of Wyoming convey the enthusiasm Billy 

must have had for life, his work, and adventure.

J.D. “Sam” Drucker has nearly 20 years of experience as a surveyor. He has worked for the BLM as a seasonal archaeological technician in the Lander Field Office, as a cadastral surveyor

in the state office, and for the last several years, as an archaeologist and paleontological coordinator in the Pinedale Field Office in Wyoming.

Cast of Billy Owen.

one of the 

dinosaur 

fossils 

used as a 

monument.

Survey 

plat with 

mastodon 

bones labeled.
118 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 119

The Southern Nevada Public Lands 

Management Act Demonstrates Success

The first 10 years under the 1998 Southern Nevada 

Public Lands Management Act far exceeded 

expectations. Bidders at land sale auctions drove 

final purchase prices far above the appraised fair 

market value. In 2006, the program allocated 

more than $1 billion for expenditure. By 2008, 

the program had brought in approximately 

$3.2 billion—the interest alone was $294 million—

and had disposed of approximately 34,500 acres 

for community expansion in the greater Las 

Vegas metropolitan area. In 10 years, the BLM, 

U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had acquired more 

than 50,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land 

throughout Nevada. 

The revenue generated also provided for much 

needed capital improvements such as rebuilding 

aging infrastructure at the Red Rock Canyon 

National Conservation Area, Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area, and Desert National Wildlife 

Refuge, as well as numerous campgrounds and 

visitor facilities managed by the BLM, U.S. Forest 

Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation. 

The funds provided for almost 100 conservation 

initiatives, including research, habitat restoration, 

abandoned mine closures, and many other 

programs. Approximately $300 million went to 

projects at Lake Tahoe. The agencies developed 

nearly 170 parks, trails, and natural areas. The 

revenue funded several multiple-species habitat 

conservation plans for sensitive and endangered 

species. A subsequent amendment to the act 

provided for hazardous fuels reduction and fire 

prevention projects to support the BLM’s Eastern 

Nevada Landscape Restoration Project.

Under the Southern Nevada Public Lands 

Management Act, the BLM worked with the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

on the sale of land for affordable housing, using 

land discounted by up to 95 percent of fair market 

value. This provision allowed for the development 

of a senior citizen housing project and family 

apartments, both in the Las Vegas area. In 10 years, 

the BLM reserved more than 1,000 acres in and 

around Las Vegas for future affordable housing. 

Law Enforcement Collaborates

with Local Partners

The BLM law enforcement program continued to 

evolve into a corps of law enforcement professionals 

focused on natural resource issues and public safety. 

Even with growing support for the law enforcement 

mission and a restructuring in 2009 that improved 

communications and accountability, this relatively 

small program faced an outsized task, with each 

ranger patrolling on average more than 1 million 

acres of public lands. To effectively cover such 

a large area, BLM rangers depended on strong 

working relationships with county sheriff ’s 

departments and other state, federal, and tribal 

agencies. These law enforcement personnel 

Special Agents Work with Resource Specialists to Uncover Fraud and Theft | By Joe Nardinger

In June 2008, special agents, who were with the BLM’s Office 

of Law Enforcement and Security and assigned to Alaska, received 

information from a confidential source who provided the name of a 

commercial outfitter and guide believed to be operating illegally on 

BLM lands in Alaska. The BLM acted on this information, and during 

the course of a lengthy investigation, agents linked the illegal outfitter 

to the theft of paleontological and archeological resources from 

public lands. 

An additional suspect determined by investigation to be linked 

to the illegal outfitter was also identified, and a federal search warrant 

for the suspect’s residence was granted. Agents, assisted by the 

paleontologist from BLM’s national office, located and seized both 

paleontological and archeological evidence from the suspect’s home. 

In addition to the stolen artifacts, agents recovered other 

documentary evidence in support of the BLM investigation and 

contraband in the form of child pornography. Discovery of the child 

pornography resulted in a comprehensive and complex secondary 

investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Further investigation by BLM special agents resulted in the 

identification of two additional fraud schemes involving the outfitter 

and an associate. Cooperative investigations were initiated with the 

National Science Foundation, Office of the Inspector General, and 

the State of Alaska Permanent Fund Fraud Division. These felony 

level investigations resulted in the recovery of thousands of dollars 

fraudulently obtained from both the National Science Foundation and 

the State of Alaska. 

Through the testimony of the assigned case agent, the Assistant 

United States Attorney assigned to Fairbanks, Alaska, presented a 

portion of the BLM case to a federal grand jury seated in Anchorage, 

Alaska, on August 18, 2010. The testimony resulted in a successful 

two-count felony indictment alleging theft of government property 

and conspiracy to steal government property and to violate the 

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009. 

As of 2012, this case had resulted in two felony convictions 

and one misdemeanor conviction specifically relating to the BLM’s 

investigation. Criminal fines of $130,000 were assessed; a fine of 

$100,000 levied against one suspect was the single largest criminal 

fine ever imposed in a paleontological resource case investigated by the 

BLM. All contraband in the form of paleontological or archaeological 

resources identified by investigators was forfeited to the BLM. 

This case is significant because it is the first successful criminal 

prosecution and conviction citing the Paleontological Resources 

Preservation Act. It is also significant because it represents what can be 

achieved when dedicated BLM resource staffs cooperate and share their 

expertise with law enforcement special agents to aid in the successful 

apprehension of resource violators. BLM paleontologists, archeologists, 

geographic information system specialists, and recreation specialists all 

provided valuable assistance during the course of this investigation. 

Joe Nardinger has been a BLM special agent in Fairbanks, Alaska, a 

law enforcement ranger at the BLM’s Upper Missouri Breaks National 

Monument in Montana, and a special agent in Billings, Montana. Joe 

has worked for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; 

the U.S. Forest Service; and the U.S. Navy.

complemented the BLM’s efforts by providing 

additional eyes and ears on vast stretches of 

public lands. 

These invaluable partnerships provided critical 

backup to rangers in remote areas as well as 

insight into local issues and concerns the public 

had regarding management of the public lands. 

The BLM established more than 100 cooperative 

agreements with county sheriffs, covering such 

issues as deputizing rangers for state peace officer 

authority and collaborating on dispatch services 

and high visibility patrols on public lands by 

county deputies.

Las Vegas Valley from undeveloped land.

BLM law enforcement rangers and agents 

commonly investigated both civil and criminal 

violations pertaining to the Archaeological 

Resource Protection Act, Paleontological Resources 

Preservation Act, fire trespass, drug cultivation 

and manufacturing, illegal off-highway vehicle 

travel, cattle trespass, timber trespass, illegal trash 

dumping, and many other violations specified 

within the U.S. Criminal Code and the Code of 

Federal Regulations. 

A growing challenge for BLM law enforcement 

officers was keeping the peace during activities 

that draw large crowds. The BLM-managed 

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in southern 

California, for example, was drawing upwards 

of 200,000 off-highway vehicle enthusiasts per 

weekend during the winter months. While offhighway vehicle use predominated during the 

daylight hours, nighttime brought a completely 

different experience to the dunes. 

Alcohol and drugs fueled stunts by a predominantly 

young crowd of spectators that was sometimes 

out of control. The crowd trapped unsuspecting 

motorists in ditches of fire, dragging them from 

their vehicles and beating them, while strippers 

performed under the light of huge pallet-fueled 

Theft of paleontological resources

from public lands in Alaska

leads to conviction.
120 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 121

bonfires and fireworks displays. Fights, rapes, 

stabbings, and shootings were on the rise at the 

dunes. Property and vehicles were vandalized and 

stolen, and roving bands of criminals harassed 

visitors. Felony Films recorded this lawless behavior 

to sell reality videos. Urban crime had come to the 

public lands.

Near the Thanksgiving holiday weekend in 1999, 

the BLM and other federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies prepared for a record number 

BLM Investigative Work Leads to Arson Convictions | By Kyle Gandiaga

On July 10, 2007, a fire was started on public lands northeast of 

Parma, Idaho. It was followed by another fire on July 16, which was 

reported by a man who gave specific directions to the fire’s location but 

did not identify himself. On July 23, the same man reported a grass fire 

at a specific location but, again, did not identify himself. These three fires 

were followed by four more fires on July 25 and August 2, 10, and 14. The 

Parma Fire Department (PFD) and BLM firefighters were dispatched to all 

seven fires. 

During the 5 weeks following the first fire, investigators identified a 

pattern—all seven fires were started at the same time of day and all were 

within a 5-mile radius. The BLM increased its patrols of the area. BLM 

investigators gathered physical evidence at each fire, including casts of 

unique tire and boot prints, and worked with the FBI crime laboratory in 

Quantico, Virginia, to determine the make and model of the impressions: 

• Tire prints found at the July 25 fire were found by the 

FBI laboratory to be consistent with Big O Big Foot A/T 

(all-terrain) tires. 

• FBI analysts concluded that tire prints found near the origin of the 

August 2 fire were made by a Mickey Thompson Baja MTZ tire—

a specialized, extremely rare, and expensive off-road truck tire.

• Tire prints found at the August 10 fire also matched Baja MTZ 

tires. Investigators also found boot prints, which the FBI later 

identified as Ad Tec boots. 

Although investigators obtained physical evidence, they initially 

could not link it directly to an individual until the August 14 fire. On that 

day, a BLM special agent was conducting surveillance and encountered a 

red Ford F-150 stepside pickup traveling off road in the opposite direction. 

The agent saw the driver as they passed, and they waved to each other. 

Then the agent noticed heat waves in the distance. In the area where 

the man in the truck had just been, the agent found a small fire and tire 

impressions similar to the Baja MTZ tire prints. The agent attempted to 

catch the pickup truck but was unsuccessful. He returned to the scene to 

protect the evidence until fire investigators arrived. 

The agent reported the fire and identified the suspect vehicle, which 

another special agent later found parked at the PFD. That agent observed 

Mickey Thompson Baja MTZ tires on the truck. The owner was a 

23-year-old male volunteer firefighter with the PFD, one of the people 

called to fight the fires. Two BLM special agents interviewed the suspect 

later that evening. He denied having any involvement or even being in the 

area that day.

On November 28, 2007, BLM agents and rangers, along with a 

detective from the sheriff’s office, served a federal search warrant on 

the suspect. The officers recovered a pair of Ad Tec boots and a Baja MTZ 

tire from his Ford truck. Agents shipped the boots and tire, along with 

the casts of the tire and boot prints found at the fires, to the FBI for

 further comparison.

On June 11, 2008, a BLM special agent testified before the federal 

grand jury in Boise, Idaho. The grand jury returned a seven-count 

indictment for violations of title 18 of the United States Code, section 1855, 

titled “Timber set afire.”

On June 13, 2008, BLM agents and rangers and U.S. deputy marshals 

arrested the suspect at his residence. He appeared in U.S. district court and 

pled not guilty to all seven counts of arson. He was released on his own 

recognizance with electronic monitoring and other conditions set by the 

court, including a prohibition from working for the PFD. 

Meanwhile, special agents learned the suspect often drove a Ford 

Ranger when his other pickup broke down. Agents found the Ford Ranger 

at a family member’s residence. On December 15, 2008, BLM special 

agents and deputies from the sheriff’s office served a federal search 

warrant at the residence, recovered a Big O Bigfoot A/T tire from the Ford 

Ranger, and shipped it to the FBI.

In January 2009, the case was presented to a jury in U.S. district 

court in Boise. Testimony during the 4-day trial linked the suspect to the 

fires through physical evidence, which included the tire and boot prints, 

eyewitness testimony, and cell phone and employment records. At the end 

of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on six out of the seven fires. 

The defendant was sentenced on May 13, 2009, to 72 months in 

federal prison and was ordered to pay $155,881.36 in restitution to the 

BLM and PFD for firefighting costs; a portion was reserved for the Parma 

Rod and Gun Club to pay for damages to its property.

Special Agent Kyle Gandiaga started his BLM career as a firefighter in 1997 while in college. He was then hired as a law enforcement ranger

with the BLM in Pocatello, Idaho, and 4-1/2 years later, he became a special agent in Boise, Idaho. 

Aerial view of burned areas near Parma, Idaho.

August 14 fire as Special Agent Gandiaga saw it upon arrival.

Origin of August 2 fire.

Baja MTZ tire track at Shuckin Fire’s 

origin (L) and tire on

suspect’s truck (R).

Suspect’s Ad Tec

boot (L) and footprint

left at the site (R).

of visitors to the dunes. As the weekend wore 

on, a largely unruly and lawless crowd became 

defiant over the law enforcement officers’ efforts 

to maintain law and order, and a violent protest 

erupted. The protest forced law enforcement officers 

to fall back, regroup, and reevaluate their response.

In 2000, the BLM commissioned a team to study 

and evaluate the 1999 Thanksgiving weekend 

events and make recommendations for future 

events. Beginning in 2002, the Bureau began to 

train law enforcement officers in riot control and 

PepperBall rifle use and added a decal of the law 

enforcement badge to ranger patrol vehicles. The 

BLM also began managing the dunes and other 

major events under the Incident Command System. 

Imperial County closed Competition Hill at dark 

and broke up large gatherings of people in the 

dunes, declaring them an unlawful assembly. These 

proactive efforts significantly improved public 

safety at this and other large-scale permitted events 

on public lands.

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in California.
122 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 123

A New West Leads to a

Renewed Planning Emphasis

While forays into large-scale ecosystem 

management and planning characterized the 

1990s, during the early 2000s, the BLM renewed 

its emphasis on multiple use management and 

strengthening its land use planning to meet 

21st century challenges. 

The West was changing at a dramatic rate, and 

with unprecedented population growth came 

increasing demands for public land use. In 2000, 

the BLM strengthened its national planning 

office in Washington, DC. The office launched 

an evaluation of all RMPs to determine whether 

they were keeping pace with the new demands 

in the West and adequately addressing sensitive 

resources such as endangered species. The BLM 

presented preliminary results of the evaluation in 

its 2000 report to Congress, “Land Use Planning for 

The BLM Meets the Counterculture at the Burning Man Festival | By Doran Sanchez

Memorialized in print, photography, and yes . . . scandalous rumor, Burning Man 

is the infamous desert festival of whimsical art and sculpture, interactive architecture, 

sexual expression, explosive pyrotechnics, outrageous costumes, and for some . . . 

let-it-all-hang-out nudity. As envisioned, the event is an experiment in community, 

radical self-expression, and radical self-reliance.

Burning Man began in 1986 as a simple summer solstice bonfire ritual on Baker 

Beach in San Francisco. Cofounders Larry Harvey and Jerry James and a few friends 

erected an 8-foot wooden effigy and concluded the ritual by burning it. The ritual 

increased in popularity and became an annual event. 

By 1990, more people had joined in what came to be called the “Project.” 

Early participants were skilled in construction trades and included members of San 

Francisco’s Cacophony Society, a group of artists devoted to creating interactive 

events. The larger-than-life “Man” had evolved to a height of 40 feet. 

The Project’s beach evolution ended in 1990 after the Golden Gate police 

stopped participants from burning the effigy because they didn’t have a permit. 

Harvey joined Cacophony Society founders Kevin Evans, John Law, and Michael Mikel, 

who were planning Zone Trip #4—Evans’ unrelated but similar arts-based Dadaist 

event also culminating with the burning of a temporary sculpture. 

Zone Trip was to be held on the remote and largely unknown Black Rock Desert

playa about 110 miles north of Reno—a flat, 35-mile-long, 10-mile-wide dry 

lakebed entirely devoid of vegetation located in northwestern Nevada. (The area 

is entirely within the Black Rock Desert–High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National 

Conservation Area, designated by Congress in 2000 and managed by the BLM.) 

Harvey and friends were among the 250 people who participated in the 1990 

Labor Day weekend festival. BLM law enforcement rangers came upon the group and 

told them they needed a permit to hold their event on public lands.

That didn’t matter. The event was hailed a success, Harvey moved his Project 

to the Black Rock Desert, and the infamous Burning Man took its name from the 

ritual burning. The festival occurs the week leading up to and through the Labor Day 

weekend and has been held on the Black Rock Desert playa every year since the 

early 1990s. 

In 1991, the BLM issued the first permit for Burning Man. The annual festival 

is the largest special recreation permit (SRP) issued by the BLM, both in terms of 

number of participants and cost to administer the permit. The permit is reviewed 

annually to address new resource or environmental concerns, such as the number of 

“Burners,” which has increased each year from a modest 250 in 1990 to more than 

52,000 in 2012. The BLM’s cost to administer the SRP has changed from a $67,000 flat 

fee from 1990 through 1996 to a charge of $4 per attendee per day from1998 through 

2006, which generated repayments of more than $800,000, to full cost recovery and 

commercial use fees (together more than $1 million) in 2012. 

Black Rock City (BRC) is the iconic home of Burning Man, and in 1997, event 

promoters formed a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) to address the evolving 

complexity of regulating the event. The LLC manages the festival and works yearround on the project. Entry fees pay for the SRP and infrastructure supporting 

the festival. 

Law enforcement is a major cost, and the LLC coordinates closely with BLM 

managers, staff, rangers and special agents, and other cooperators (Pershing and 

Washoe County Sheriffs’ Offices, Nevada Highway Patrol, Nevada Department of 

Public Safety–Investigation Division, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Government, and 

Nevada Department of Health and Human Services) throughout the year to ensure 

Burning Man is as safe and trouble-free as possible. The level of law enforcement the 

BLM requires to deter violations and ensure public safety in BRC remains an issue with 

the LLC. 

BRC is a 5-mile-square dot on the playa surrounded by a perimeter fence to keep 

out freeloading Burners. Within this square, BRC is built in a semicircle using global 

positioning systems to locate streets, intersections, and significant sites. The wood 

and neon Man is erected in the center of the city atop a platform often towering 

80 feet above the playa surface. 

BRC is a pedestrian city that seemingly overnight becomes Nevada’s fourth 

largest city. The LLC strictly enforces the speed of registered vehicles and bans 

drugs, fireworks, firearms, dogs, and driving of unapproved art cars. The LLC strictly 

endorses Leave No Trace principles and pack it in, pack it out practices. After more 

than 20 years of monitoring and environmental analysis, no significant impacts to the 

playa have been identified.

Burning Man went airborne in 2002 after the Federal Aviation Administration 

approved the Black Rock Airport. In 2007, more than 150 pilots from around the 

world, some flying vintage planes, landed at the airport.

During the event, more than 90 percent of the playa remains open to the 

general public. The desert can be brutal—subjecting Burners to blistering heat, 

freezing cold, and windstorms that swallow the city in dust. 

Despite potential discomforts, the festival attracts Burners from throughout 

the United States and around the world. From its simple beginnings 25 years 

ago, Burning Man has evolved from a do-it-yourself art festival to the premier 

counterculture arts festival in the world.

Doran Sanchez is the Route 66 project lead in the BLM’s Barstow Field Office. Prior to that, he was the deputy state director for external affairs in California, the chief of communications in Nevada,

and a public affairs specialist for the California Desert District, where he began his federal career.

Sustainable Resource Decisions.” The report 

stated that 141 out of 162 BLM land use plans 

were in need of revision—many were more than 

20 years old—and that the outdated plans increased 

litigation risk and hindered the BLM’s ability to 

adapt quickly to changing conditions. 

The report called for immediate and aggressive 

action and requested substantial, multiyear funding 

for the BLM to prepare or update land use plans 

and address other deficiencies in its planning and 

NEPA programs. The report also outlined a plan 

revision strategy that would reduce the number of 

BLM land use plans from 162 to 135 by combining 

smaller planning areas into larger planning units. In 

response, Congress increased the amount of funds 

appropriated beginning in 2001.72

Planning priorities in the early 2000s focused 

on conventional energy development and newly 

designated units of the NLCS. At that time, the 

BLM identified three primary issues challenging 

land use planning: 

• Increasing demand for energy resources and 

the need to balance the demand with other uses 

and conservation.

• Continuing growth of populations and 

communities in the West. 

• Ecosystem changes, including drought, weed 

and insect infestations, wildfire, and other 

impacts of climate change.

Further refining the BLM’s focus were issues 

involving critical habitat for species on the federal 

threatened and endangered species list, fire 

management concerns in wildland–urban interface 

areas, and new recreational opportunities such 

as off-highway vehicle use. The BLM poured its 

resources into gathering information, particularly 

to support oil and gas leasing decisions. 

The Bureau Makes Better Use of Assessment, 

Inventory, and Monitoring Data 

The use of GIS technology greatly enhanced the 

BLM’s ability to map and share data. The BLM 

collected vast amounts of information to support 

resource decisions, but it generally housed the 

data at local offices and did not typically share 

it. In 2003, the BLM developed the Enterprise 

Geographic Information System to allow all 

BLM offices and the public to access and analyze 

information on public lands resources from a 

central location. The application helped the BLM 

integrate geospatial information into land use 

planning, analyze actions and impacts, look beyond 

planning area boundaries, and share data. 

Public lands near an urban community in California.

The ritual burning of 

a sculpture at the end 

of the event.

Artistic expression 

by the Burning Man 

community.
124 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 125

In 2004, the BLM embarked on an effort to develop 

a national assessment, inventory, and monitoring 

(AIM) strategy to manage the collection, analysis, 

use, and reuse of data so that the Bureau could 

apply it across disciplines and share it with 

the public. This data resource is central to the 

BLM’s ability to support scientifically based 

decisionmaking, especially on a landscape scale. 

In 2007, the BLM deployed ePlanning for new 

plans. The ePlanning initiative, begun in 2001, 

integrated GIS technology, content software, 

comment processing, and analysis tools into 

planning and NEPA document development. The 

user-friendly system made it easier for the public to 

participate in and comment on planning efforts. 

As former BLM State Director Elaine Zielinski 

noted, “The world and its data are moving faster 

and faster. Our challenge is to be able to respond 

quicker and more efficiently.”73

and consistent involvement of key governmental 

partners; incorporating local knowledge of 

economic, social, and political conditions; 

addressing intergovernmental issues; and building 

relationships of trust and collaboration for longterm mutual gain. 

In 2005, the BLM amended its planning 

requirements to strengthen these goals and ensure 

The Pace of Planning Increases

The pace of planning increased considerably during 

the first years of the new century; between 2001 and 

2012, the BLM completed 67 new RMPs, initiated 

48 plan revisions, and identified the need for 42 

additional planning efforts (including efforts to 

address its 18 remaining management framework 

plans). Included were 21 high-priority, timesensitive plans needing revision or development 

to meet the nation’s energy needs and to protect 

specially designated areas, such as critical habitat 

for threatened or endangered species. The BLM also 

completed 18 major, multiresource amendments 

to land use plans. The total number of BLM plans 

changes as plan boundaries are refined; as of 2012, 

the BLM estimated it had 157 plans. 

New Approaches Take Shape

Plan development became increasingly complex, 

time consuming, and expensive. By 2009, an 

RMP could cost millions of dollars and take 4 to 

6 years to develop. An RMP/EIS, with its associated 

appendices, could fill more than 1,000 pages. Many 

plan revisions experienced significant delays and 

additional costs because of resource complexity, 

stakeholder involvement, and shifting priorities. 

The BLM no longer completed plans and associated 

EISs in-house; private contractors prepared 

significant portions of them.

By 2005, a new approach to planning was 

beginning to take shape—one that would address 

the constantly changing demands and conditions 

on public lands. That year, a team of planning 

veterans joined BLM employees in the Shoshone 

Field Office in Idaho to revisit the development and 

implementation of the office’s 1986 RMP/EIS and 

to guide the office in developing a new plan.74 The 

team stated that future RMP documents should be 

“outcome based” rather than prescriptive in nature, 

adding that the plan should “accurately describe 

what the preferred outcome of an alternative 

should be and should not commit the agency to any 

specific method of implementation.” Additionally, 

“adoption of this approach should significantly 

increase the degree of flexibility inherent in the 

planning process, reduce the need for amending 

the plan, and permit the adoption of innovative 

management approaches.”75 The team also stressed 

that “close coordination and cooperation with 

stakeholders in the planning process was 

. . . absolutely critical to the success of any new 

RMPs.” It noted that the planning process had to 

have “an adequate level of flexibility integrated into 

it in order to deal with new or emerging issues,” 

which was a clear reference to the need for adaptive 

management in future planning efforts.76

The BLM traditionally encouraged its state and 

field offices to involve local, state, tribal, and 

other federal agencies in carrying out NEPA’s 

planning requirements. Its goals for “cooperating 

agency” relationships included gaining early 

Training course

for ePlanning.

Planning meeting with stakeholders.

that staffs at all levels engaged their governmental 

partners through the cooperating agency 

relationship whenever preparing or revising RMPs. 

This relationship went beyond “consultation” to 

engage other agencies in a working partnership. 

Agencies shared skills and resources to help the 

BLM develop RMPs that better reflected the needs 

and conditions of their jurisdictions and the 

citizens they represented. 

In light of lessons learned, the BLM began 

moving toward a more dynamic approach by 

recognizing plan development as only one phase of 

a planning cycle composed of plan development, 

implementation, evaluation, and amendment. This 

approach reduced the need for burdensome plan 

overhauls, and instead, made land use planning 

iterative, always ongoing at the field, state, and 

national level. 

Specialists from different agencies touring public lands in Idaho.
126 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 127

The Bureau Develops

a 21st Century Workforce

The new century inspired the BLM to look not 

only at its programs and processes but also at its 

Tribal Consultation | By James G. Kenna

Establishing a cooperative relationship with the BLM that integrated management of nationally 

significant lands was possible, at least in part, because we knew each other well. I credit Chairman 

Milanovich with the vision to see possibilities and the courage to set precedents.

Because tribal governments vary in their capacity, structure, and priorities, effective ways to 

organize consultation communications also vary. Some tribes focus their capacity on very specific 

subjects or geographic areas, while others prefer an expansive range of subjects. Sometimes it is 

acceptable to fully discuss and resolve certain questions or issues at the staff level, while in other 

cases, the expectation is to involve the Tribal Council. To resolve any uncertainty, expectations need be 

discussed with each individual tribe. In some cases, discussions progress to a formal written agreement. 

A clear, common understanding about communication protocols is another major contributor to 

successful consultation.

While consultation with individual tribes is far more common, there are instances when a 

multitribal forum is the most appropriate approach to consultation. In Arizona, the BLM conducted 

government-to-government consultation with tribes affected by remediation of contaminated ground 

water at the Pacific Gas and Electric Topock Compressor Station adjacent to the Colorado River. Tribal 

safety interests downstream were considered together with cultural concerns about proposed wells 

that had been addressed through a cultural and historical properties management plan. Though 

participation among tribes may vary and consensus may not possible, this instance illustrates that using 

a fair, open, and honest approach gathers perspectives that better inform and improve decisions. 

Strong relationships needed to address difficult subjects during consultation sometimes develop 

outside of any consultation process, often through a shared project. In one instance, grave markers from 

a burial site were stolen. The BLM recovered the markers and then engaged the tribe in dialogue about 

how best to reestablish and protect both the markers and the site. The process of working on this project 

together improved the relationship and opened up communications for subsequent consultations. 

Government-to-government consultation includes consultations required under section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, but it is much broader. Given the breadth of interests and issues 

in which governments engage, it makes no sense to try to force them into a framework designed for 

making property eligibility determinations. Those determinations, and the section 106 process, are 

critical to making informed decisions, but it is important to have a relationship that extends beyond 

projects and not wait until an undertaking is defined. The BLM invited 40 tribes to participate in 

formulating alternatives for the “Desert Renewable Energy and Conservation Plan.” Not all chose to 

participate, but many did, and the input was incorporated into the alternatives before a preferred 

alternative (or an undertaking) for the draft environmental impact statement was identified.

While achieving consensus on highly controversial projects is not always possible, diplomacy, 

respect, and understanding are. Personal relationships, clear communication protocols, and a 

relationship founded on more than project proposals can promote success. As consultation based on the 

latest policies matures, there will be difficult moments, as there are in any government-to-government 

relationship. But strong relations based on honest consultation are not only possible, they are essential 

to the Bureau’s mission.

James (Jim) Kenna was the BLM state director 

in California until his retirement in 2015. He 

previously served as the state director in Arizona; 

associate state director in Oregon; deputy 

assistant director for resources and planning 

in Washington, DC; and field manager in Palm 

Springs, California. He was also a budget analyst 

for the Department of the Interior.

employees to consider what kind of workforce it 

would need to meet land management challenges 

into the future. The BLM’s leaders also 

considered the projected retirement of many 

seasoned employees. 

NEPA, FLPMA, and the conservation movement of 

the late 1960s and 1970s opened the BLM up to a 

host of college graduates in wildlife biology, range 

management, geology, petroleum engineering, and 

many more fields. Hiring graduates from more 

The Changing Face of the BLM | By Melissa Dukes

In the 1980s, two major shifts occurred within the BLM. First, wildland fire 

management crews, operating out of the Boise Interagency Fire Center and out of Alaska, 

were expanded throughout the BLM to provide immediate response to fires. The majority 

of the crew members were hired from the surrounding areas, putting a local face to the BLM 

fire workforce. Second, in 1982, Interior Secretary James Watt shifted onshore minerals 

responsibility from the Minerals Management Service (since named the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement) to the BLM. With this move, the BLM 

gained 800 additional employees, including petroleum engineers, geologists, land law 

examiners, and petroleum engineering technicians. These new employees brought a 

different focus and a different client base, including major national and international energy 

companies, to BLM’s workforce. 

In the 1990s, BLM managers recognized that additional efforts were needed to ensure 

the face of the BLM reflected the face of the people for whom the public lands are managed. 

Since the people who used and cared about the public lands came from around the country, 

so should the BLM workforce. Managers worked with land grant colleges and universities, 

associations, and user groups from around the country to encourage their students and 

members to apply for jobs in the BLM.

During the 2000s, recreational use of the public lands continued to grow, wildfires 

increased in size and frequency, and interest in domestic and renewable energy resources 

intensified. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 increased the number of employees responsible 

for onshore minerals activity as it expanded BLM’s responsibilities in this area. 

Erika Miller is one of several people from diverse backgrounds hired in response to the 

Energy Policy Act. Originally from Illinois, Miller, who is half Hungarian and half AfricanAmerican, graduated from Illinois State University and then joined the United States Army. 

She fell in love with recreating on public lands in Colorado while stationed at Fort Carson. 

After a tour in Iraq, and soon after getting out of the Army, Miller was hired by the BLM in 

2007 as a petroleum engineering technician, conducting field inspections on oil and gas 

wells and helping fight wildfires during the busy summer season. 

Today, the BLM’s 10,500 employees come from around the country. The men and 

women of the BLM reflect ALL citizens of the United States—be they White, Black, AsianAmerican/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native, or Hispanic.

The face of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has, from the beginning, reflected 

the face of the people who use its public lands. In 1953, the BLM emblem consisted of 

profiles of white men from the primary user groups—logging, ranching, oil drilling, mining, 

and surveying. Photos from the General Land Office, the Grazing Service, and the early years 

of the BLM indicate that the emblem accurately reflected the workforce at that time.

The 1960s saw a national conservation movement that impacted all federal land 

management agencies. In 1961, the BLM hired its first “lady” forester, Elaine Mosher. 

Though forestry had been dominated by “virile, macho-type males,” according to former 

Montana State Director Edwin Zaidlicz, what Mosher “lacked in size . . . she more than made 

up for with tenacity, awesome drive, courage and infectious adaptability.” Mosher changed 

the face of the BLM by proving that women could perform traditional BLM jobs as effectively 

as men.

With the passage of the Classification and Multiple Use Act in 1964, BLM’s workforce 

was expanded to include wildlife, recreation, soil, and water resource specialists to reflect 

broader responsibilities. Multiple use advisory boards were established to better represent 

the BLM’s many local and regional constituents. As a result of the act, the BLM hired new 

types of employees with different ideas about managing public lands. By the end of the 

1960s, the face of the BLM had changed even more. It now included men and women who, 

through education and experience, looked at public land management differently. 

The 1970s brought more changes to the BLM. People from around the country 

were discovering recreational opportunities on BLM lands—lands that were once the 

playgrounds of local residents. A number of critical pieces of legislation were passed, 

including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which provided the framework for 

BLM’s multiple use mission. As a result of the new legislation, the BLM’s workforce grew 

from 4,300 employees in 1970 to 9,700 employees by 1980. Many of these newly hired 

employees brought diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds as well as diverse expertise to 

the BLM.

For example, Danny Charlie, a member of the Navajo Nation, was hired by the BLM in 

the 1970s in response to the requirements established by the National Environmental Policy 

Act. His job was to ensure that the BLM considered the concerns of local Navajos before 

resource decisions were made and implemented. Once again, the face of the BLM changed 

as its mission was expanded.

Melissa Dukes was the 

human resources officer 

for the Colorado State 

Office from 2001 until her 

retirement in 2014. Prior to 

joining the BLM in 1993,

Melissa worked for the 

Department of the Navy for 

16 years in California, 

Washington, and Louisiana.

Elaine Mosher.

Danny Charlie.

Erika Miller.

Indian tribal governments and the United States government have a unique relationship—one 

that includes a legal commitment set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, 

Executive orders, and court decisions. This commitment has been interpreted and applied as policy 

across history, sometimes in ways that no one would support today, but more recently, policy has 

focused on tribal consultation. President Clinton issued Executive Order 13175 on November 6, 2000, 

emphasizing the government’s responsibilities to establish regular and meaningful consultation and 

coordination with Indian tribal governments. President Obama issued an Executive memorandum on 

November 5, 2009, identifying tribal consultation as “a critical ingredient of a sound and productive 

Federal-tribal relationship.” These documents capture the essence of what is required in any consultation 

between governments: a relationship and communication. 

Laws and policies provide the essential structure and process for consultation by clarifying roles 

and promoting consistency. But consultation rests on relationships between and among people, 

most of whom are not lawyers or policymakers. For the Bureau of Land Management, consultation 

responsibilities center on field managers, who are delegated decisionmakers acting on behalf of the 

United States within the scope of the agency mission. They know the lands involved in greater detail 

than other delegated officials and oversee teams of specialists who work in the area. Field managers 

also have a realistic opportunity to create and sustain relationships with tribal officials through 

regular contact. 

Indian tribes vary greatly in how they approach consultation, but in most cases, consultation 

primarily involves tribal elected officials with broad responsibilities. Tribes exercise inherent sovereign 

powers across a range of typical government services and functions, and consultation with federal 

agencies must be integrated with all other activities of government. It has always been my experience 

that land uses and land management practices are of great interest to tribes, generally because all lands 

have attributes that link to cultural traditions, migrations, usual and accustomed uses, stories, history, 

and sometimes religious practices or treaties. Personal relationships can, and do, form at multiple levels 

in government-to-government relations, but a positive relationship between field managers and tribal 

leaders is a huge asset to both parties. 

When the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Act of 2000 became law, it 

referenced an agreement developed a year earlier through consultation with the Agua Caliente Band

of Cahuilla Indians. Chairman Richard Milanovich and I signed that

agreement after months of consultation with the Tribal Council.

Meeting with a

tribal community.
128 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 129

fields of study enabled the

BLM to enrich and diversify

its workforce. More

opportunities opened up

for people from all walks

of life. The BLM hired

Denise Meridith, a Cornell

University graduate initially

passed over by other agencies who weren’t hiring 

women at the time, and she eventually became the 

BLM’s deputy director, the highest career post in 

the agency, and was the first female and the first 

African American to do so. 

Though the BLM’s workforce was becoming more 

diverse, the agency was at risk of losing valuable 

organizational knowledge. Twenty-five years after 

passage of FLPMA, the BLM projected that more 

than 60 percent of its leaders and 40 to 50 percent 

of its employees would be eligible to retire in 5 

years. Concerned with maintaining organizational 

effectiveness as it faced this anticipated wave of 

retirements, the BLM developed the Leadership 

Excellence Program in the 1990s and expanded 

it in 2005 with a leadership succession plan. This 

program provided a roadmap for employees to 

explore and develop leadership skills and identified 

succession needs for key leadership positions. It 

also provided a suite of training courses at various 

levels under the sponsorship of the BLM’s National 

Training Center. Employees could continue the 

growth and development of their leadership skills 

and self-select managerial tracks. The core curricula 

included the Pathways, Emerging Leaders, and 

Leadership Academy courses. 

Although the predicted mass exodus did not 

materialize, by 2005 the BLM had become a mix 

of multiple generations with varied cultural and 

technical backgrounds working together and, 

increasingly, working with partners, to accomplish 

a complex mission. 

In 2010, the BLM revamped the Leadership 

Excellence program and added Leadership 

Exploration and Development classes to 

expand leadership training opportunities for 

BLM employees.

The Maturing of BLM’s Tribal Relationships | By Cheryle Cobell Zwang

There are more than 560 federally recognized tribes in the United States, and I am an enrolled 

member of one, the Blackfeet Nation. I was born and raised on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in 

Montana, and I am very proud of my American Indian heritage. I began my federal career as a GS-3 in 

1987, and over the years, as I have moved into positions of greater responsibility, I have always strived 

to enhance federal–tribal relations. Often I have served as a cultural translator, educator, and mediator 

for both federal and tribal leaders to help avoid missteps or miscommunication. In this role, I have 

witnessed great patience and perseverance by both tribal and BLM leaders, creating a foundation on 

which the BLM and the tribes have built and maintained strong relationships. 

During my first year on the job, I was fortunate to be introduced to another tribal member in our 

office. She coached me and helped me to learn and adjust to the federal culture and to share my culture. 

For me, federal meetings were a lesson in themselves. I learned, for example, that in federal meetings, 

time is the driver, and when the time is up, the discussion ends. In many tribal meetings, by contrast, 

the topic drives the meeting, and regardless of the time allocated, a discussion does not end until the 

attendees decide they are done. In federal meetings, interrupting another person is often tolerated 

and sometimes even expected, indicating that people are engaged. Generally, in tribal meetings, 

interrupting another person is viewed as unnecessary, as everyone will have time to speak. Finally, in 

federal meetings, while decisions are sometimes made by consensus, often the meeting is to brief the 

leader and the decision is made solely by that person after listening to his/her advisors and staff. At 

tribal meetings, leaders do not typically operate autonomously. They need to know what the other 

council members are thinking and reach a majority or consensus before a decision can be made. 

During my second year on the job, I was asked to serve as a facilitator/recorder in a meeting 

between tribal and federal leaders being held at a reservation facility. Early on in the meeting, many 

cultural miscues took place, and I could see frustration was building for both the federal managers and 

the tribal officials. I watched as the more senior federal facilitator managed the on-reservation meeting 

with tribal leaders as he would a federal meeting. For me, it was like watching two teams play a game, 

with each having a very different understanding of the rules. Luckily, during the morning break, we 

discussed the situation, the cultural translation was shared with federal leaders, and adaptations were 

made so that the meeting was ultimately successful. I believe this sort of coaching by Native American 

staff to federal leaders has often laid the foundation for great strides in federal–tribal relations. 

Much has changed over the years. Most tribal governments have natural and cultural resource 

departments in their organizations, and tribal members and other resource professionals are often 

working as department heads. These individuals typically understand how federal organizations and 

processes work. The same is true for federal leadership and staff; we now have a better understanding 

of how tribal governments operate and how they are organized. Federal agencies have made it a priority 

for their managers to learn the history of federal–tribal relations and to understand what our unique 

roles and responsibilities are to American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives today. The BLM is now more 

diverse and culturally sensitive. Consultation with tribes has progressed from us informing the tribes 

of our actions to ongoing government-to-government consultation. In fact, tribes are expressing 

ever-greater political influence, and with each new administration, elected officials are responding. As 

a result, President Obama was adopted into the Crow Tribe of Montana. He hosted tribal summits in the 

Nation’s Capital, and his administration resolved the Cobell class action lawsuit resulting in improved 

management of American Indian trust assets. 

Yes, there have been missteps, but superimposed over all of this, I have seen a sincere belief by 

both federal and tribal leaders in the value and importance of our public lands and resources and a 

resolute desire to find a way to work together. There is a famous proverb to which I subscribe: “We do 

not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” As a BLM employee, I am able 

to contribute to the care of the public lands and resources we manage today and to help ensure that they 

remain a treasure for our children and all those generations yet to come. It is why I encourage other 

Native Americans to join our ranks, and it is why I so strongly believe in the need for strong federal–

tribal relations. It is also why I joined the BLM and the federal family and why I remain here more than 

20 years later. 

Cheryle Cobell Zwang was a special assistant to the BLM Idaho state director and the deputy state director for communications in the Idaho State Office. She assisted BLM leaders in advancing the unique

relationship between the federal government and federally recognized tribes and in recruiting talented and diverse individuals to work with the BLM.

The BLM’s National Training Center

in Phoenix, Arizona.

Inside the National Training Center.

A Leadership Academy course.

A session during the Pathways program.

Denise Meridith.

A traditional dance group in Alaska with Brenda Takes Horse (back L), an Alaska Native, 

and Cheryle Zwang (back R), both BLM employees and past board members for the 

Society of American Indian Government Employees (SAIGE).

Cheryle Zwang (second from L) and Tex Hall (fifth from R), past president of the National Congress of American 

Indians, with the Youth Track students at the national SAIGE training conference.
130 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 131

The Secretary Designates

the National System of Public Lands

As the BLM entered the 21st century, its 

progression toward a more comprehensive and 

unified management strategy led to a change 

in the very name of the assets it administered. 

On December 16, 2008, the properties under 

the BLM’s management, previously referred to 

as “public lands,” were officially designated the 

“National System of Public Lands.” Those who are 

unfamiliar with the Bureau or its history might 

have reasonably concluded that the subtle change 

Back to the Future: Changes in BLM’s Organization in the 21st Century | By Rebecca Mack and Alexandra Ritchie

For many years prior to 1995, the BLM had been a fourlevel line management organization (headquarters office in 

Washington, DC; state offices; district offices; and field offices). 

This organization had a logical progression of leadership positions 

that led to upper level management opportunities. For instance, 

it was understood—to be a field manager, you needed to be a 

supervisor with experience in multiple programs; to be a district 

manager, you first needed to be a field manager; and so forth. 

It was also understood that you needed to have experience in 

multiple geographic locations. Leadership succession meant that 

you held different positions at each level of the organization at 

various locations.

Beginning in 1995, the BLM organization was significantly 

streamlined and flattened out. The Bureau went from a three-tier 

field organization (state, district, and field offices) to a two-tier 

structure (state offices and field offices). The district level was 

essentially eliminated, and the emphasis was on work performed 

by teams rather than a structured organization. The two-tier 

organization had one level of line authority below the state 

director—each field office (headed by a field manager) reported 

directly to the state director. This reorganization was driven by the 

Department of the Interior’s 1994 streamlining plan and supported 

by BLM’s acting director, Mike Dombeck, who wanted more 

resources sent to the field, especially to implement ecosystem 

management. A number of states moved directly to a two-tier 

structure while other states used the guidelines to streamline 

their organizations. 

During this time, the recognized career ladder progression 

for leadership positions became less clear, especially the 

requirement for experience at multiple geographic locations 

with the elimination of the district organizational level. The BLM 

became concerned about maintaining organizational effectiveness 

as it also faced a wave of retirements throughout its workforce, 

including in key leadership ranks, and developed the Leadership 

Excellence Program. 

Two years later, all of the states had made significant 

streamlining and efficiency moves; however, there was a lack of 

consistency throughout the BLM. A team was assembled 

to address consistency issues and to develop alternatives for 

the organization and, in 1997, provided the Executive 

Leadership Team (ELT) with a set of alternatives, which included 

a two-tier structure. 

Almost 10 years later, in 2007, following a series of 

organizational reviews that included the BLM futuring review and 

the Washington Office efficiency review conducted in 2006 by 

members of the ELT, BLM leaders concluded that all of the state 

organizations, except for the Eastern States organization, should be 

modified three-tier structures with state, district, and field offices. 

This structure was expected to result in better service to the public 

and quality control, reduced duplication of overhead services, and 

a better career path for the employees. Any deviations from the 

three-tier organization would be the exception, not the rule.

The district manager in most BLM states is a line officer with 

a regional focus who both manages and provides zoned services 

(e.g., public affairs or fire support) to multiple field offices or 

National Landscape Conservation System units. In some cases, 

the district is organized exclusively along either functional lines or 

geographic lines (e.g., the Las Cruces District in New Mexico, which 

has a large geographic area to administer and no field offices). 

The decision to return to the three-tier structure was part 

of the ELT’s long-term strategy, “Managing for Excellence,” to 

make the BLM an effective, efficient, and responsive organization 

prepared to fulfill its complex multiple use core mission and meet 

the changing needs of its constituents, customers, and employees 

over time. 

Today, the BLM’s field organization represents a hybrid of 

tiered structures that have been determined to best meet the 

diverse needs of each state and the local constituents. The BLM 

has adapted, restructured, downsized, and rightsized over the 

years to accommodate the changing needs of the organization and 

its constituencies as well as its increased responsibilities. It surely 

will continue to evolve in the future. 

Rebecca Mack and Alexandra Ritchie were management and program analysts in the BLM’s Division of Evaluations and Management Services in the Washington Office. Rebecca had a long career of federal service.

Alexandra came to the BLM in 2006 as a Presidential Management Fellow in public affairs and currently works for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 

was merely symbolic. But there was much more to 

the story.

“Calling these lands the National System of Public 

Lands implies that all of our lands and resources are 

linked in some capacity,” said Jim Caswell, Director 

of the BLM at the time. “This linkage is at the heart 

of our landscape approach to land management.”

He elaborated further, saying, “The designation 

will emphasize the interconnectedness and 

interdependence of the public lands and all who 

benefit from them; better convey the diversity of 

interests and values associated with the public 

lands and how these are served through balanced, 

comprehensive, management; and increase the 

critical importance of enlightened stewardship to 

the preservation of these lands and to the success of 

BLM’s work on behalf of the American people.”77

The BLM’s advancement toward a holistic and 

interdisciplinary management philosophy—

recorded over the last half century and continuing 

today—is visible across the landscape and across 

the Bureau’s resource management programs.

Terry Badlands Wilderness Study Area in Montana.

Eastern States Office in Virginia.

Trailhead managed by the Boise District Office in Idaho.

Lands managed 

by the Needles 

Field Office in 

California.
132 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 133

Notes

1. The National Landscape Conservation System was 

often shortened to NLCS; however, the BLM later moved 

toward using the term “National Conservation Lands” to 

refer to the designated lands whenever possible.

2. Entered into the Department of the Interior Manual, 

Series 02-Organization, Part 135: Bureau of Land 

Management (135 DM 2), on July 12, 2000.

3. Congress increased the BLM’s appropriation by 

$11.5 million to help meet the added workloads. Bureau 

of Land Management, “Information on the National 

Landscape Conservation System,” Information Bulletin 

2001-067, January 30, 2001.

4. Bruce Babbitt, Cities in the Wilderness: A New Vision 

of Land Use in America, (Washington, DC: Island 

Press, 2005).

5. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Interior Secretary 

Makes Plans to Manage National Monuments,” press 

release, April 24, 2002.

6. Additional legislated NLCS designations included: 

California’s Piedras Blancas Light Station and Florida’s 

Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Areas 

in 2008, the Old Spanish National Historic Trail on 

December 4, 2002, and the El Camino Real de Los Tejas 

National Historic Trail on October 18, 2004. The BLM 

would also potentially have indirect responsibility for 

two new designations in the East: the Captain John 

Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail designated 

Dec. 21, 2006, and the Star-Spangled Banner National 

Historic Trail designated May 8, 2008. Congress 

designated or expanded 43 wilderness areas between 

2002 and 2008. 

7. Mesa State College, Dominguez Escalante NCA 

Proposal: A Study by the Mesa State College Natural 

Resources and Land Policy Institute, 2007, 

www.mesacounty.us/news/2007/DominquezEscalante%20Final%20report%20small.pdf

(accessed August 22, 2011).

8. Ken Salazar became Secretary of the Interior in 2009.

A Director’s Perspective: 2007-2009 | By James L. Caswell

On a cold January afternoon in 2007, my phone rang. Assistant Interior 

Secretary Stephen Allred was calling to inquire about my interest in becoming 

director of the Bureau of Land Management. We were well acquainted and had 

both worked for Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne when he was the governor 

of Idaho. The prospect was exciting but daunting. The last thing I wanted was 

to be merely a placeholder during the waning days of the Bush administration. 

On the other hand, how could I turn down an opportunity to serve as director of 

the very agency where I had begun my career exactly 40 years before? 

In August I was sworn in as the BLM’s 16th director. During the 

confirmation process, I immersed myself in the issues, priorities, and initiatives 

of the BLM and the Department and talked with people to develop a focused 

agenda for my time as director. I went to Washington with three goals: 

1) complete the initiatives and priorities underway; 2) reach out to employees 

and build on their ingenuity, creativity, and enthusiasm; and 3) institutionalize 

the Healthy Lands Initiative. Even with this clarity, I knew it would be difficult to 

stay on course in the dynamic environment of Washington. I would need to be 

flexible and adapt to new challenges.

New leadership often brings about new initiatives and policies and, in 

many situations, reorganizations, including executive personnel moves. I felt 

strongly that such efforts would be counterproductive, so I resisted making 

those kinds of changes. Instead, I embarked on a transition process to build 

relationships and establish credibility with the Executive Leadership Team and 

the workforce so that we could focus on achieving our most important initiatives 

and priorities. 

A pressing national priority was to implement the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. In 2007, oil prices climbed to more than $100 per barrel for the first time, 

and the nation was looking for opportunities to increase production from all 

sources—renewable and nonrenewable. The act came with many mandates 

for the BLM, most with required timeframes. We made major revisions in 

conventional onshore oil and gas regulations and leasing and permitting 

procedures; we updated our best management practices and established oil and 

gas pilot offices to improve coordination, environmental analyses, transparency, 

and timeliness. This approach worked so well that we established renewable 

energy pilot offices by Secretarial Order. We also revised geothermal regulations 

and completed or initiated wind, solar, and geothermal programmatic 

environmental impact statements. In addition, regulatory advances were made 

in oil shale, tar sands, coal leasing, and energy right-of-way corridors.

Competing demands for public land uses and resources were at an alltime high during this period and the BLM faced tough challenges in carrying 

out its multiple use mission. From these struggles and the public acrimony 

surrounding natural resource management, the Healthy Lands Initiative 

was born. This is a long-term collaborative effort to strategically identify, 

conserve, and restore high-priority aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems while 

providing for managed development. The concept was in its infancy when I 

became director, and I assumed a direct leadership role in it. My vision was 

to fundamentally change how the BLM defines its land-use planning areas, 

selects priority conservation and restoration projects, and refines monitoring 

protocols to facilitate adaptive management. We made tremendous progress in 

institutionalizing this approach Bureauwide. In fact, you will see this approach 

still being applied in the BLM today, even though it may not be called the 

Healthy Lands Initiative. 

While I was director, I started a director’s blog to connect directly with 

BLM employees, and it was an instant success. Most issues employees raised 

fell into three categories: 1) workplace and workforce concerns, 2) managing 

our nation’s natural resources, and 3) BLM’s future. I visited BLM offices all 

across the country and heard positive comments regarding the blog’s value. I 

personally read every posting and used the feedback in policy decisions. I regret 

not having had more time as director to work on more of these ideas. 

Much of my time centered around an issue I was not even aware of 

when I became the BLM director, but one that has been debated for more than 

30 years. The effort to give BLM lands a formal name dates back to at least the 

1970s when the Federal Land Policy and Management Act was passed. The 

Public Lands Foundation brought it to my attention, and after looking into it, 

I became convinced of its merit. I initiated a yearlong process of collaboration 

with the Office of the Secretary, the Congress, and the administration to finalize 

a proposal. On December 16, 2008, Secretary Kempthorne signed Secretarial 

Order No. 3280, designating BLM-managed public lands as the “National System 

of Public Lands.” This provided, for the first time, an official name for the more 

than 245 million acres under BLM management.

I left Washington, DC, pleased with our accomplishments and satisfied that 

I did my best to meet my personal goals, advance the administration’s agenda, 

and connect with employees in furthering the BLM’s multiple use mission. It 

was also my honor and privilege to serve Secretary Kempthorne, Assistant 

Secretary Allred, the dedicated employees of the BLM, and the American people.

James L. (Jim) Caswell served as the BLM director until 2009. Previously, he was administrator of the State of Idaho’s Office of Species Conservation. Jim spent 33 years in federal service,

working for the BLM, Bonneville Power Administration, and Forest Service. He is a Vietnam veteran and graduate of Michigan State University.

Monitoring terrestrial habitat.

9. Catherine Robertson, manager of the BLM’s Grand 

Junction Field Office, in a telephone interview with 

Elizabeth Rieben on August 22, 2011, and Laurie 

Sedlmayr, BLM Washington Office, in a telephone 

interview with Elizabeth Rieben on May 25, 2012.

10. In addition, it was not unusual for one manager 

to manage two or more units. In cases of joint 

management, the manager could be from another 

agency, but it would be a federal manager. National 

monuments that are managed jointly include Santa 

Rosa and San Jacinto (with U.S. Forest Service), Grand 

Canyon-Parashant (with National Park Service), and 

Craters of the Moon (with National Park Service).

11. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Wilderness 

Inventory and Study Procedures Handbook,” 

H-6310-1, 2001.

12. Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Bureau of Land 

Management, 531 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2008) and Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1253 

(D. Utah 2006) (November 2003 Utah lease challenge), 

in which the court found that BLM did not sufficiently 

consider new information regarding wilderness 

characteristics as part of an oil and gas leasing analysis. 

13. Secretary Dan Glickman, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture and Secretary Bruce Babbitt, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, “Managing the Impact of 

Wildfires on Communities and the Environment: A 

Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 

2000” (September 8, 2000). This report recommended 

funding and Congress concurred in the appropriations.

14. Randy Eardley, interview with Tim Murphy, 

October 2010. 

15. Randy Eardley, interview with Tom Boatner, 

October 2010.

16. Ibid.

17. Kevin Hyde, landscape hydrogeomorphologist, 

Collins Consulting, for the U.S. Forest Service Forestry 

Sciences Lab, Missoula, Montana, provided information 

for this case study.

18. Energy Information Administration, “Table 3.3a. 

Petroleum Trade: Overview,” Monthly Energy Review, 

www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_7.pdf

(accessed July 15, 2011).

19. National Energy Policy Development Group, 

National Energy Policy (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 2001), www.wtrg.com/

EnergyReport/National-Energy-Policy.pdf

(accessed July 18, 2011). 

20. Matt Spangler and Gerald Karey, “ANWR Push Fails 

Again, Likely to Resume Next Year,” Inside Energy

(New York: Platts, December 26, 2005) 1.

21. Matt Spangler and Cathy Landry, “BLM Declines 

to Change Parameters of NPR-A Lease Sale Set for 

September,” Inside Energy (New York: Platts, 

August 26, 2006), 7.

22. Bureau of Land Management-Alaska State Office, 

“National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) Oil and 

Gas Lease Sale Generates $30,961,806 in Revenue,” news 

release, September 24, 2008, www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/info/

newsroom/2008/09/09-24-08_npr-a_oil-gas_leasesale_

generates_30961806_dollars.html (accessed July 25, 

2011).

23. Bureau of Land Management, “New Study Measures 

Restrictions on Oil and Gas Development on Federal 

Lands,” news release, November 28, 2006, www.blm.gov/

wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2006/november0/0611_1.html

(accessed June 28, 2011).

24. Matt Spangler, “BLM to Issue Rule Tweaking 

Drilling-Permit Timeline,” Inside Energy (New York: 

Platts, July 12, 2004), 1.

25. Bureau of Land Management, “Final Update of 

Federal Oil and Gas Regulations Will Improve Energy 

Development on Public Lands,” news release, March 

7, 2007, www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2007/

march/NR0703_1.html, (accessed June 28, 2011).

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

BLM Director

James Caswell.

Geothermal powerplant at 

Mammoth Lakes in California.
134 Chapter 3 | 2000–2009 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 135

29. Bureau of Land Management, “BLM Energy Reforms: 

Questions and Answers” in “Interior Finalizes Onshore 

Oil and Gas Leasing Reforms,” news release, May 17, 

2010, www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2010/may/

NR_05_17_2010.html (accessed May 3, 2012).

30. Matt Spangler, “BLM: Lease-Plan Protests Must 

Come in Writing 15 Days Before Auction,” Inside Energy

(New York: Platts, July 4, 2005), 11.

31. Bill Loveless, “BLM Approval of 10,000 Wells in N.M. 

Draws Challenge from Ranchers, Others,” Inside Energy

(New York: Platts, February 9, 2004), 13.

32. Matt Spangler, “Court Clears Approval of Seismic 

Plan for Work on Nine Mile Canyon in Utah,” Inside 

Energy (New York: Platts, July 26, 2004), 11.

33. Matt Spangler, “BLM to Lease Otero Mesa Tract 

Despite N. Mexico’s Suit to Stop Drilling There,” Inside 

Energy (New York: Platts, June 13, 2005), 12.

34. Mark Jaffe, “Suit Targets Roan Drilling,” The Denver 

Post, September 30, 2008.

35. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy 

Review 2009 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 2010), 318, figure 11.7, www.eia.gov/

totalenergy/data/annual/archive/038409.pdf (accessed 

July 6, 2011).

36. Bureau of Land Management, “Interior Department 

Issues Oil Shale Research, Development and 

Demonstration Leases for Public Lands in Colorado,” 

news release, December 15, 2006, www.blm.gov/wo/st/

en/info/newsroom/2006/december/blm_announces_

waiver.html (accessed June 28, 2011).

37. Bureau of Land Management, “BLM Finalizes Rules 

That Could Add Billions of Barrels of Oil to U.S. Supply,” 

news release, November 17, 2008, www.blm.gov/wo/st/

en/info/newsroom/2008/november/NR_11_17_2008.

html (accessed June 28, 2011).

38. Ibid.

57. Bureau of Land Management, “2006 Grazing 

Regulations Status,” Instruction Memorandum No. 

2007-004, October 10, 2006; “Idaho District Court Order 

Enjoins Grazing Regulations,” Instruction Memorandum 

No. 2007-137, June 15, 2007; and “Idaho District Court 

Order and Judgment Enjoins Grazing Regulations,” 

Instruction Memorandum, No. 2009-109, April 20, 2009.

58. Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287, United 

States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, February 8, 1999, 

http://openjurist.org/167/f3d/1287.

59. Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 08-

35359, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 

September 1, 2010, http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/

datastore/opinions/2010/09/01/08-35359.pdf.

60. Bureau of Land Management, “Guidance on the Use 

of a New Categorical Exclusion for Grazing Permits/

Leases,” Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-019, 

October 25, 2007.

61. Bureau of Land Management, “Categorical 

Exclusions for Fuels Reduction, Vegetation Management, 

and Grazing Permit Issuance,” Instruction Memorandum 

No. 2009-199, August 21, 2009.

62. Bureau of Land Management, “Wild Horse and 

Burro Removal, Adoption, Population, AML Table,” 

statistical records, www.wildhorseandburro.blm.gov/

statistics/PopRemAdopStats71-05.pdf (accessed 

November 15, 2013).

39. Bureau of Land Management, “Energy Corridors 

Designated in Eleven Western States,” news release, 

January 14, 2009, www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/

newsroom/2009/january/NR_01_15_2009.html

(accessed April 14, 2012).

40. Bureau of Land Management, “New Report Details 

Coal Resources on Federal Land in Powder River Basin,” 

news release, September 5, 2007, www.blm.gov/wo/st/

en/info/newsroom/2007/september/NR_0709_03.html

(accessed June 28, 2011).

41. Ryan Wiser and Galen Barbose, Renewables Portfolio 

Standards in the United States: A Status Report with Data 

Through 2007, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 

2008, http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/REPORT%20lbnl154e-revised.pdf (accessed July 20, 2011). 

42. Ibid. 

43. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Record of Decision: Implementation of a 

Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land 

Use Plan Amendments (Washington, DC, 2005), http://

windeis.anl.gov/documents/docs/WindPEISROD.pdf

(accessed July 25, 2011).

44. Bureau of Land Management, “New Policy 

Encourages Solar Energy Development on America’s 

Public Lands,” news release, October 21, 2004.

45. Bureau of Land Management, “BLM Initiates 

Environmental Analysis of Solar Energy Development,” 

news release, May 29, 2008, updated June 12, 2008, 

www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2008/may_08/

NR_053008.html (accessed June 28, 2011).

46. Bureau of Land Management, “BLM Launches Effort 

to Facilitate Renewable Energy Development on Federal 

Lands,” news release, June 13, 2007, www.blm.gov/

wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2007/june/NR_0706_1.html 

h(accessed June 28, 2011).

47. Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Interior Secretary, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, 

Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, 

June 29, 2006.

48. Bureau of Land Management, “Use of the Healthy 

Forests Initiative Hazardous Fuels Reduction Categorical 

Exclusion,” Instruction Memorandum 2008-99, March 

26, 2008.

49. Public Law 108-7, section 323.

50. Rebecca Watson, Assistant Secretary for Land 

and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, statement before the Subcommittee on 

Forests and Forest Health, Resources Committee, 

U.S. House of Representatives, February 17, 2005, 

http://naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/

WatsonTestimony02.17.05.pdf.

51. Implementation of the Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act, Senate Hearing 109-506, July 19, 2006, 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United 

States Senate. Statement of Nina Rose Hatfield, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget, 

Department of the Interior, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/CHRG-109shrg31389/html/CHRG-109shrg31389.

htm.

52. Ibid. 

53. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. “Abstract,” Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource 

Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of 

Land Management Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, 

and Medford Districts, and the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area of the Lakeview District (Portland, OR: October 

2008), http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/files/

Volume_1/Vol_I_PreMatter.pdf.

54. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Interior Secretary 

Kempthorne Announces $3 Million in Immediate 

Funding for Healthy Lands Initiative,” press release, April 

10, 2007.

55. Bruce Babbitt, BLM National Training Center 

broadcast to resource advisory council members, 

transcript, November 2000.

56. Federal Register, vol. 68 (December 8, 2003), 68451. 

63. Government Accountability Office, Bureau of 

Land Management: Effective Long-Term Options 

Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses, 

GAO-09-77 (Washington, DC: 2008), www.gao.gov/

assets/290/282664.pdf.

64. Ibid. 

65. Ibid.

66. Ibid.

67. Ibid.

68. Sarah Schlanger, George MacDonell, and Signa 

Larralde, “Going Big: The Permian Basin Memorandum 

of Agreement as a Fundamental Shift in Section 106 

Compliance,” Society for American Archaeology, Journal 

of Archaeological Practice (Prototype) (January 2011): 

1-11.

69. Bureau of Land Management. “Table 4-3. Recreation 

Permits, Leases, and Passports on Public Lands 

Administered by the BLM by State, Fiscal Year 2010, 

Public Land Statistics 2010, (Denver, CO), 202. 

70. Government Accountability Office, Interior’s 

Land Appraisal Services: Actions Needed to Improve 

Compliance with Appraisal Standards, Increase Efficiency, 

and Broaden Oversight, GAO-06-1050 (Washington, DC: 

2006), www.gao.gov/new.items/d061050.pdf.

71. Bureau of Land Management, “BLM To Review 

Land Exchange Program,” news release, October 10, 

2002, www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Information/

newsroom/2002/blm_to_review_land.html (accessed 

May 7, 2012).

72. Appropriated funding was more than $25 million 

in 2001, $33 million in 2002, and about $48 million 

each year from 2003 to 2009. By comparison, in 2000, 

Congress appropriated just over $6 million. 

73. Elaine Zielinski, personal communication.

74. The “Monument Resource Management Plan” 

covered 2 million acres in south-central Idaho. It was 

not a plan for a national monument, but for the area that 

bordered Craters of the Moon National Monument.

75. Bureau of Land Management, A Legacy of Land Use 

Planning—Summary Report on the 2005 BLM Legacy 

Program (Denver, CO: BLM National Science and 

Technology Center, October 2005) 33.

76. Ibid.

77. Bureau of Land Management, “Interior Secretary 

Formally Designates BLM Lands the National System of 

Public Lands,” news release, December 16, 2008. 
Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 137

Chapter 4 | National Concerns Lead the Bureau in a New Direction, 2009–2012

The year 2009 ushered in a change of 

administration and a new approach to many public 

land management issues. President Barack Obama 

campaigned on improving energy efficiency and 

security while reducing carbon emissions. In the 

BLM, this translated into a strengthened interest 

in renewable energy development, the NLCS, and 

other conservation-oriented programs. As BLM 

Director Bob Abbey told the U.S. Senate during his 

confirmation hearing in July 2009, “Most of us want 

the BLM to place as much value on our nation’s 

wilderness and cultural resources as we do on 

mineral exploration and development.”1

America Invests in Jobs 

Soon after taking office, President Obama signed 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(Recovery Act) of 2009 to jump-start an ailing 

economy and preserve and create jobs. Through the 

Recovery Act, the BLM received over $310 million 

to help put people to work on more than 650 

projects across the country. Many of these projects 

supported the administration’s broader initiatives 

in areas such as renewable energy development and 

habitat restoration. Other projects helped alleviate 

numerous safety hazards and address major 

maintenance and construction backlogs. 

Recovery Act funding underwrote 66 renewable 

energy related studies and inventory efforts, 

including the preparation of a programmatic EIS 

for potential solar energy development in six states. 

Recovery Act funding also allowed the BLM’s 

cadastral survey program to conduct survey and 

land record projects in areas with the potential for 

wind, solar, and geothermal energy development 

and for transmission line corridor planning. 

Additionally, the 

Recovery Act funded 

a $2.3 million 

multistate inventory 

of national historic 

trails conducted by 

the BLM, national 

trail organizations, 

and State Historic

Preservation Offices.

Habitat restoration projects funded under the 

Recovery Act addressed a broad range of issues. 

The act funded research on the use of five different 

species of biological control insects to stop the 

spread of invasive plants. Funds also allowed for 

the employment of young people to help combat 

the introduction and spread of nonnative species 

through on-the-ground work in many states. 

Gyp Springs bridge on 

Crooked Creek Road near the 

Pryor Mountains in Montana.

President 

Barack Obama.

The Great Kiva at Lowry Pueblo,

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in Colorado.

Goat Well erosion-control

structure in Arizona.

Construction at Corn Springs 

Campground in California.

Organ Mountains in New Mexico.
138 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 139

Nearly $50 million in Recovery Act funding 

supported critical abandoned mine reclamation 

projects throughout the West. The BLM was able 

to improve safety around abandoned mines at 

77 sites that posed physical safety hazards and were 

in close proximity to public places and high-use 

areas. According to a 2011 inventory, more than 

7,700 abandoned mine sites had been remediated 

or had reclamation measures planned or underway. 

However, these sites represented only 25 percent of 

the estimated 31,000 sites inventoried, presenting a 

continuing and daunting challenge for the BLM.

The BLM used Recovery Act funding to improve 

or build 111,556 miles of trails, 547 miles of roads, 

and 16 bridges. The BLM also repaired or improved 

a number of public structures, often incorporating 

photovoltaic solar energy systems to increase 

energy efficiency. 

Energy and Minerals Programs

Undergo Changes

In July 2008, crude oil reached a record high 

of $131.40 a barrel,2 sending average retail gas 

prices above $4 a gallon.3 With the country in the 

midst of a recession and jobless rates and energy 

prices soaring, President Obama named energy 

independence as a top priority and emphasized a 

shift toward cleaner energy sources. He supported 

market-based solutions (“cap and trade”) to reduce 

With the promise of billions of dollars in funding 

through the Recovery Act and Department of 

Energy loan guarantees, the BLM announced in 

June 2009 that it would “fast track” its review of 

renewable energy projects.9 The Bureau identified 

additional priority wind, solar, and geothermal 

energy projects for processing in 2010, 2011, and 

2012. The BLM approved dozens of projects in 

greenhouse gas emissions and environmentally

responsible development of domestic supplies 

of petroleum.

In October 2009, Secretary

Ken Salazar pledged to

reform the nation’s oil shale

program “to answer

fundamental questions about

water use, power use, and

environmental and social

impacts of commercial-scale

development.” He announced

a second round of research, development, and 

demonstration leases, but with reduced acreage 

available for development, and he asked the 

inspector general to look into modifications 

made to existing research, development, and 

demonstration leases under the previous 

administration.4 In February 2011, the Secretary 

announced plans to take a fresh look at the oil shale 

programmatic EIS and leasing rules issued under 

the previous administration to address the latest 

research and technologies, water demands in the 

West, and a fair return to the taxpayers.5

Secretary Salazar also set about to reform the 

oil and gas leasing program in the wake of a 

controversial auction in Utah in December 2008 

and amidst a record level of protests in 2009, 

when 47 percent of all parcels were protested.6

The Secretary launched an initiative in May 2010 

to conduct more planning and NEPA analyses of 

areas proposed for leasing and to provide more 

opportunities for the public to participate in 

the process.7

The BLM committed to putting “boots on the 

ground” to visit parcels as part of the screening 

process to evaluate resource concerns prior to 

posting parcels on a lease sale. The BLM leasing 

approach became more methodical and deliberate, 

and protests dropped 35 percent in 2011 and 

17 percent in 2012. The public still reviewed and 

challenged lease sales, but the sales were much 

more defensible given the added staff time invested 

in reviewing each parcel. 

In 2011, President Obama created an interagency 

working group to coordinate energy development 

in Alaska. He directed the Department of the 

Interior to hold annual lease sales for the National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to facilitate domestic 

energy development.8 From 1999 to 2011, the BLM 

held seven lease sales in the National Petroleum 

Reserve-Alaska and various companies drilled 

29 exploratory wells, finding oil in four. In 2012, the 

BLM completed analysis of an industry proposal for 

development of these resources. 

Renewable Energy Becomes a Priority

Ratcheting up the alternative energy program of 

the previous administration, Secretary Salazar 

issued a Secretarial Order in March 2009 that made 

the development of environmentally responsible 

renewable energy a priority for the Department. As 

part of the “New Energy Frontier,” the Department 

established an 

aggressive goal of 

approving projects 

that would produce 

10,000 megawatts 

of renewable energy 

projects by the end 

of 2012. 

Interior 

Secretary

Ken Salazar.

October 2010, including the first utility-scale solar 

energy projects on the public lands. The solar 

programmatic EIS, completed in 2012, designated 

17 “solar energy zones” in six western states where 

solar development would be prioritized. The BLM 

sold hundreds of geothermal parcels at auction, 

generating millions of dollars in revenue. By the 

end of October 2012, the BLM had approved a total 

renewable energy capacity of 12,700 megawatts, 

exceeding the Department’s goal. This total 

included more than 8,500 megawatts of capacity 

on public lands and an additional 4,200 megawatts 

of capacity from projects on private lands that 

required BLM approval (for infrastructure facilities 

on adjacent public lands). 

Inventory team identifying

an open mine shaft

in New Mexico.

Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in Nevada.
140 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 141

Administration Initiates a Review

of Mining Claims and Fees

After focusing on the renewable industry, the 

Obama administration took a more measured 

approach to mining activities on public lands. The 

public raised concerns over an increasing number 

of mining claims filed because of rising uranium 

prices, the BLM’s processing of a number of 

uranium exploration projects near Grand Canyon 

National Park, and the reactivation of a previously 

approved uranium mine. In response, Secretary 

Salazar announced a 2-year “time-out” on new 

mining claims on nearly 1 million acres of public 

lands in the Arizona Strip and on national forest 

lands near the park to allow time to evaluate the 

need for a withdrawal.10 The ban was extended 

an additional 6 months in June 2011 (under a 

separate emergency withdrawal), and the potential 

for a long-term ban was criticized by the National 

Mining Association as an arbitrary decision that 

“has consequences for nearly 300,000 people in 

Arizona still looking for work.”11

In January 2012, based on analysis and public 

comments, the Secretary announced a 20-year 

withdrawal of the nearly 1 million acres to protect 

the watershed from potential adverse effects of 

additional uranium and other hardrock mining in 

the area. BLM Director Bob Abbey noted that the 

withdrawal “preserves the ability of future decisionmakers to make thoughtful decisions about 

managing this area of national environmental and 

cultural significance based on the best information 

available.”12 The withdrawal did not halt previously 

approved uranium mining or new projects that 

the BLM could approve on claims with valid 

existing rights; it only halted the location of new 

mining claims in the area. An estimated 

From Alaskan Sourdough to Little Miss Sunshine | By Linda Resseguie

Having recently arrived from the BLM in Alaska, I was just beginning to learn the ropes 

in the Washington Office when Ray Brady, manager of the BLM’s Energy Policy Team, invited 

me to a meeting with the Department of Energy (DOE). The topic: utility-scale solar energy. 

The BLM’s renewable energy program had dawned while I was still toiling in the land 

of the midnight sun. President George W. Bush had signed the Energy Policy Act in 2005, 

which directed the Secretary of the Interior to “seek to approve” 10,000 megawatts of 

nonhydropower renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass) projects on public 

lands by 2015. 

By the time I sat in on my first solar energy meeting, the BLM had already completed 

a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) on wind energy development and 

initiated a PEIS for geothermal energy. Although no utility-scale solar energy development 

had occurred on public lands, the BLM had received more than 100 applications from 

prospective developers. 

BLM’s and DOE’s leaders agreed to partner on a PEIS for solar energy development—

the BLM had the land and permitting expertise and the DOE had the funding. Both agencies 

shared similar goals—to facilitate environmentally sound solar energy development 

through a predictable program of land allocation and best management practices. The 

basic steps seemed simple: scope the issues, prepare a draft EIS, solicit and consider public 

comment, prepare a final EIS, address any protests, and issue a record of decision. 

Each agency identified a project manager. I accepted the role for the BLM, which 

earned me the nickname: “Sunshine” from one of my colleagues. We started making 

decisions that would shape the project. The PEIS would include the six western states with 

some of the best solar resources in the world. DOE identified solar technologies capable of 

producing electricity at the utility scale. 

One of our initial decisions was that the BLM would continue to process solar 

applications it had already received, but would not accept additional applications until the 

PEIS was completed. Many renewable energy advocates believed that our approach would 

be detrimental to the pace of solar energy development. The decision was reversed, and the 

BLM continued to accept new applications.

I would not have lasted long in my position without the support and encouragement 

of the BLM state leads who balanced the day-to-day demands of their own projects and 

crises with the needs of the solar PEIS. We relied heavily on the BLM state and field offices to 

provide geographic information system (GIS) shape files for special management areas, plan 

boundaries, and other state-specific details. Trying to nail down current boundaries for 

89 land use plans encompassing 98 million acres of BLM-managed lands in the six-state 

study area proved time-consuming. 

Nowhere was the staff more stretched than in California. California’s 33 percent 

renewable portfolio standard was the most ambitious of the 26 states that had them. 

Consequently, the State of California took up its own planning effort, the Desert Renewable 

Energy Conservation Plan, which required the BLM to be an equal and active partner. 

In January 2009, as the outgoing administration finalized details of their legacy 

programs, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne issued Secretarial Order 3283 directing the 

establishment of Renewable Energy Coordination Offices. A few weeks later, the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 offered financial incentives to qualifying renewable 

energy projects. The projects had to be underway by the end of 2010, which put intense 

pressure on the BLM and other approving agencies (this timeframe was eventually extended 

for an additional year). 

On March 11, 2009, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s first Secretarial Order established the 

development of renewable energy as a priority and directed the identification of renewable 

energy zones. In July, he announced the identification of 24 potential solar energy zones 

to be studied in the solar PEIS, along with a second scoping period, greatly expanding 

the project. 

The next 2 years were a blur of meetings. We met on historic preservation and tribal 

consultations. We met with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on how best to address 

Endangered Species Act consultation, implement its Eagle Rule, update the Desert Tortoise 

Recovery Plan, and comply with “save the sage-grouse” initiatives. We met with the National 

Park Service on how to negate adverse impacts to viewsheds, air quality, and night sky 

resources. We met with the Department of Defense. We met with county officials interested 

in economic development and protection of traditional uses such as livestock grazing. 

We finally issued our draft document in December 2010. As we went from city to city 

hosting 14 public meetings, and as the 80,000 comments started to roll in, it was obvious 

that we had failed to meet all of the great expectations the project had engendered. 

Improvements and enhancements would be made through a supplement to the draft. 

The timeframe was tight, and the work was done quickly. The supplement was 

published on October 27, 2011. Comments were accepted through January 27, 2012, which, 

coincidentally, just happened to be my last day with the BLM. I left completion of the final 

PEIS in the capable hands of Shannon Stewart. The record of decision was signed October 12, 

2012, which coincidentally, was Shannon’s last day. 

The solar PEIS provided a remarkable opportunity to meet and work with dedicated 

people and to do historic, groundbreaking work for the BLM. Sunlight falling on public lands 

is now producing electricity for western consumers, and I, “Sunshine” have retired to a quiet 

corner of Pennsylvania.

Before joining the BLM’s Washington Office, Linda Resseguie was the senior technical specialist in the BLM’s Division of Conveyance Management in Alaska.

Originally from Pennsylvania, she and her husband, Phil, spent 28 years in Alaska. 

11 mines, including the 4 already-approved mines, 

could proceed under the withdrawal based on valid 

existing rights (roughly equivalent to the pace of 

development that occurred in the 1980s with the 

development of 7 mines and the mining out and 

reclamation of 3 mines).

Proposals to impose royalty payments on hardrock 

operations and fees to pay for the cleanup of 

abandoned mine sites also resulted in warnings that 

domestic jobs would shift to overseas production. 

At the same time, China was tightening its grip on 

the production of rare earths—minerals used in the 

manufacturing of wind turbines, cell phones, and 

other devices—that are also found on some public 

lands. The Asian giant was also seeking to invest in 

coal production in the Powder River Basin, which 

by mid-2011 accounted for 40 percent of the coal 

consumed by the United States.

Though there were remarkable advances made 

over the decades, at the beginning of this century, 

the BLM energy and minerals program found 

itself, in many respects, in the same position it did 

at the time of the energy crises of the 1970s. The 

program was still attempting to strike a balance 

among economic development and environmental 

protection, national priorities and local concerns, 

and rapidly evolving technologies and ageold traditions. 

Initiatives Address Climate Change

on Public Lands 

The push to increase renewable energy 

development on public lands was only one of a 

number of BLM initiatives designed to address 

climate change. In September 2009, Secretary 

Salazar issued a Secretarial order that called for 

changes in how the Department of the Interior 

managed land, water, fish, and wildlife to address 

climate change impacts.13 The order directed 

Department of the Interior agencies to establish a 

network of climate science centers and landscape 

conservation cooperatives to facilitate interagency 

coordination on climate-change-related activities. 

It also directed the agencies to consider climate 

change in planning and decisionmaking and 

challenged managers to consider natural 

resources from a broader viewpoint, integrating 

a landscape perspective with local management 

efforts. The BLM’s response focused on two 

interconnected initiatives: a landscape approach 

to land management and rapid ecoregional 

assessments (REAs). 

The BLM had been moving toward more of a 

landscape approach for several decades. Through 

experience, the Bureau had found that traditional 

planning boundaries did not always facilitate 

addressing landscape-level challenges such as the 

increase in frequency and severity of wildland fires, 

spread of weed and insect infestations, growing 

demand for energy development, and continued 

urban and suburban growth. In 2009, the BLM 

began to systematically develop a national program 

Coal operation in Wyoming.

Desert Sunlight Solar 

Farm in California.
142 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 143

to better support and coordinate field efforts to deal 

with such large-scale, multijurisdictional issues. 

The first step in the BLM’s landscape approach was 

to initiate a series of REAs to better understand 

conditions across landscapes and to inform future 

management actions. REAs involve collecting 

existing information at a landscape scale to assess 

current ecological conditions and to predict 

how landscape-scale changes may affect those 

conditions. The BLM launched ten of these 

assessments, covering 600 million acres of public 

and nonpublic lands, in 2010 and 2011, with a plan 

to complete them in about 18 months. 

The information from the REAs, along with input 

from BLM field offices, other agencies, landowners, 

conservationists, industry representatives, and 

other stakeholders, was then used to develop 

landscape-level management strategies or 

ecosystem direction. Through the BLM’s established 

planning and environmental impact assessment 

processes, the public lands that would be most 

appropriate for resource conservation, restoration, 

and development would then be determined. 

REAs not only help inform the BLM, they also 

provide systematic baseline information to a variety 

of other agencies, entities, and the public, including 

the landscape conservation cooperatives and 

their associated regional climate science centers. 

“REAs help the BLM and its partners predict how 

resource conditions may change over time and 

develop shared strategies to address these changes,” 

said BLM strategic planner Kit Muller. “They 

also provide resource managers a foundation for 

adaptive management, enabling them to adjust 

BLM management priorities and approaches in 

response to new information.”14

The BLM also studied ways and places to sequester 

atmospheric carbon dioxide, theorized to be one 

of the major contributors to global climate change. 

The BLM’s soil, water, and air program studied the 

ability of soils to sequester carbon dioxide. In 2009, 

the program gained additional responsibilities 

for quantifying and reporting greenhouse gas 

emissions resulting from the BLM’s operations 

under an Executive order declaring the reduction 

of these emissions a governmentwide priority.15 The 

program provided critical support for a Department 

of the Interior strategy begun in 2010 to respond 

to the impacts of climate change, which Secretary 

Salazar termed one of the “signature issues of the 

21st century.”16

The BLM Takes a Landscape Approach | By Kit Muller and Barry Rose

In the early 1980s, western forests and rangelands were beset by widespread wildfires and weed 

and insect infestations that could no longer be managed effectively by local offices alone or through 

traditional management practices. Over the next three decades, scientists, land managers, and 

stakeholders worked together to understand the wide-ranging impacts of these events, develop shared 

strategies, and implement collaborative management efforts. Through these collective experiences and 

partnerships, the BLM developed a landscape approach to support balanced stewardship of the diverse 

natural resources of the public lands and to address emerging challenges of the 21st century, such as 

increased energy development, urban growth, and the effects of climate change. 

Landscapes are large, connected regions having similar environmental characteristics (for 

example, the Sonoran Desert or the Colorado Plateau). They span administrative boundaries and 

typically encompass areas much larger than those managed by individual BLM field offices. A landscape 

approach involves looking across these larger areas to more fully recognize natural resource conditions 

and trends, natural and human influences, and opportunities for resource conservation, restoration, and 

development. This approach helps identify important ecological values and patterns of environmental 

change that may not be evident when managing smaller, local land areas. 

There are five components to BLM’s landscape approach. The first component is a rapid ecoregional 

assessment (REA), which synthesizes the best available ecological information for all lands within 

an ecoregion. The BLM initiated seven REAs in 2010 and three additional REAs in 2011, covering a 

total of 600 million acres of public and other lands. The information from the REAs, along with input 

from partner agencies, stakeholders, and American Indian tribes, is used to identify priority areas for 

conservation and development and to determine ecological direction, which is the second component of 

this approach. 

Sonoran Desert in Arizona.

The third component of BLM’s landscape approach is field implementation. BLM’s field offices 

maintain their central role in managing public lands by preparing land use plans, authorizing land uses, 

monitoring, and working with partners and stakeholders to develop and implement local management 

strategies. The broader perspective provided through a landscape approach helps focus and integrate 

these local management efforts. Monitoring for adaptive management is the fourth component; it 

involves standardizing the collection and retrieval of data so that it can be easily accessed, compared, 

and shared. The final component is science integration, which more closely links research and available 

science information with public land management issues, planning, and decisionmaking.

Partnerships are critical to the success of this approach. At the local level, partnerships develop 

shared management strategies, foster public awareness and support, and harness the volunteer 

assistance needed for effective implementation. Partnerships are equally vital at the broader, landscape 

level, where the diversity of land ownership (federal, tribal, state, county, municipal, and private) can 

complicate effective responses to widespread environmental issues, including climate change impacts. 

Recognizing the importance of partnerships at the local and landscape levels, the Department of 

the Interior has begun a complementary effort to develop a national network of landscape conservation 

cooperatives (LCCs). These LLCs are management/science partnerships composed of private, state, tribal, 

and federal representatives working toward a shared vision of landscape health and sustainability. The 

LCCs provide science information and tools needed for developing resource management strategies and 

promote coordinated partnership actions at the landscape and local levels. 

Developing and putting an effective landscape approach in place is vital to the BLM’s goal to 

expand, strengthen, and integrate best practices and collective efforts to sustain the health and 

productivity of America’s public lands.

Kit Muller has worked for the BLM for more than 30 years, primarily in the Washington Office. He coordinates the BLM’s efforts to understand and address landscape-scale changes in the American West. 

Barry Rose worked for the BLM for 31 years, retiring in 2011 as a senior legislative affairs specialist in Washington, DC, where he focused on climate change and renewable energy issues.

Barry was also a public affairs specialist in Boise and the Idaho State Office and in Vale, Oregon.

Vermillion Basin, part of the Colorado Plateau landscape in Colorado.

North Slope

Seward

Peninsula

Yukon

Kuskokwim

Northwestern

Plains

Middle

Rockies

Northern Great Basin

Central Basin

and Range

Mojave

Basin and

Range

Sonoran Desert Madrean

Archipelago

Colorado

Plateau

Wyoming

Basin

Rapid Ecoregional

Assessment (REA)

Boundaries
144 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 145

The National Landscape Conservation 

System Becomes Permanent

Although established administratively by Secretary 

Babbitt in 2000, the NLCS lacked congressional 

designation, and thus, any subsequent 

administration could dismantle it. The BLM needed 

congressional action to make the NLCS permanent. 

Congress Passes the Omnibus

Public Land Management Act of 2009

In 2007, the House and Senate introduced, but 

failed to pass, the National Landscape Conservation 

System Act. They reintroduced the act and passed 

it in 2009. On March 30, President Obama signed 

it into law as part of the Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act of 2009 (Public Lands Act).

President Obama called this act “one of the most 

important pieces of natural resource legislation 

in decades.”17 In addition to codifying the NLCS 

and its mission to “conserve, protect, and restore 

nationally significant landscapes,” the law added 

significantly to the NLCS’s management portfolio: 

nearly 929,000 acres of wilderness areas, one 

national monument, four national conservation 

areas, 362 miles of wild and scenic rivers, and 

40 miles of national scenic trails, for a total of 

1.2 million acres of new designations.18 The bill 

also contained new wilderness and conservation 

designations for the National Park Service and 

U.S. Forest Service. 

NLCS Summary Table as of December 5, 2012

Category* Unit Type Number BLM Acres BLM Miles

National Monuments and

National Conservation Areas

 National Monuments 17 4,833,835

 National Conservation Areas 16 3,660,017

 Similar Designations 5 436,164

Wilderness

 Wilderness Areas 221 8,804,972

 Wilderness Study Areas 544 12,833,877

Wild and Scenic Rivers 69 1,001,303 2,423

National Scenic and

Historic Trails

 National Historic Trails 13 5,078

 National Scenic Trails 5 683

Totals 890 About 31 million

(some units overlap) 8,184

*The BLM is evaluating how to incorporate the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) into the NLCS in terms of

management. The BLM-administered portion of the CDCA (including wilderness areas) totals 10,772,600 acres

and includes some multiple use areas not traditionally incorporated in the NLCS.

Owyhee Canyonlands: A Lesson in Perseverance | By Robin Fehlau

The remote desert canyonlands of southwest 

Idaho have long been a political battlefield. For years, 

environmentalists, ranchers, and recreationists disagreed 

on how this fragile beautiful landscape should be 

managed and preserved. This animosity came to a head in 

the late 1990s when then Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt 

announced the area was being considered for designation 

as a national monument. The monument proposal was 

not enacted, but it did spur an unlikely, and initially 

uncomfortable, group of people to come together.

The group included representatives from The 

Wilderness Society and Sierra Club, the off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) community, the Idaho Outfitters and 

Guides Association, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe, as well as 

local landowners, ranchers, and Owyhee County elected 

officials. They had little to no trust in each other at 

first, but there was one thing on which all parties could 

agree: the status quo in the Owyhees wasn’t working, 

and if something wasn’t done soon, the area would be 

irreparably damaged.

Growth in the Boise area had resulted in increased 

visitation to Owyhee County, and unfortunately, many of 

the new visitors did not understand the fragile nature of 

the ecosystem. A proliferation of roads and trails resulted 

in increased erosion. The Native American community 

began seeing an increase in vandalism of sacred sites, 

and private property owners were angered by numerous 

trespasses and trash left on their lands. These problems 

were a concern to all of the “Owyhee group,” and with 

this one point of agreement that something needed to be 

done, they started talking.

The process of finding common ground was slow. 

There was meeting after meeting. Over time, and over 

meals, members of the group began to gain some trust in 

each other. Repeated field trips to the Owyhees helped 

build and increase that trust. Each side had the chance to 

have experts speak about the various issues of concern, 

and group members found it easier to be frank with each 

other when they were in the field. Being in the place 

they all cared about, they began to really listen to each 

other. Ranchers explained their concerns about range 

quality, water, and harassment of their animals, while 

conservationists discussed fears about noxious weeds, 

reduced sage-grouse populations, and the effects of crosscountry motorized travel.

Once a level of trust was established, the group 

began working on the details of what would eventually 

become a proposal for how the area should be managed. 

They called it the Owyhee Initiative. The initiative 

addressed some of the most sensitive issues in western 

politics, including cattle grazing, water rights, endangered 

species, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and offhighway vehicle use.

The Owyhee group found a champion in Senator 

Mike Crapo, who pledged to create legislation for the 

Owyhees if the group reached an agreement. Senator 

Crapo believed that the collaborative approach of the 

Owyhee group could result in legislation that was broadly 

supported. He also saw it as a model for other groups. 

After 8 years of meetings and an amazing amount of 

give and take, the group did reach agreement, and Senator 

Crapo did introduce legislation—the Owyhee Public Lands 

Management Act. While the working group was pleased 

with the final bill, all felt that it wasn’t the document they 

would have written had it been up to them individually. 

While no group got everything it wanted, all groups got 

something, and they managed to get beyond an unending 

lineup of litigation.

In March 2009, the Owyhee Public Lands 

Management Act passed as part of an omnibus lands 

package. The legislation designated 6 wilderness areas 

(517,000 acres) and 16 wild and scenic rivers (more 

than 300 miles) and started a new era for the BLM in 

southwest Idaho.

Robin Fehlau has been the recreation, wilderness, and wild and scenic river lead for the BLM Idaho State Office since 2008. Prior to that,

she was the travel management lead at the Utah State Office and an outdoor recreation planner in Utah.

By the end of 2013, the NLCS included 

890 specially designated areas encompassing about 

31 million acres as shown in the table above.

Tenth Anniversary Events

Result in a 15-Year Strategy

The year 2010 marked the 10th anniversary of the 

NLCS. The BLM, working with local communities, 

held some 90 events—primarily in the West—to 

celebrate a decade’s worth of accomplishments and 

to forge a strategy for the future. 

These events included a conference held in 

April at the University of Colorado at Boulder 

and sponsored by the BLM and the Center of 

the American West, which brought together 

prominent writers, artists, and leaders to share 

their perspectives on the NLCS and its vision for 

the future. Participants included former Interior 

Secretary Bruce Babbitt, writers Craig Childs and 

Amy Irvine, and historian Patricia Nelson Limerick, 

who helped organize the forum. These discussions 

led to a larger symposium held in Las Vegas, 

Nevada, in November. Here, more than 300 BLM 

National Landscape

Conservation System

National HistoricTrails

10th Anniversary

Bureau of Land Management

Jarbidge Wild and Scenic River, Owyhee Canyonlands in Idaho.
146 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 147

employees and representatives from state and local 

governments, nongovernmental organizations, 

universities, and other interests gathered to share 

their ideas about the future of the NLCS. 

The result was a 15-year strategy outlining major 

themes for the NLCS, including emphasizing 

conservation and science; using a communitybased approach to land management and 

recreational visitor services; raising public 

awareness through outreach, education, and 

partnerships; and fully integrating the NLCS into 

the BLM’s organization and mission.19 The strategy 

provided an overarching vision for managing the 

NLCS that encompasses its conservation mandate 

established through FLPMA and the Public Lands 

Act of 2009. 

Anniversary events also included a national 

science symposium held in May 2010. The BLM 

and the New Mexico Museum of Natural History 

and Science in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

sponsored the symposium, which brought together 

130 presenters who described their research on 

NLCS lands.

Coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the 

NLCS, Secretary Salazar issued a Secretarial order 

on November 15, 2010, that elevated the NLCS 

to the directorate level. The BLM established the 

National Landscape Conservation System and 

Community Partnerships directorate and added 

an assistant director position to oversee it. The 

Secretarial order recognized conservation as being 

equally as important as other land management 

objectives. It emphasized the integration of science 

into management decisions and the importance of 

collaborating with the public and obtaining diverse 

viewpoints when considering management options. 

It also required the BLM to manage NLCS units 

to conserve the values that provided the basis for 

their designation.20

Celebrating Science in the National Landscape Conservation System | By Marietta Eaton

understanding the geology of Mars (University of Utah); northern spotted owl habitat studies (Montana 

State University); and Paiute and Hopi ethnographies. Rich and rewarding partnerships grew into 

collaborations that have lasted a decade or more. 

The BLM held a second science symposium in 2006 to celebrate a decade of

science in the monument, and 4 years later, a national science symposium was held in

celebration of the 10th anniversary of the NLCS. “A Decade of Discovery,” a symposium

celebrating 10 years of science in the NLCS, took place May 24–28, 2010, in

Albuquerque, New Mexico. Sponsored by the BLM and the New Mexico Museum of

Natural History and Science, the event featured more than 130 presenters highlighting

significant research on NLCS lands nationwide. 

An increasing number of scientists and educators use NLCS lands as outdoor

laboratories to study biology, geology, archaeology, paleontology, and ecology. The Canyons of the 

Ancients National Monument in Colorado, for instance, contains the highest density of archaeological 

sites in the nation, including kivas, cliff dwellings, rock art, and artifacts. For more than a century, 

archaeologists have used the area’s cultural resources to learn about the lives and traditions of the 

earliest inhabitants of the West—a history that extends more than 10,000 years into the past. 

Significantly, the BLM protects these resources while also managing productive oil and gas leases that 

existed before the monument’s designation.

In New Mexico, microbiologists and paleoclimatologists were drawn to Fort Stanton–Snowy River 

Cave National Conservation Area to study what was considered to be the largest contiguous calcite 

formation in America, discovered in 2001. Minerals throughout the cave system provide unprecedented 

clues about the history of climate change in the West while its bacteria, living in the cave’s extreme and 

sunless environment, offer potential new medicines and other modern uses. 

The BLM issued the “NLCS Science Strategy” in 2007 to encourage and support the growing 

academic interest in NLCS science resources. Its major goals were to promote scientific study in the 

NLCS, apply a standard process for permitting and reporting research, and ensure that new information 

is communicated both internally and externally. The strategy also sought to apply information gained 

from research on NLCS units to other BLM public lands. 

According to the “NLCS Science Summary Report” of 2008, nearly 300 science projects were being 

conducted in national monuments, national conservation areas, and other similarly designated areas as 

of 2007. Most were wildlife projects (96), followed by archaeology and history projects (44) and botany 

projects (42). Collectively, they represented 20 disciplines. 

The result of all these efforts is a culture of science at the core of the NLCS and a passion for 

knowing the details that led to the designations of various units. This knowledge has been used for 

making decisions and for interpretation and educational programs, and it is shared in various venues 

with the public whose lands the BLM is honored to manage. 

Areas within the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System contain important scientific 

values, and many were designated principally to conserve these values. 

The BLM’s first national monument was one such designation. In 1996, Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument was dedicated specifically for its scientific and historic values. The Presidential

proclamation outlined what seemed to some at the time to be hyperbole. The sheer scope of geological, 

paleontological, biological, historical, and archaeological resources seemed overstated until the BLM and 

the Utah State Advisory Council for Science and Technology sponsored the first “Learning from the Land” 

science symposium in 1997 at Southern Utah University in Cedar City. This event revealed the potential 

extent and eclectic nature of the scientific riches within the monument’s expansive 1.86 million acres. 

The symposium covered topics ranging from Anasazi history to the geoecology of hanging gardens and 

included papers on bighorn sheep, bats, bees, grasshoppers, and plants in the monument as well as the 

oil and gas potential there. 

To expand on what was learned, a generous science budget allowed for research on the 

paleontology and archaeology of the Kaiparowits Plateau and the

monument’s hydrology, a complete level 3 soil survey, an inventory

of bees (over 600 species, 22 completely new to science) and

other insects, and the collection of over 150 oral histories.

Partners included the Utah Museum of Natural History,

Northern Arizona University, Weber State University,

Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey, Brigham Young University,

University of Utah, and Utah Division of State History. 

More focused research included studies on the coloration of

Navajo Sandstone and the origin of iron concretions, called Moki marbles, and their relationship to 

Marietta Eaton is the manager of the BLM’s Canyons of the Ancients National Monument and Anasazi Heritage Center in Colorado. She previously served as the science coordinator for the NLCS in Washington DC.

She began her BLM career at Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, where she served in several capacities over a dozen years, including science program administrator

and assistant monument manager. Prior to working for the BLM, Marietta was an archaeologist for 16 years with the USDA Forest Service. Ojito Wilderness in New Mexico.

Fort Stanton-Snowy River National Conservation Area in New Mexico.

Straight Cliffs

Formation in the

Kaiparowits Plateau in Utah.
148 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 149

The Secretary Addresses Transparency

Secretary Salazar named treasured landscapes a top 

priority in 2009 and vowed to protect and enhance 

Interior’s trove of specially designated lands, 

including the BLM’s NLCS. “As custodians of our 

Nation’s natural, cultural, and historic resources, 

we have a duty to protect the places that Americans 

love, and to help all Americans connect with their 

land and heritage,” he stated.21

Some people raised concerns that the Obama 

administration’s conservation agenda, with its proenvironment focus, would restrict uses of NLCS 

lands. Others worried that the administration 

would add more lands to the system without 

involving the public. Since the designation of the 

BLM’s first national monument under the Clinton 

administration, transparency and public support, 

particularly at the local level, had long been 

driving concerns.

In 2010, the Congressional Western Caucus 

cited an internal Department of the Interior 

document that listed preliminary, prospective 

national monument designations recommended 

for “further evaluations” and “assessment of 

public and Congressional support.”22 The group 

The President Proclaims a

National Monument on Earth Day 2012

On April 20, 2012, President Obama designated 

public lands in Fort Ord, California, as a national 

monument under the Antiquities Act. The new 

monument, a former military base, had broad 

public support, as it honored veterans and 

enhanced recreation opportunities in the central 

California coastal area. The BLM managed about 

7,200 acres and the Army planned to transfer an 

additional 7,400 acres to comprise the monument. 

This was the BLM’s 17th national monument and its 

first in more than 11 years.

expressed concern that stakeholders, local 

officials, and community residents would not 

have sufficient opportunity to provide input if 

designations of the areas described in the memo 

were proposed. Potential economic impacts 

of any new designations were also of concern. 

Consequently, Congress introduced several bills 

to limit the President’s ability to designate new 

national monuments, but the bills failed without 

bipartisan support. Secretary Salazar reassured 

Congress that the memo was simply responding to 

his interest in hearing his employees’ ideas and that 

the Department would work with Congress and 

seek others’ input and local public support as part 

of developing any initiatives.23

In November 2011, Secretary Salazar issued a 

report highlighting 18 backcountry areas in nine 

states where there was significant local support for 

Congress to protect them as national conservation 

areas or wilderness.24 Input from Congress, state 

and county officials, tribes, and other interested 

parties provided the basis for the report. The 

Secretary and Deputy Interior Secretary David 

Hayes expressed hope that it could serve as a 

foundation for a bipartisan public lands bill to 

conserve lands for recreation, protection, 

and enjoyment.25

The Bureau Develops

Additional Policy on Wilderness

The change of administration also resulted in a 

renewed focus on the wilderness program, and the 

BLM began to address the lack of adequate policy. 

In December 2010, the Department of the Interior 

announced its new policy that the BLM would place 

a high priority on protecting lands with wilderness 

characteristics (that were not already protected as 

wilderness or wilderness study areas), designating 

them as “Wild Lands.”26 In 2011, however, Congress 

directed the BLM not to implement the policy.27

Nonetheless, FLPMA requires the BLM to maintain 

an up-to-date inventory of lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The BLM released policy that 

complied with congressional direction related 

to lands with wilderness characteristics 

and the underlying requirements of FLPMA in 

July 2011.28

Wilderness policy was not the only policy under 

development within the NLCS. In September 2009, 

the BLM issued program policy that included a 

requirement for NLCS land use plans to protect 

the values that provided the basis for the unit’s 

designation, clarifying that these values took 

precedence over other uses in the event of a conflict 

among them.29 The BLM also provided policy for 

interim management of new NLCS units, requiring 

managers to conduct a baseline inventory of the 

resources identified in the designating legislation 

or proclamation.30 These were temporary measures. 

In 2011 and 2012, the BLM focused on developing 

long-term national policy to support national 

monuments and national conservation areas, wild 

and scenic rivers, and national scenic and historic 

trails, in addition to wilderness and wilderness 

study areas. By the fall of 2012, the BLM had 

completed 10 new and revised policy manuals.

Sleeping Giant Wilderness Study Area in Montana.

Celebrating the Legacy and Centennial of the Iditarod National Historic Trail | By Kevin Keeler

The Iditarod National Historic Trail, America’s last great gold rush trail, 

celebrated its centennial from 2008 to 2012. The 4-year celebration was 

a commemoration of a vibrant hundred years for the 2,300-mile system 

of winter trails. It marked the efforts to open the famous overland route 

from Seward to Nome, from the first scouting trip in 1908 to the crews 

that worked in the bitter cold to complete the trail in 1910 and 1911 to the 

thousands of gold seekers who hiked or mushed the trail to the Iditarod 

gold fields once it was complete. The celebration also marked Alaska 

becoming a U.S. Territory in 1912 after the gold rush population boom, the 

trail’s designation as a National Historic Trail in 1978, and its contemporary 

importance for intervillage transportation, access to subsistence resources, 

and wild land recreation. 

The Iditarod National Historic Trail is unique in Alaskan and American 

history. Once one of the main lifelines between frontier Alaskan boom 

towns, the ways of commerce and settlement have largely bypassed the 

trail, leaving it to cross a vast boreal landscape largely abandoned to 

nature’s ways. Though there are “high and dry” sections of the trail that 

provide access to some of the historic route during the summer (mainly in 

the mountains of south-central Alaska), much of the trail is bypassed due 

to miles of wet tundra, chilly rivers, and voracious mosquitoes. But when 

the tundra and rivers freeze and snow blankets the land, dog mushers, 

skiers, snow machiners, hikers, and even mountain bikers take to the trail. 

Rural Alaskans use the trail as a snowmobile highway to reach other 

communities near and far for shopping, visiting, or attending church and 

civic or sports events. And every February and March, professional and 

recreational racers put their minds, muscles, and machines to work in epic 

long-distance winter races along the trail, linking Alaska’s largest and 

smallest communities.

Now, 100 years after its heyday, some variation of the entire Iditarod 

National Historic Trail is once again open between Seward and Nome. 

Most of the historic trail is located on public lands or easements managed 

by the State of Alaska or federal agencies. No one entity manages the 

entire historic trail—trail management is left up to land managers but is 

guided by a cooperative, interagency plan coordinated by the BLM. The 

BLM works with other agencies and dozens of volunteer groups to protect 

and improve the trail with partnership projects ranging from dedicating 

easements to building safety cabins and brushing and marking the trail.

Kevin Keeler, the Iditarod Historic Trail administrator at the 

Anchorage Field Office, has been with the BLM since 2004. 

Before coming to the BLM, he worked for 20 years on Alaskan 

public lands and community-based trail projects.

Fort Ord National Monument in California.

Mushing enthusiasts watching

the Iditarod Sled Dog Race.
150 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 151

Recreation Demands Continue to Grow

By 2010, the BLM managed almost eight times 

as many recreation sites as it did 25 years before. 

BLM public lands were no longer the recreation 

community’s best-kept secret in the West. While 

the public once considered BLM lands to be the 

lands nobody wanted, in one generation, they had 

become the lands everyone wanted.

America’s Backyard: The Growth of Outdoor Recreation on BLM Lands | By Bob Ratcliffe and David O. Howell

Just a few decades ago, BLM public lands were truly the 

lands that no one knew—few people were aware of what 

they offered and they were only occasionally visited by the 

recreating public. Today BLM lands are widely recognized as 

some of the most outstanding and unique places for outdoor 

recreation and special events. BLM lands have become the 

popular backyard for many in the fast-growing West. Between 

1990 and 2010, the nation’s population grew by about 

24 percent. Eleven of the 20 states with the fastest population 

growth were in the West where BLM public lands abound. As a 

result, the number of visitors to BLM public lands has doubled 

in the past two decades—to nearly 60 million visitors in 2011.

While population and economic shifts resulted in 

considerable changes in the West, advances in technology, 

more than any other factor, changed the face of BLM recreation 

forever. Over the past 20 years, technology has given the 

nation unprecedented flexibility for people to choose where 

and how they live—and when, where, and how they play. 

Consider that during this period, society saw the rise of the 

World Wide Web and a corresponding growth in flexible work 

schedules and workplaces, allowing people and businesses to 

work anywhere. Many people chose the high quality of life 

and nearby outdoor recreation amenities offered by hundreds 

of communities across the West. BLM lands and the recreation 

that occurs on them are now critical to the health of many 

local and regional economies. 

From GORE-TEX to geospatial technologies, mountain 

bikes to rock-climbing gear, whitewater rafts and kayaks to 

off-highway vehicles and ultralight aircraft—technology 

created a whole new generation of outdoor recreation 

activities. BLM lands offer the perfect places and settings for a 

wide range of new and popular pursuits and also offer millions 

of acres of wide-open spaces, mountains, canyons, and rivers 

for more traditional recreation such as hunting, fishing, hiking, 

and camping.

The BLM offers unique and incredible landforms, vast and 

diverse geographic features, and a management mission that 

can accommodate many uses and events that cannot occur in 

other places or on other public lands. The BLM’s Black Rock 

Desert Playa is home to the now iconic cultural event, Burning 

Man, a weeklong festival for art and self-expression enjoyed 

by 50,000 people each year. The spectacular Imperial Sand 

Dunes—some of the largest sand dunes in the world—are 

visited by up to a quarter of a million people each winter 

holiday weekend for dune riding and thrill seeking. The BLM 

is also home for tens of thousands of “snowbirds” each winter 

who enjoy public lands as an affordable retirement living 

alternative. BLM is the place for a new generation of recreation 

activities such as rock crawling, river sledging, dune buggy 

riding, dogsledding, snowmobiling, mountain biking, rocket 

launching, land sailing, canyoneering, geocaching, speed-trial 

racing, and many, many more.

The BLM also offers millions of acres of protected areas 

and wilderness for more self-reliant and human-powered 

activities. The Bureau manages thousands of miles of longdistance national scenic, historic, and recreation trails, scenic 

byways, and wild and scenic rivers that have increased in 

popularity and visitation. More than any other federal land 

management agency, the BLM allows visitors the freedom 

to explore and discover, on their own, incredible places 

such as world-class cultural sites and ancient ruins, ghost 

towns, historic ranches, lighthouses, high alpine mountains 

and glaciers, vast desert landscapes, narrow slot canyons, 

old-growth forests, and remote ocean coasts. The BLM issues 

special recreation permits for events, such as the Iditarod Trail 

Sled Dog Race, Oregon Trail wagon train, and Pony Express 

reenactments, that celebrate cultural heritage through 

recreation and can only be found on BLM-administered lands. 

Our unique lands and mission provide a greater diversity of 

outdoor recreation opportunities than any other public 

land agency. 

The BLM now faces a world very different than the one it 

faced in 1976 when the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act was passed. While recreation was recognized as one of the 

key resource uses of the public lands, few could have imagined 

then the depth, breadth, and diversity of recreation occurring 

today on BLM’s public lands. 

Bob Ratcliffe is the former deputy assistant director for renewable resources and planning in 

the BLM’s Washington Office. Prior to that, he was the division chief and deputy division chief 

for recreation and visitor services. Bob has also worked with the BLM in Colorado, Idaho, and 

Oregon in the recreation, wilderness, watershed, and public affairs programs, and as a field 

office manager. He currently works for the National Park Service.

David O. Howell was the BLM’s deputy division chief for recreation and visitor services and 

is now the associate district manager in Salem, Oregon. He has also been a program analyst 

in the Washington Office Division of Budget and a public affairs specialist and resource 

coordinator in the Idaho Falls District.

Rock crawlers at the Wolford Mountain Recreation Area in Colorado.

The Bureau Reaches Out to Veterans 

Starting in 2006, the BLM waived recreationrelated fees for veterans, military personnel, and 

their families for Veterans Day and Veterans 

Day weekends. In 2012, the Bureau expanded its 

outreach to veterans, and along with other agencies, 

began offering free annual America the Beautiful 

passes to encourage military veterans and their 

families to explore their public lands. The passes 

provide free access to national parks, wildlife 

refuges, national forests, BLM-managed sites, and 

other federal public lands. The BLM also enhanced 

access to public lands for disabled veterans through 

agreements with such organizations as Disabled 

Sports USA, a nonprofit organization started in 

1967 by disabled veterans of the Vietnam War. 

Under the memorandum of understanding, the 

BLM and Disabled Sports USA planned to pursue 

projects and activities on public lands appropriate 

for persons with disabilities and encourage 

wounded and disabled veterans to participate in the 

BLM’s planning process.

The Administration Launches

New Outdoor Initiatives 

In 2010, President Obama launched the America’s 

Great Outdoors initiative through a series of 

listening sessions with top administration officials 

and the public to develop a “conservation and 

recreation agenda that makes sense for the 21st 

century.”31 The resulting plan called for accessible 

parks or green spaces, youth conservation corps 

programs, and adequate funding of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund. 

First Lady Michelle Obama also launched the Let’s 

Move Outside initiative to encourage kids to get 

outside to experience nature and be physically 

active. This initiative complemented the BLM’s Take 

It Outside! program, launched in 2008 to promote 

children’s outdoor activities on the public lands. 

Between 2008 and 2011, the BLM awarded more 

than $600,000 through incentive funding to help 

its field offices and partners develop projects and 

programs to get children and families to “Take It 

Outside!” The BLM’s investment leveraged more 

than $3.6 million dollars in partner cash and 

in-kind donations, representing an important 

investment in future generations. 

Family hiking at Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks 

National Monument in New Mexico. Veterans rafting Westwater Canyon in Utah. Environmental camp in California.
152 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 153

Partners, Youth, and Volunteers Pitch In

The BLM was dependent upon an array of outside 

groups and individuals to enhance its management 

of the public lands and implemented several 

programs to support such efforts. In 2008, the 

BLM added the volunteer, education, partnerships, 

interpretation, and tourism programs under its 

new Division of Education, Interpretation, and 

Partnerships.32 The BLM added the youth program 

in 2009, and in 2010, these programs became part 

of the National Landscape Conservation System 

and Community Partnerships Directorate.

At the local level, community-based partnerships 

among the BLM and volunteer organizations and 

friends groups grew and thrived, particularly 

within the NLCS, where they provided vital 

and far-reaching assistance to the BLM. In fact, 

cooperation and partnerships became a more 

integrated and sought-after way of managing public 

lands across the BLM. Presidential directives and 

initiatives reinforced this approach, including 

installed and repaired fencing, removed trash, and 

located abandoned mines. 

The volunteer program yielded immense benefits 

beyond the work accomplished, however. Volunteer 

programs encouraged people to become actively 

involved in managing their public lands. This 

involvement helped build a sense of ownership 

and stewardship among those who live near BLMmanaged lands. It also encouraged citizens to 

get outside and enjoy their public lands. In 2012, 

National Public Lands Day attracted more than 

10,000 BLM volunteers who spent a day caring for 

their small piece of the vast public domain. These 

volunteers worked on 218 projects at 137 sites 

hosted by 89 field offices in 16 states.33

Since 2001, volunteers contributed more than 

1 million hours of work annually, equal to about 

600 full-time personnel. In 2012 alone, the value 

of the work performed by more than 30,000 BLM 

volunteers and hosted workers (those sponsored 

financially by outside organizations) was more than 

$25 million.34

President George W. Bush’s 2004 Executive Order 

13352, “Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation,” 

and President Obama’s America’s Great Outdoors 

initiative, with its emphasis on meaningful 

community engagement. 

The BLM began acknowledging exemplary 

partnerships through its annual Public Lands 

Partnership Excellence and Director’s Excellence 

through Stewardship Awards. BLM-led 

partnerships also received Secretarial Partners in 

Conservation Awards. In 2010, the agency hired a 

national partnership program lead to strengthen 

support for partnerships across the Bureau.

The BLM’s efforts to engage youth in land 

management received a major boost in 2009 when 

Secretary Salazar established the Office of Youth 

in the Great Outdoors. The BLM designated a 

national lead for youth programs, and in 2010, the 

program received increased funding. The BLM 

benefitted from the youth “listening sessions” of 

the America’s Great Outdoors initiative and hired 

some 4,000 young people in both 2010 and 2011, 

thanks to an increased emphasis on student hiring 

programs and expanded partnerships with youth 

corps organizations. In addition to hiring youth, the 

BLM’s youth program also focused on educating 

and engaging youth in the outdoors.

For decades, the BLM relied on volunteers of 

all ages to assist in the work of the Bureau. As 

budgets tightened, volunteer work became even 

more essential in helping the BLM perform onthe-ground work such as trail building and repair, 

campground maintenance, and invasive species 

removal. Many popular BLM campgrounds relied 

on volunteer campground hosts to keep them open. 

Although the recreation program depended most 

heavily on their work, volunteers also helped in 

almost every BLM program area. For example, 

volunteers documented and helped protect priceless 

rock art sites, assisted with wild horse and burro 

adoptions, rebuilt historic cabins, collected native 

seeds, planted trees, removed invasive species, 

Volunteers building an enclosure in Oregon.

Teaching kids about 

dinosaur tracks.

Volunteers

removing graffiti.

Large-Scale Efforts Require

a Strategic Planning Approach 

The BLM embraced the landscape approach to 

address a multitude of issues in addition to the 

effects of climate change, including a number of 

rapid changes occurring throughout the West and 

serious, wide-ranging resource issues that crossed 

planning area boundaries. The BLM needed a 

process that would help tackle issues at natural 

scales, and often, these issues were geographically 

larger than the BLM. 

As of 2012, more than 60 million people lived 

within 25 miles of public lands, resulting in 

sharply increased demands for use of these lands 

by competing interests. Public perceptions on 

proper management of public lands had become 

increasingly diverse and contentious, leading to an 

Wildlife Habitat Conservation Stretches 

Across Landscapes

Through the decade, the BLM focused on wildlife 

habitat management efforts at the landscape 

scale while looking for ways to better measure 

progress in habitat conservation. In 2010, the 

BLM hosted a series of workshops, facilitated by 

scientists from the H. John Heinz III Center for 

Science, Economics and the Environment and 

the University of Nevada, Reno, which focused 

attention on measuring the results of wildlife 

conservation activities. In 2011, BLM field staffs 

worked with the Western Governors’ Association 

and western states to collect and share data to 

develop the Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool. This 

tool identified wildlife corridors and crucial habitat 

on a state and regional scale to help managers make 

land use decisions. 

increase in legal challenges over use 

of the lands. The BLM needed a more 

strategic approach to planning to help 

produce more defensible plans in light 

of the increasing frequency of protests 

and litigation. 

This strategic approach often involved 

large-scale planning efforts, such 

as those dealing with “solar energy 

zones” and greater sage-grouse 

conservation. To BLM managers, this 

was the future of land management—

addressing issues at larger scales to 

fully account for the “big picture.” 

The BLM still made most decisions 

through the planning process at the 

field office level, but not without 

considering all new information 

available at a landscape scale. 

Map from the Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool

on the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ website.

A Reserve Officers’

Training Corp

volunteering

on National

Public Lands Day.
154 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 155

The Bureau Establishes

an Endangered Species Recovery Fund

As of 2012, the BLM managed about 245 species 

on the federal list of threatened and endangered 

species. More than 150 of these species depend 

on BLM-managed lands for a majority of their 

habitat. In an effort to target limited funding more 

strategically, the BLM created a special Endangered 

Species Recovery Fund in 2010 to support key 

recovery actions for species that are already on 

or are candidates for the federal endangered

species list. The $1.5 million fund represented 

a small portion of the BLM’s total threatened 

and endangered species budget (an estimated 

$21 million per year) but had significant impacts; 

for example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

employed inventory and monitoring data generated 

through this fund in its 2011 decision to delist the 

Maguire daisy. 

Fire Policy Allows Management

for Multiple Objectives

After the fire program policy review in 1995 until 

2009, agencies could only manage fires in one of 

two ways: for full suppression or as a wildfire use 

incident. Managing a wildfire use incident often 

meant using minimal resources and tactics to 

confine a naturally caused fire to a remote area 

where it did not threaten lives or homes so that it 

could play its natural role on the land.

By late in the decade, however, fire managers saw 

benefits to having greater flexibility in managing 

these large conflagrations. In 2009, fire managers 

modified policy implementation guidelines to 

allow multiple strategies on a single fire.35 These 

guidelines gave fire managers the flexibility to 

deploy suppression resources where they most 

needed them; for example, they could protect 

homes on one flank of a fire and take limited action 

merely to confine the fire in less threatening areas 

on the same fire. The guidelines also opened the 

door to point-protection and surge operations, 

allowing crews to provide protection to homes or 

infrastructure for brief periods as needed and then 

work elsewhere. The term “multiple objectives” 

emerged in reference to these new strategies.

While the change in policy implementation was 

useful in the BLM’s more timbered areas, it was less 

applicable in the vast rangelands, where the spread 

of cheatgrass and other invasive species made fire 

management and rehabilitation efforts particularly 

difficult. These rangeland environments required 

continued rapid and aggressive suppression efforts.

Greater Sage-Grouse Becomes

a Candidate Species

In April 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

warranted protection to the greater sage-grouse 

under the Endangered Species Act, but precluded 

listing the species to address higher priority species. 

The greater sage-grouse became a candidate species. 

In August 2011, the BLM responded to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination by 

announcing that it would evaluate its greater sagegrouse conservation efforts in as many as 98 of its 

RMPs. The U.S. Forest Service joined the BLM in 

this effort, considering action on up to 20 national 

forests. To meet the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

judicially mandated 2015 deadline for a final 

decision on listing the species, the two agencies 

planned to complete the joint effort by September 

2014—an unprecedented timeframe for amending 

so many land use plans.

This effort built on the foundations of earlier 

cooperative efforts to improve the conservation 

of greater sage-grouse, particularly in Wyoming. 

Wyoming was home to a growing energy 

development industry while also supporting about 

40 percent of the greater sage-grouse population. 

In 2011, incoming Governor Matt Mead issued an 

executive order building on the core area approach, 

underscoring commitments to sage-grouse 

conservation made by Governor Freudenthal 

in 2006.

Working under its partnership with the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and 

others, the BLM completed a sage-grouse breeding 

bird density map in 2010, displaying crucial 

breeding areas for greater sage-grouse all across 

the West for the first time. Scientists and managers, 

working from this one common map, began to 

target limited resources to achieve the greatest 

conservation benefit. As the RMP amendment 

process moved forward, these maps were refined to 

delineate priority and general habitat areas for more 

focused management efforts on behalf of the bird. 

The BLM also made the defense of key greater sagegrouse habitat a high priority when suppressing 

rangeland fires. In July 2010, the Bureau issued an 

instruction memorandum that outlined fire and 

fuels management procedures specifically aimed at 

protecting greater sage-grouse habitat, instructing 

fire managers to use habitat maps and a set of “best 

management practices” in making decisions about 

managing wildfires. This information allowed 

fire managers to dispatch limited fire crews and 

equipment to the highest priority areas, which 

could include key habitat.

Maguire daisy.

Greater sage-grouse lek in California.

Wildfire approaching homes in Colorado.
156 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 157

In 2010, the BLM began ramping up efforts to 

hire military veterans returning home from 

deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2012, 

the BLM hosted and trained three pilot fire 

crews composed entirely of veterans in Oregon, 

California, and Nevada. The long-term goal was to 

provide crewmembers with a foundation for future 

job opportunities. As a result of various outreach 

programs, military veterans made up about a 

quarter of new BLM employees in 2012, up from 

about 11 percent in 2011. 

A Task Force Revisits

Northwestern Forest Issues

In July 2009, Secretary Salazar withdrew the BLM’s 

Western Oregon Plan Revisions signed in 2008, 

stating that “the plan cannot stand up in court and, 

if defended, could lead to years of fruitless litigation 

and inaction.”36 With the plan revision decisions 

withdrawn, the BLM was once again operating 

under the Northwest Forest Plan, which had guided 

timber sales from 1994 until 2008. 

The Secretary convened the interagency Western 

Oregon Task Force to make recommendations on 

developing an updated long-term management 

strategy for the BLM’s O&C lands. The task 

force’s July 2010 report observed that the “highly 

litigious atmosphere” of Northwest Forest Plan 

implementation caused the agencies to design 

timber projects, mainly thinning and fuels 

reduction projects, that could quickly proceed 

through the Endangered Species Act’s section 7 

consultation process.37 The report acknowledged 

the polarization of views on forest management 

issues and recognized that the BLM and U.S. Forest 

Service were avoiding areas with little-known 

and rare species (known as “survey and manage” 

Technological Changes Enhance Safety, Operations in Wildland Firefighting | By Sheri Ascherfeld

Much has changed in the world of firefighting in recent decades, 

including the fuels on the landscape, climate conditions, fire policies, and 

the wildland-urban interface. Technology has changed, too, providing 

fire personnel with new and improved tools to help them make better 

informed decisions and enhance safety on the fireline. 

Just as computers have proliferated in homes across the country 

since the 1980s, they have also increasingly found their way into fire 

camps and are now commonly used for everything from timekeeping 

and managing financial affairs to modeling weather and analyzing fire 

behavior. For example, geographic positioning system (GPS) navigational 

devices aid firefighters in finding the closest water source, navigating 

rugged terrain, or alerting dispatch centers to the location of a crew, an 

engine, or an aircraft, providing vital information and an added layer 

of safety and efficiency. Another example is the Resource Ordering and 

Status System (ROSS), which can track all tactical, logistical, service, and 

support resources dispatched nationwide in near real-time to quickly get 

firefighters mobilized with the support they need. 

The online Wildland Fire Decision Support System allows managers 

to track key decisions and the rationale that influenced them and helps 

them work with state, regional, and national partners to collaborate on 

complex decisions, share risks more broadly, and work through processes 

more quickly. The system includes modeling capabilities in two areas: 

predicting fire behavior and rapidly assessing values at risk. The fire 

behavior element predicts the rate, direction, and severity of fire spread 

based on a broad spectrum of inputs, including weather, fuels conditions, 

terrain and aspect, and fire history. The risk assessment element works in 

conjunction with the fire behavior analysis to consider lives, property, and 

critical infrastructure such as powerlines and roads and cultural, scenic, 

recreational, and other values that may be affected by a fire’s spread. Fire 

managers can use all of the data and models to make decisions on how 

best to deploy crews, aircraft, and equipment in the safest, most effective, 

and cost-efficient manner. 

Improved remote sensing capabilities led to the development of 

the Incident Remote Automatic Weather Station (IRAWS), which plays a 

critical role in managing large fires. This small, portable unit comes with 

sensors that monitor wind speed and direction, temperature, relative 

humidity, fuel moisture, soil moisture, and smoke. The information is sent 

to a satellite, making it readily available to help fire managers get a broad, 

real-time picture of how the weather is changing over an area. Most 

IRAWS units are deployed by ATV, but are also delivered by helicopter or a 

helicopter long-line cargo delivery if a landing site is not available, and are 

then set up and activated on the ground. 

Years of research and testing have resulted in new technology for fire 

shelters that offer improved protection from radiant and convective heat. 

The new generation of shelters protects firefighters by reflecting radiant 

heat and trapping breathable air. 

New computer-based, online training courses enable fire personnel 

to acquire training from their homes or home units. There is a broad 

spectrum of other technological aids to fire training as well. Imagine a 

smokejumper exiting an airplane, pulling the handle to open his or her 

parachute, and then steering the square canopy in the variable winds to 

descend and land in the designated landing zone a safe distance from the 

fire. Now imagine that this jump doesn’t take place near an actual fire nor 

from the customary altitude of 3,000 feet. Instead, this is a practice jump 

that takes place inside the smokejumper base at the National Interagency 

Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. Thanks to a virtual reality simulator, 

smokejumpers can practice their skills without leaving the ground. With 

the aid of a harness, visual goggles, and a computer, they practice in a 

variety of settings and conditions. The smokejumpers still get plenty of live 

practice jumps, but the simulator can help keep their skills sharp. 

A number of other technological innovations are currently being 

discussed or under development that may be integrated into the fire 

community in the future. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) may one day 

be common reconnaissance equipment for fires. Testing is currently being 

done on units that would tap into minor electrical currents created by sap 

movement in trees to power remote weather equipment rather than using 

small solar panels. “Smart” hard hats are being made with sensors to alert 

the wearer about certain dangers at construction sites, which may have 

some future application in the fire community. 

Given the pace of change in technology across the board, there may 

be no limits to how advances are applied in the world of firefighting and 

fire management.

Sheri Ascherfeld began her federal career as a firefighter with the Forest Service in 1988 and moved to the National Interagency Fire Center in 1993.

There she worked for the BLM in the National Interagency Coordination Center and is currently in external affairs.

Setting up a portable Remote Automatic Weather Station.

species under the Northwest Forest Plan) due to 

cost and time constraints. For example, in 2010, the 

BLM’s annual work plans for O&C lands identified 

thinning projects as generating 90 percent of the 

proposed timber volume. The report went on 

to say: 

“This opportunistic and risk-avoidance 

approach results in not implementing 

projects in areas where they are needed to 

achieve the full suite of landscape objectives. 

. . . Some Districts have predicted they will 

run out of thinning projects and harvest 

volume in a few years.”38

The report also recommended that a science team 

reexamine the Northwest Forest Plan’s prescriptions 

for conserving old-growth species and review 

existing “survey and manage” mitigation measures 

in light of new information.39

Meanwhile, the timber industry challenged the July 

2009 Western Oregon Plan Revision withdrawals, 

and in March 2011, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia vacated and remanded the 

July 2009 withdrawal decision. This ruling meant 

that the BLM would once again operate under the 

2008 decisions rather than under the Northwest 

Forest Plan. In April 2011, conservation groups 

refiled their challenge to the Western Oregon Plan 

Revisions in the District of Oregon.40 In May 2012, 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon 

vacated the 2008 records of decision/RMPs for 

western Oregon BLM districts and reinstated the 

BLM’s 1995 records of decision/RMPs.

Litigation on this issue continued as of 2012. 

Resolution will ultimately require forging a 

collaborative solution among the land managing 

and regulatory agencies, conservation groups, 

timber interests, local communities, and local 

timber-dependent tribes. 

Prescribed underburn to reduce fuels

in a western Oregon forest.

BLM smokejumpers in 

Boise, Idaho.
158 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 159

The Rangeland Program

Addresses Drought Conditions

From 2010 to 2012, the BLM’s management 

of grazing during drought took center stage. 

Across the West, the BLM worked cooperatively 

with local ranchers and others to reduce or stop 

livestock use or change pasture rotations where 

forage or water conditions were poor. Nationally, 

a multiyear cooperative effort with other agencies 

and academic institutions was bearing fruit. The 

goal was to develop and employ updated ecological 

site descriptions that reflected current scientific 

theory regarding the dynamics of rangeland plant 

communities. As a result, the BLM, U.S. Forest 

Service, and Natural Resources Conservation 

Service published an interagency ecological 

site description manual and handbook. These 

documents enabled the three agencies to share a 

standardized system for defining and describing 

ecological sites in a coordinated manner across 

In addition, the BLM would place an increased 

emphasis on promoting adoptions, stepping up 

fertility control, and using gender adjustment as 

tools to maintain stable herd populations. Secretary 

Salazar said that the measures represented his 

vision for responding to the direction of Congress 

and the recommendations of the Government 

Accountability Office and would provide “a truly 

national solution to a concern that is not limited to 

the West.”

In June 2010, the BLM presented the strategy with 

some refinements and invited further public review 

and comment. The agency received and considered 

more than 9,000 comment letters and emails 

and published a final strategic document on 

February 28, 2011. The strategy, which represented 

the most detailed long-term management plan ever 

developed for the wild horse and burro program, 

included more than 70 specific actions. It also 

called on the National Academy of Sciences to do 

an independent technical review of the wild horse 

rangelands where ownerships and jurisdictions 

were often intermingled.

The BLM also continued to make progress in 

describing the condition of grassland, shrubland, 

and savanna ecosystems across ownerships 

through the development of rangeland data 

standards, which facilitated the use of this data 

with geographic information systems. This task 

was a priority of the AIM strategy. The BLM 

accomplished it by working with other agencies 

and the academic community to adopt a set of core 

indicators and to monitor conditions across private, 

state, tribal, and nonforested BLM rangeland 

in cooperation with the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service’s National Resources 

Inventory Program. The BLM uses the resulting 

standardized data to both inform the development 

of ecological site descriptions and help determine 

whether BLM-managed land is meeting land 

health standards.

In 2012, culminating 7 years of effort, the BLM 

initiated a standardized protocol for reporting and 

mapping achievements in meeting land health 

standards. Prior to this, reporting was inconsistent 

and not centrally tracked. With the standardized 

protocol in place, for the first time, the BLM could 

more accurately report and map the condition 

of the land based on land health standards and 

visually track progress from year to year. This new 

reporting process also standardized electronic 

storage of land health information in geodatabases, 

allowing for easy access to the data. 

Through these new rangeland monitoring programs 

and the larger AIM strategy, the BLM continued 

its progress in improving and standardizing the 

collection and reporting of data to support its 

shift toward a more science-based decisionmaking 

process in rangeland management.

The Secretary Develops

a New Wild Horse and Burro Strategy

In 2009, the BLM began working closely with 

Secretary Salazar to develop what would become 

the Secretary’s initiative for healthy wild horses and 

healthy rangelands.

The Secretary outlined the strategy to key members 

of Congress in a letter in October 2009.41 His 

strategy called for establishing a new set of wild 

horse preserves located primarily in the grasslands 

of the Midwest and the East, where forage and 

water were plentiful. Cooperative agreements 

with partners would reduce the costs to the 

government. Certain herds in the West would 

receive special designation as a means of expanding 

public awareness of the program and promoting 

ecotourism that could benefit local communities. 

Specialists discussing drought conditions in Nevada.

and burro program and reaffirmed the central role 

that the review would have in the BLM’s wild horse 

and burro management decisions.42

In the interim, the BLM proposed removing 

approximately 7,600 animals from the range 

annually, 24 percent fewer than the 10,000 per year 

originally projected, to keep the overall on-therange population of wild horses and burros under 

39,000. This temporary reduction in gathers would 

allow the BLM to devote additional resources to 

applying more fertility control, training more 

wild horses to boost adoptions, and conducting 

more research. 

Ecosanctuary Proposals Emerge

In March 2011, the BLM requested proposals for 

private-public partnerships to establish wild horse 

preserves, called “ecosanctuaries,” on non-BLM 

managed land. The ecosanctuaries, to be publicly 

accessible with a potential for ecotourism, would 

help the BLM feed and care for excess wild horses 

removed from western public rangelands.

In February 2012, the agency announced it would 

begin environmental reviews for a potential 

ecosanctuary that would house 250 horses on a 

4,000-acre private ranch in southeastern Wyoming, 

30 miles west of Laramie. Two months later, the 

BLM announced it would analyze a proposed wild 

horse ecosanctuary on both public and private 

lands submitted by Saving America’s Mustangs, 

a nonprofit organization formed by wild horse 

advocate Madeleine Pickens. Under the proposal, 

the BLM-managed 530,000-acre Spruce grazing 

allotment would be combined with approximately 

14,000 acres of private land in northeastern Nevada 

to form the ecosanctuary for 900 nonreproducing 

horses. The Spruce grazing allotment, which 

overlays portions of three BLM wild horse herd 

management areas, would remain publicly 

accessible for a variety of outdoor activities such 

as big game hunting. The BLM expected the NEPA 

analysis to take 2 years. 

The BLM continued to resist calls to use its legal 

authorities to dispose of excess horses through 

unlimited sale or “humane destruction” as being 

inconsistent with the public’s values and passion for 

America’s wild horses and burros. 

The Bureau Strengthens Management of 

Gathers and Communication

Concurrent to pursuing the agency’s new strategy, 

the BLM began managing many large gathers under 

the incident command system originally designed 

to provide a management structure to respond to 

major wildfires. The system’s command hierarchy 

and integrated organization brought personnel of 

Dishpan Butte Herd Management Area in Wyoming.
160 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 161

various disciplines and resources together so that 

the BLM could manage a large and complex gather 

efficiently and effectively.

Also in 2010, the BLM established the National 

Wild Horse and Burro Communications Team 

to support BLM field operations during gathers, 

particularly those drawing greater-than-normal 

public interest and involvement. The team focused 

on providing consistent messaging and delivering 

information through social media in response 

to interest groups that were using such tools as 

blogging, Twitter, and Facebook to gain a national 

audience and follow the gathers. The team created 

a social media portal and a wild horse and burro 

Facebook page, which quickly became the most 

visited BLM site with more than 28,000 “friends” 

as of 2012. For the first time, the public could 

follow real-time BLM updates on gathers via 

Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, and the Web. 

Communication team members also supported 

large gather operations at the site, which helped 

relieve the local offices of a major unanticipated 

workload and counter the distribution of any 

misleading and inflammatory information.

Lands, Realty, and Cadastral Survey 

Programs Support Bureau Priorities

The work of the BLM’s Lands, Realty, and Cadastral 

Survey programs continued to be vital to the 

functioning of the Bureau. 

Cadastral Surveys Provide Secure Legal Title

Security of legal title to the land is one of the 

bulwarks of our basic freedoms as Americans and is 

the fundamental object of the cadastral surveyor’s 

work. It also is the focus of the BLM’s “Manual of 

cadastral survey staffs because solar and wind 

energy development on public lands was authorized 

as a right-of-way. With proposals for solar projects, 

principally in the southwestern states, and for 

wind projects, mainly in Wyoming, requests for 

authorizations were steadily increasing. 

Federal Land Transaction

Facilitation Act Authority Ends

During the 11 years (2001-2011) that the Federal 

Land Transaction Facilitation Act was authorized, 

the BLM sold 330 parcels of land (27,249 acres) 

having a total value of $117.4 million. Over the 

life of the act, the federal government acquired 

approximately 18,100 acres of high resource value 

lands, with a total value of $50.4 million.44

The last use of Federal Land Transaction 

Facilitation Act funds was on July 28, 2011, when 

the BLM completed a fee purchase of a 400-acre 

parcel within the Johnson Canyon Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern located in California. The 

BLM purchased the parcel with $1.2 million of 

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act funds, 

with assistance from The Conservation Fund. The 

area of critical environmental concern contains 

a wide range of important natural resources and 

exceptional scenic vistas, and it provides important 

habitat for numerous species listed as threatened or 

endangered. The area is rich in cultural and historic 

resources and popular with outdoor enthusiasts. 

The original authorizations for FLTFA were for 

10 years with an extension of an additional year. 

Although the BLM and others proposed renewals 

of FLTFA, Congress had not enacted legislation as 

of 2012. 

Survey Instructions.” All BLM cadastral surveyors 

use this manual. In 2009, the BLM revised the 

manual for the first time since 1973. This ninth 

edition updated the procedures and principles 

for establishing or reestablishing, marking, 

and defining the boundaries of tracts of land, 

incorporating new technical advances of the 

21st century. 

The Department of the Interior was working to 

resolve a lawsuit filed in 1996 by Eloise Cobell, 

a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, who claimed 

that Indians in many tribes were not receiving 

appropriate payments for mineral royalties and 

other uses on lands belonging to either them or 

their tribes. Congress approved a $3.4 billion 

settlement in 2010.43 It included a $1.9 billion Trust 

Land Consolidation Fund and $1.5 billion in direct 

payments to class members. The land consolidation 

piece required the Department and its subsidiary 

agencies, including the BLM, to develop a plan to 

purchase various property interests held by Indian 

tribe members and restore those interests to tribal 

trusts to consolidate titles where there were many 

fractional interests involved. This effort required 

significant coordination among several Department 

offices, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the BLM. 

The Cobell case was long and complex and involved 

many intervening court orders and rulings, 

including some that required the shutdown of 

various electronic systems that support the BLM’s 

work, eventually leading to a just settlement.

The 125,000 parcels identified became part of a 

massive buy-back program. As part of governmentto-government relationships with Indian tribes, 

the BLM shared mapping information with the 

29 tribal governments and identified more than 

2.9 million purchasable fractional interests owned 

by more than 250,000 individuals. The buy-back 

program allowed interested individual owners to 

sell their interests voluntarily to consolidate titles 

for the tribes. Cadastral surveys were an essential 

component of this groundbreaking program. 

Lands and Realty Program Supports 

Conservation and Energy Rights-of-Way

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

2009 required the BLM to complete numerous 

land exchanges and other land acquisitions and 

conveyances. The BLM acquired lands to protect 

resources or add to conservation areas and other 

management areas. The BLM also transferred lands 

no longer needed for federal programs out of public 

ownership to communities and private entities to 

enhance local developments and community needs.

The renewable energy development program 

continued to be a high priority within the 

Department and the BLM. Renewable energy 

projects involved the BLM’s lands, realty, and 

Surveyor and landowner working together.

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Enables Acquisitions

From 2009-2012, the BLM received just over 

$80 million of land acquisition funding through 

Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. 

The BLM directed these funds to 24 projects in 

9 western states. With these funds (accompanied 

by an additional $4.9 million in leveraged funds 

provided by conservation groups and others), the 

BLM completed fee and conservation easement 

purchases of 139 parcels totaling more than 

59,000 acres. In keeping with the growing public 

awareness and appreciation of the National 

Landscape Conservation System and development 

threats facing these national treasures, the BLM’s 

land acquisition focus turned towards prioritizing 

preservation of these areas.

The size of parcels that the BLM acquired ranged 

from 2 acres within the California Coastal 

National Monument to 2,080 acres within the 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in Oregon. 

In 2011, assisted by The Conservation Fund, 

the BLM completed a purchase of 1,855 acres 

within the Canyons of the Ancients National 

Monument in Colorado. This purchase followed 

the earlier purchase of the Wallace parcels in 2009 

with Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act 

funding. In 2012, with assistance from The Nature 

Conservancy, the BLM used $1.6 million from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase 

13 private lots in support of the Table Rocks Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern in Oregon. This 

area jointly supports the protection of special plants 

and animal species, along with unique geologic 

and scenic values, while supporting environmental 

education opportunities.

Table Rocks Area of Critical Environmental Concern in Oregon.
162 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 163

Roads and Rights-of-Way Spark Debate

A 20-word piece of legislation, Revised Statute 

(R.S.) 2477, section 8 of the Mining Law of 1866, 

continued to spark debate over roads and rights-ofway across the public lands in the West. Repealed 

in 1976 by FLPMA, the statute nonetheless 

grandfathered in existing grants. Because these 

grants did not require approval, no records of them 

existed. Thus, determining their validity was an 

issue for many years. 

The BLM did not have the authority to make 

binding determinations on the validity of R.S. 2477 

right-of-way claims. The BLM could, however, 

make informal, nonbinding, administrative 

determinations for land use planning and 

management purposes. It must base these 

determinations in the particular laws of each state 

in which a claimed right-of-way is situated. In Utah, 

applicable state code provided for the acceptance of 

a right-of-way pursuant to R.S. 2477 across public 

lands not reserved for public purposes when the 

public had used a right-of-way for a continuous 

10-year period. As of 2012, the BLM was working 

closely with the State of Utah on resolving a large 

number of their R.S. 2477 claims. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Acquisitions | By David Beaver

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act, passed in September 1964, allowed Congress 

to appropriate funding to acquire lands within specifically designated units managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service. 

Funds for the LWCF come from offshore oil and gas leasing revenues, land sales, and motorboat 

fuel taxes. Within the BLM, these funds are primarily targeted to units of the National Landscape 

Conservation System, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), and special recreation 

management areas. 

By 2012, the BLM had received more than $811 million from the LWCF, ranging from $13,015 for 

its first land acquisition appropriation in 1970 to $298.4 million in 1998. Funding received through 

the LWCF complements funding through other sources, including the Federal Land Transaction 

Facilitation Act and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, and is supplemented by 

acquisition of lands through donation and exchange. The LWCF has allowed the BLM to make some 

significant accomplishments in acquiring land for natural resource benefits, including open space, 

wildlife habitat, and recreation, as described in the examples that follow.

Upper Snake/South Fork Snake River Area

of Critical Environmental Concern/

Special Recreation Management Area, Idaho

Born of snowmelt and springs among high ridges of

Yellowstone country, the 43,000-acre Upper Snake/South Fork

Snake River project area preserves the scenic viewshed within the

Snake River corridor in eastern Idaho. Gliding through mountains, canyons,

meadows, and the vast farmlands of the Snake River plains, lined with commanding cottonwood 

galleries and a lush shrub understory, the corridor sustains a broad variety of plants, fish, birds, and 

wildlife populations. It is the only home for the federally threatened Ute ladies’-tresses orchid in 

Idaho; is a world famous, blue ribbon fishery, supporting the largest wild Yellowstone cutthroat trout 

population outside of Yellowstone National Park; and provides multiple wildlife migration corridors 

and habitat connectivity. The first World Fly Fishing Championship in North America took place on 

the South Fork in 1997. The area provides crucial habitat for 126 bird species (the majority of them 

neotropical migrants), including the majority of Idaho’s bald eagle production (with 27 nesting 

territories), and has been designated as a “Continental Important Bird Area.” Diverse recreational 

opportunities account for over 300,000 recreational visits per year. The project serves as a national 

model for land conservation, strategically utilizing conservation easements in an effort to preserve 

the unique values of this area. Since 1991, in an effort to eliminate threats from rural residential 

subdivision and resort development, the BLM, assisted by The Conservation Fund, The Nature 

Conservancy, and the Teton Regional Land Trust, has acquired over 9,500 acres for $24.2 million. An 

additional 10,200 acres (valued at $17.6 million) have been protected by active conservation partners.

Headwaters Forest Reserve, California

The 7,500-acre Headwaters Forest Reserve is an

old-growth coast redwood grove located in northern

California near Humboldt Bay. In 1999, the BLM

acquired the Headwaters Forest property for

$380 million (including $130 million from the State of

California) from Pacific Lumber Company. The reserve

was created after a 150-year effort to save the ancien

 ecosystem (some trees are estimated to be more than

2,000 years old) from being clearcut and to protect and preserve

important ecological and wildlife values. Stands of old-growth

redwood provide habitat for the threatened marbled murrelet, and stream systems provide critical 

habitat for the threatened coho salmon. Headwaters Forest, which is the only forest reserve in the 

United States, is co-managed with the State of California and is managed as a nature reserve within 

the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System.

King Range National Conservation Area, California

The 68,000-acre King Range National

Conservation Area extends for 35 miles along

northern California’s Pacific coast and features

a spectacular convergence of land and sea.

Here the landscape was too rugged for

highway building, forcing State Highway 1

and U.S. Highway 101 inland. This remote

region is known as California’s “Lost Coast.” 

Working since 1973 (making this one of its

longest-funded projects), the BLM, assisted by 

Save-the-Redwoods League, has acquired

14,800 acres for $13 million to consolidate public

lands for recreation, scenic, and wildlife values.

An additional 12,500 acres (valued at $21.2 million) has been acquired by exchange. 

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains

National Monument, California

Providing a rugged backdrop to the gateway

communities of Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and

La Quinta, the 272,000-acre Santa Rosa and

San Jacinto Mountains National Monument

annually hosts over 1.5 million visitors. This

undeveloped “island,” a series of steep escarpments

ranging from sea level to nearly 11,000 feet in

elevation, is home to more than 600 animal and

plant species residing within several distinct climatic

zones. Rapid urbanization immediately adjacent to the

monument is threatening these tremendous scenic and

wildlife resource values. The monument is co-administered by

the BLM and the Forest Service. Since 1992, in an effort to eliminate threats from encroaching 

rural residential subdivisions, the BLM, assisted by Friends of the Desert Mountains, has acquired 

17,800 acres at a cost of $15.1 million. An additional 47,000 acres (valued at $48.7 million) has 

been protected by active conservation partners. 

Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitat Preservation Area

of Critical Environmental Concern, New Mexico

Located in the transition zone between the southern Great Plains

and the Chihuahuan Desert, the 58,000-acre Lesser Prairie-Chicken

Habitat Preservation ACEC is prime habitat for both the lesser

prairie-chicken and the sand dune lizard. This area of sand dunes and

tall bluestem grasses provides ideal habitat for these species, which are

both candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

In March 2010, the BLM, assisted by The Conservation Fund,

acquired the 7,440-acre Ventana Ranch parcel with

$1.25 million from the LWCF. The purchase complemented

a June 2009 land exchange with the State of New Mexico,

which allowed the acquisition of all 9,350 acres of state land

within the ACEC.

David Beaver was the national program lead for the BLM’s LWCF and Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act land acquisition programs in the Washington Office from 1991 until his retirement in 2015. Prior to that,

he worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was a realty specialist in the Great Divide Field Office and a natural resource specialist in the Casper District Office for the BLM in Wyoming. Onion Creek Trail near Moab, Utah.

Bald eagle

near the

Snake River.

Towering

redwoods

in Headwaters

Forest Reserve.

Wildflowers

at King Range

National Conservation Area.

Sunset at Santa Rosa

and San Jacinto Mountains

National Monument.

Lesser

Sand dune lizard. prairie-chicken.
164 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 165

Law Enforcement Officers Protect

Against Resource Damage and

Threats to Public Safety 

Investigation Leads to

Recovery of Stolen Artifacts

On June 10, 2009, the BLM, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, and other partners announced arrests 

in the Four Corners region of southern Utah for the 

theft of archaeological and cultural artifacts from 

public lands. The arrests were the culmination of a 

3-year undercover operation dubbed the Cerberus 

Action, the largest investigation of artifact theft 

from public lands to date. The agencies suspected 

24 individuals of looting pristine sites, stealing 

priceless artifacts from public lands, and selling 

artifacts to dealers and collectors. 

Among the recovered items were two collections 

valued at more than $6 million. They included 

Ancestral Puebloan, stone pipes, burial and 

ceremonial masks, and ancient sandals associated 

with Native American burials.45 “Those who 

remove or damage artifacts on public or tribal lands 

take something from all of us,” said U.S. Attorney 

Brett Tolman. “These treasures are the heritage of 

all Americans, and in many cases, the objects are 

sacred to Native Americans.” 46

The Road to Resolution: Revised Statute 2477 | By Jeff Holdren

“The right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.”

These 20 words, known as Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477, have probably caused 

the BLM more angst on a word-for-word basis than any other piece of legislation. 

The statute was originally enacted as section 8 of the Mining Law of 1866 to provide 

for access to mining claims authorized by that law, but its use extended to other 

access routes. Since its enactment, thousands of rights-of-way were developed, 

although the exact number is unknown. Because these rights-of-way did not 

require any formal approval, in most instances, they were not recorded on public 

land records or in official county records and there was little guidance from the 

General Land Office or the BLM on the proper acknowledgment of roads. 

In 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) provided new 

authority to obtain access across public lands but also repealed R.S. 2477. However, 

existing grants were grandfathered in and are still in effect. Roads that are claimed 

to be subject to the law range from trails that are barely visible to the naked eye to 

paved roads that are designated as state highways. Some claims, if proven valid, 

have the potential to impact wilderness and other pristine areas.

The grandfathering process has resulted in much deliberation over the 

meaning of several key words in the legislation. What constitutes construction? 

What is a highway? What lands are considered to be reserved? 

Several Department of the Interior policies have attempted to resolve these 

issues over the past 20 years. In 1988, Secretary Donald Hodel’s policy stated 

that for an R.S. 2477 road to be valid, it must be on unreserved lands, have been 

constructed when lands were unreserved, and be a public highway. Other factors 

(abandonment, width, etc.) were dependent upon state law. In 1993, Secretary 

Bruce Babbitt proposed regulations that were put on hold by Congress; he then 

established a policy in 1997 that for a road to be valid, it had to be constructed 

mechanically and have beginning and ending points, and there also had to be a 

compelling need for it.

In Utah, several counties began making improvements to roads that they 

claimed were valid R.S. 2477 grants. In 1996, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

and the Sierra Club brought suit seeking to stop further road construction across 

BLM lands. In 1998, the district court ruled that the counties’ maintenance and 

use of R.S. 2477 roads was not considered trespassing on federal lands but stayed 

the case pending an administrative determination by the BLM as to the validity 

and scope of the claimed R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. In June 2001, the district court 

affirmed all of BLM’s determinations. The counties appealed.

A three-judge panel for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the BLM’s 

administrative determinations in September 2005. Specifically, the court held, 

among other things, that the BLM lacked authority to make binding determinations 

on the validity of the R.S. 2477 claims. This decision allowed roads to be maintained 

at the status quo but did not authorize automatic expansion of roads.

One of the proposed ways to authorize a valid R.S. 2477 claim was through 

section 315 of FLPMA, which pertains to recordable disclaimers of interest (RDI). 

An RDI allows the Secretary to issue a document that would help remove a cloud 

on the title of a land parcel where the recorded interest of the United States in the 

parcel has terminated or is invalid. Other means to obtain legal rights to an asserted 

R.S. 2477 road include the use of a right-of-way as authorized by Title V of FLPMA 

and quiet title determination through a court of law.

Secretary Gale Norton issued guidelines in March 2006 to assist Department 

of the Interior land managers in implementing the principles outlined in the 

court’s opinion. In February 2009, under Secretary Ken Salazar, the BLM issued a 

memorandum stating that pending further review and direction from the Secretary, 

it would not process or review any claims under R.S. 2477, including the use of RDIs. 

However, over the last few years, Utah has, under state law, recorded 

documents accepting claims for more than 2,000 “class B” roads (county roads) 

across BLM-managed lands. Utah counties receive funding through the state for 

the maintenance of class B roads. The state has also recorded documents on “class 

D” roads (any established or constructed road, way, or land surface route). Utah 

provides no funds for class D roads, which typically receive no routine maintenance. 

The BLM in Utah has worked cooperatively with some counties to address 

asserted R.S. 2477 roads via FLPMA rights-of-way or road maintenance agreements. 

FLPMA rights-of-way are cost-free to the state and counties, and they can include 

conditions to not disturb any underlying R.S. 2477 claim if adjudicated in the future, 

making them attractive to some Utah counties. Other counties take a different 

position, essentially refusing to seek FLPMA rights-of-way, and believe that judicial 

determinations are required if the BLM is unable to acknowledge roads through an 

administrative process in a timely manner. Under this circumstance, some counties 

have resorted to litigation. Environmental groups, including Earthjustice, The 

Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and others, are 

scrutinizing state and county right-of-way claims and have requested intervention 

in Quiet Title Act litigation involving R.S. 2477 claims. 

As of 2012, several other western states indicated an interest in pursuing 

various means to establish R.S. 2477 roads. Because of the variety of issues that 

have been raised and solutions that have been proposed, a resolution to R.S. 2477 

claims will no doubt be a long way down the road.

Jeff Holdren was the division chief 

for lands, realty, and cadastral survey 

in BLM’s Washington Office before he 

retired in 2010. He began his BLM 

career as a range conservationist in 

Riverside, California, later converting to 

a realty specialist. He was also an area 

manager in Nevada and the deputy 

director for lands and minerals in the 

Eastern States Office. Jeff continues his 

service to the BLM as a volunteer.

Burr Trail, Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument in Utah.

Photo by Ken Lund.

In 2010, the BLM began consulting with the Indian 

tribes potentially affiliated with the artifacts. Tribes 

helped the BLM identify and catalog the artifacts 

and determine cultural affiliation. The BLM 

developed an outreach plan and built partnerships 

with Indian tribes and community organizations 

to promote stewardship of these and other 

archaeological resources.

By the end of 2011, the Cerberus Action had 

resulted in 28 federal convictions on 28 felony 

counts. As of 2012, the investigation continued 

in cooperation with other federal and state law 

enforcement partners.47

Officers Address Border Issues

Along the 370-mile border Arizona shares with 

Mexico, BLM law enforcement officers played 

an increasingly important role in addressing the 

smuggling of undocumented aliens and illegal 

drugs across the international border.48

In 2009, law enforcement agencies worked 

cooperatively along the southwest border and 

seized more than 1 million pounds of drugs—a 

record, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement 

Administration. The BLM managed much of 

the border area that smugglers must traverse, 

including lands within the Ironwood Forest and 

Sonoran Desert National Monuments in Arizona. 

BLM special agents and rangers seized more 

than 13,000 pounds of marijuana in 2009. They 

also apprehended more than a dozen individuals 

suspected of, and later indicted for, involvement 

in smuggling operations. As these types of illegal 

activities increased, so did concern for public safety 

and for public land resources near the border.49

In 2010, BLM managers and law enforcement 

staffs developed a long-term response to public 

safety threats and resource damage caused 

by international human and drug trafficking 

organizations in these two BLM-managed national 

monuments in Arizona. Operation Reclaim Our 

Arizona Monuments, organized and operated 

under the incident command system, was a 

multifaceted, multiagency response to these 

threats. Through the increased presence of BLM 

law enforcement officers and other federal, state, 

Four Corners investigation.

Operation Reclaim Our Arizona Monuments cleanup

at Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona.
166 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 167

and local law enforcement agencies, the goal was 

to identify drug trafficking organizations, target 

and remove countersurveillance operatives, 

and arrest and prosecute drug smugglers. The 

officers also provided security in support of the 

BLM’s administrative efforts to install vehicle 

barriers to protect sensitive resources, remove 

hundreds of tons of smuggling-related trash, and 

clear vegetation from road accessible hideouts 

historically used by drug trafficking organizations. 

There is no doubt that the future holds new and 

unanticipated challenges for BLM law enforcement 

as burgeoning populations place greater demands 

on the public lands and resources and “all such 

acts and things touching or respecting the public 

lands of the United States.”50 If history is a guide, 

BLM law enforcement officers will continue to be 

forerunners in enforcing resource protection laws, 

ready to face the unforeseen challenges of 

the future. 

Public Lands Provide Economic

and Intrinsic Value 

As of 2012, the BLM managed more than 245 

million acres of public land, more land than any 

other federal agency.51 The BLM also administered 

700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate. 

Activities involving these lands and resources were 

making significant contributions to the national 

economy. In 2012, commodity, energy, recreation, 

and conservation uses on the public lands 

generated an estimated combined economic output 

of more than $126 billion to the U.S. economy and 

supported more than 635,000 full- and part-time 

jobs for Americans.52

BLM lands provided less direct economic benefits 

as well. Increasingly, in this mobile society, people 

chose to live in areas near public lands, and they 

brought their income, and often their jobs, with 

them, which had a positive, cascading effect on 

community growth. 

While the economic benefits of public lands are 

measurable, it is impossible to accurately measure 

the intrinsic values these lands provide. Extreme 

beauty, wide-open spaces, clean water and air, 

places of rest and solitude, crucial wildlife 

habitat, and protection of rare plants are more 

meaningful to many people than the dollar value of 

public lands. 

The Value of BLM’s Wild Side: Western Communities Benefit from Open Landscapes | By Luther Propst

“There’s just value in beauty.” 

—Chris Long, President of the Friends of the San Pedro in southern Arizona

Rocky canyons and wild rivers; open plains with herds of wild horses; working landscapes of 

grazing livestock, mining, and oil and gas development; historic and cultural trails; wilderness areas 

of beauty and solitude—the BLM oversees the most iconic landscapes in the West. Covering about 

245 million acres of the United States, the vast majority in the West and in Alaska, BLM lands and the 

activities that take place on them contribute significantly to the economies of local communities as well 

as to the country as a whole.

Over the last 20 years, the Sonoran Institute has worked with the BLM to inform communities and 

engage diverse people in discussions about choices and tradeoffs regarding the uses and values of BLM 

lands and the various benefits they confer on nearby communities. We’ve done studies to examine the 

economic implications of protecting BLM lands. This is challenging work, in part because the economic 

benefits of resource development and extraction are usually centralized and easy to observe, while the 

environmental and other costs of resource extraction are diffuse and more challenging to measure. 

While the economics of these lands are complex, it is clear that open landscapes managed by 

the BLM are valuable on many levels. Beyond the easily quantifiable value of public lands, such as the 

revenue provided by oil and gas production, many economic benefits are more subtly expressed. 

For example, Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (NCA) and surrounding lands southeast of 

Tucson, Arizona, are the exclusive source for drinking water for thousands of residents in eastern Pima 

County. This water is clearly a huge economic asset for the region, yet placing a specific value on it 

would challenge most economists. Similarly, riparian areas on BLM lands function as natural, low-cost, 

flood control systems. When these streamside landscapes are altered by development, use, or resource 

extraction, alternate sources of water and flood protection are needed, and they are costly. 

An estimated 22 million people in the West reside within 25 minutes of lands managed by the 

BLM. This proximity provides yet more economic value derived from agency lands. A study by two 

University of Arizona economics professors found that two popular birding sites in southern Arizona 

have significant economic value. The San Pedro Riparian NCA and Ramsey Canyon, a nearby preserve 

managed by The Nature Conservancy, add as much as $16.9 million to the area each year in tourist 

spending and generate up to 590 jobs spread throughout dozens of local businesses. 

It is significantly more straightforward to measure the economic impact of visitors to public lands 

than to quantify the value of critically important factors such as clean air and clean water. As a result, 

too much emphasis is placed on those studies and too little on the much more significant economic 

benefits of the public lands that are simply harder to quantify, yet no less valuable.

Another area of study is the extent to which public lands attract bright, creative people and their 

capital, jobs, and innovation. Open spaces such as those administered by the BLM may well exert a 

substantial economic impact from their ability to attract well-educated and highly paid workers—not 

just in resource development, but in aerospace, health care, higher education, finance and other fields. 

These workers are attracted to cities that maintain a connection to wild spaces while cultivating a 

mature and sophisticated economy, such as Tucson and Sierra Vista, Arizona; Grand Junction, Colorado; 

and Las Vegas, Nevada. 

A good example is Sonoran Desert National Monument, a 487,000-acre BLM natural area located 

just beyond the sprawling golf course developments of the Phoenix metropolitan area. Local economic 

development officials market and support this and other conservation areas, knowing that these 

conserved lands help attract highly skilled workers who participate in hiking, mountain biking, and 

other outdoor recreational activities at a higher rate than the general population. 

While the most significant impacts of conserved public lands are indeed difficult to quantify, it is 

important that we do so in order to gain a better understanding of the actual economic and community 

Hiking with dogs benefits, and costs, of decisions regarding the conservation and development of public lands. 

in Sand to Snow 

National Monument in 

California. Luther Propst founded the Sonoran Institute, which works to conserve public lands, promote “smart growth,” better manage water, and reform local and state energy and climate change policies. He served as executive director until 2012.

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area in Arizona.
168 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 169

Notes

1. Robert Abbey, BLM Director, statement before 

the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, July 9, 2009.

2. Energy Information Administration, “Petroleum 

Marketing Monthly October 2008,” http://www.eia.gov/

petroleum/marketing/monthly/archive/2008/2008_10/

pdf/pmmtab1.pdf.

3. Energy Information Administration, “Frequently 

Asked Questions,” www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.

cfm?id=247&t=10 (accessed September 1, 2011).

4. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Salazar Reforms 

U.S. Oil Shale Program,” press release, October 19, 2009, 

www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/2009_10_20_release.

cfm (accessed July 25, 2011).

5. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Salazar: Technology, 

Water Supplies, and Fair Return Must Guide Nation’s Oil 

Shale Program,” press release, February 15, 2011, www.

doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Technology-WaterSupplies-and-Fair-Return-Must-Guide-Nations-OilShale-Program.cfm (accessed July 25, 2011).

6. On January 17, 2009, a federal district court enjoined 

the Department of the Interior from entering into oil and 

gas leases for 77 parcels in Utah that had been included 

in a December 19, 2008, auction. The court entered a 

temporary injunction against the sale of the parcels after 

concluding that plaintiffs had established “a likelihood 

of success on the merits” regarding their claims that the 

proposed lease sales violated the National Environmental 

Policy Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 

and National Historic Preservation Act. An Interior 

Department report released in June 2009 revealed flaws 

in the leasing process used in the Utah sale that included 

several parcels near Arches and Canyonlands National 

Parks and Dinosaur National Monument. Bureau of 

Land Management, “Interior Review Shines Light on 

Controversial Utah Oil and Gas Leases,” news release. 

June 10, 2009, http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/

newsroom/2009/june/NR_0611_2009.html.

Is Democracy Compatible with Conservation? | By Patricia Nelson Limerick

If you pay attention to the history of the Bureau of Land Management, you will soon be wrestling 

with one of the most consequential questions of the last two centuries.

The practices we categorize as “conservation” all involve restraining some uses of natural resources 

so that those resources are available in the future. Finding the right relationship between use and 

restraint is a challenge faced by every BLM employee every working day.

The practices of conservation originated in very different times and in very different political 

systems. The origins of conservation can be traced from two unsettling and overlapping territories: 

the European world of monarchy and aristocracy and the extension of European imperial power over 

distant colonies. 

In the 18th and 19th centuries, on the estates of monarchs and aristocrats, enthusiasm for hunting 

led to the purposeful conservation of habitat for game animals. Limiting or even prohibiting the access 

of commoners to these lands was a key feature of early conservation.

Even earlier, in the 17th century, naturalists were sent along on voyages and expeditions. They 

wrote of the exotic flora and fauna of distant lands and pushed colonial governors to preserve these 

treasures from exhaustion or depletion. Here, too, power was exercised to achieve conservation, as 

native-born locals were restricted from using the plants, animals, and lands that were once essential for 

their subsistence.

The rise of democracy ended many of these practices. At the time of this nation’s origin, the 

Founders might well have felt that democracy and conservation were inherently incompatible. Early 

land laws all involved some form of “disposal” of the public domain into private ownership. The idea of 

restraining the access of individual citizens to the ownership and use of land seemed squarely at odds 

with democratic ideology. 

In the West, the Jeffersonian agrarian dream hit tough times. Vast areas of land, characterized by 

elevation, ruggedness, and aridity, were not at all suited to farming. Consequently, a vast domain of 

otherwise unwanted land remained under the ownership and management of the federal government.

The greatest share of that land is now the responsibility of the BLM. Created by the merger of the 

General Land Office and the Grazing Service in 1946, the BLM was always obligated to shape its policy in 

response to the demands of American citizens. More so than any other agency, the BLM had to consider 

and adapt to the preferences of elected officials and local residents whose livelihoods depended on the 

public lands.

By the end of the 20th century, an extraordinary transformation occurred. Many Americans 

developed an affection and appreciation for the arid and semiarid western lands that “no one wanted,” 

and soon there was hardly a single unloved square inch left in the terrain that was once classified as 

“wastelands.” 

The growing appreciation for the beauty, biodiversity, and recreational attractions of public lands 

was emerging as a major political and cultural force, challenging BLM’s earlier, close ties with local 

resource users. Americans from all over the nation directed their ambitions, hopes, worries, fears, and 

preferences at the BLM. The good news was that the nation’s citizens were recognizing and embracing 

their ownership of the public lands. But, by the same measure, combining democracy with conservation 

had grown immeasurably more complicated. In truth, responding to the concerns of American citizens 

had been considerably easier when there were dramatically fewer people in that mix and when the 

majority of the people involved lived in proximity to BLM lands. 

In recent years, there have been more challenges to the idea of separating the domain of the 

natural from the domain of the human. The assumption that the preservation of natural landscapes 

meant quarantining them from human presence and use preceded current environmentalism. And yet 

few, if any, American places ever existed in a pristine condition unaffected by human beings; in hunting, 

gathering, and farming, as well as in the strategic use of fire, Indian people had been present and active 

in every locale. The growing recognition of the inseparability of the “human” from the “natural,” its 

mandate to manage working landscapes, and the convergence of individuals and groups with a wide 

range of ambitions and aspirations on the public lands led the BLM once again to the intersection where 

democracy and conservation meet.

The opening section of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the enabling act for 

the BLM, provides an inventory of what comes to the minds of the American people when they have 

looked at nature and assessed its value. Allow yourself to empathize as you review even a partial list 

of what people want from the public lands—grass for livestock grazing, game to hunt, lands for wind 

and solar energy production, precious minerals to mine, natural gas to drill for, places to hike and camp, 

trails for off-road vehicles, habitats for wildlife, refuges for wild horses, streams and rivers for game 

fish, archaeological sites to study. Then imagine yourself trying to negotiate with the people pursuing 

these various goals, all of them legitimate and only a few of them completely compatible. You may 

momentarily find yourself envying the powers once exercised by kings, queens, and colonial governors 

on behalf of the conservation of resources.

In this test of the compatibility between democracy and conservation, the BLM is unmistakably the 

crucible. Its extraordinary landholdings are the places where the great question we inherit from the past 

undergoes its most revealing trials: Is democracy compatible with conservation? 

If you’re interested in the answer (and what good citizen wouldn’t be?), ask a BLM employee to tell 

you what he or she did at work today.

Patty Limerick, a distinguished American historian, is the faculty director of the University of Colorado’s Center of the American West. She has had the opportunity to participate

in many memorable conversations with members of the BLM staff and has written a collection of essays on the Department of the Interior.

Two Gentlemen Shooting

by George Stubbs (1769).

7. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Interior Finalizes 

Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reforms,” press release, 

May 17, 2010, www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/

Interior-Finalizes-Onshore-Oil-and-Gas-LeasingReforms-5-17-2010.cfm (accessed July 25, 2011).

8. The White House, “Weekly Address: President Obama 

Announces New Plans to Increase Responsible Domestic 

Oil Production, May 14, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.

gov/the-press-office/2011/05/13/weekly-addresspresident-obama-announces-new-plans-increaseresponsible-, and “Executive Order 13580—Interagency 

Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy 

Development and Permitting in Alaska,” July 12, 2011, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/12/

executive-order-13581-interagency-working-groupcoordination-domestic-en.

9. Bureau of Land Management, “Secretary Salazar, 

Senator Reid Announce ‘Fast-Track’ Initiatives for 

Solar Energy Development on Western Lands,” news 

release, June 29, 2009, www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/

newsroom/2009/june/NR_0629_2009.html (accessed 

June 28, 2011).

10. Bureau of Land Management, “Salazar Calls TwoYear ‘Time-Out’ from New Mining Claims on Arizona 

Strip Watershed Near Grand Canyon National Park,” 

news release, July 20, 2009, http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/

en/info/newsroom/2009/july/NR_0720_2009.html. 

11. Shaun McKinnon, “Grand Canyon Mining-Claim 

Ban Extended,” The Arizona Republic, June 21, 2011, 

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/

articles/20110620grand-canyon-mining-claims-banextended.html.

12. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Secretary Salazar 

Announces Decision to Withdraw Public Lands near 

Grand Canyon from New Mining Claims,” press release, 

January 9, 2012, www.interior.gov/news/pressreleases/

Secretary-Salazar-Announces-Decision-to-WithdrawPublic-Lands-near-Grand-Canyon-from-New-MiningClaims.cfm.

13. Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, “Addressing the 

Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land, 

and Other Natural and Cultural Resources,” Secretarial 

Order 3289, September 14, 2009.

14. Kit Muller, personal communication.

15. “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, 

and Economic Performance,” Executive Order 13514, 

October 5, 2009.

16. Juliet Eilperin, “Interior Launches Climate 

Strategy,” the Washington Post, September 15, 

2009, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/

article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403307.html.

17. Statement by President Barack Obama regarding 

the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, March 30, 

2009, www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statementfrom-the-Presidents-signing-statements-on-HR-146-

the-Omnibus-Public-Lands-Management-Act/ (accessed 

August 1, 2011).

18. Public Law 111-11 (Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act) created the BLM’s Prehistoric 

Trackways National Monument in New Mexico and 

added to the NLCS “any area designated by Congress to 

be administered for conservation purposes, including— 

. . . (D) public land within the California Desert 

Conservation Area administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management for conservation purposes.” 

19. Bureau of Land Management, The National 

Landscape Conservation System 15-Year Strategy 2010–

2025 (Washington, DC: 2011). 

20. Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, “Management 

of the National Landscape Conservation System,” 

Secretarial Order 3308, November 15, 2010, www.

blm.gov/or/news/files/NLCS_Order.pdf. The order 

specifically recognized that “conservation of this Nation’s 

rich natural and cultural heritage is an equally important 

land management objective, and an integral part of 

the BLM’s multiple use mission.” It is “a long-term 

investment that provides quality of life and economic 

benefits for current and future generations.”
170 Chapter 4 | 2009–2012 Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 171

21. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Treasured 

Landscapes,” 2011 President’s Budget: Departmental 

Highlights, 2011, DH 35–48, www.doi.gov/budget/

appropriations/2011/highlights/upload/TreasuredLandscapes.pdf (accessed July 30, 2011). 

22. Western Caucus, “President Eyes New National 

Monument Sites Throughout West,” press release, 

February 18, 2010, http://chaffetz.house.gov/pressrelease/president-eyes-new-national-monument-sitesthroughout-west. The Caucus’ website lists property 

rights as a priority issue; see www.westerncaucus.pearce.

house.gov/issues/ (accessed July 29, 2011).

23. Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, question 

and answer session during a hearing before the Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider 

the President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 for 

the Department of the Interior, Wednesday, March 3, 

2010, archive webcast, minutes 39–41.35. 

24. Bureau of Land Management, Preliminary Report 

on BLM Lands Deserving Protection as National 

Conservation Areas, Wilderness, or Other Conservation 

Designations, November 2011, www.doi.gov/news/

pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/

getfile&pageid=267130 (accessed 

November 23, 2011).

25. Bureau of Land Management, “Salazar Highlights 

18 Backcountry Areas Deserving Congressional 

Protection as Conservation Lands or Wilderness,” news 

release, November 10, 2011, www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/

info/newsroom/2011/november/NR_11_10_2011.html

(accessed May 8, 2012).

26. The policy consisted of these components: 

(1) Secretarial Order 3310 “Protecting Wilderness 

Characteristics on Lands Managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management,” (2) Manual 6301 “Wilderness 

Characteristics Inventory,” (3) Manual 6302 

“Consideration of Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics in the Land Use Planning Process,” and 

(4) Manual 6303 “Consideration of LWCs for ProjectLevel Decisions in Areas Not Analyzed in Accordance 

with BLM Manual 6302.”

42. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Proposed Strategy: Details of the BLM’s 

Proposed Strategy for Future Management of America’s 

Wild Horses and Burros, February 28, 2011, http://www.

blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_

Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachments.

Par.46571.File.dat/Proposed_WHBStrategy.pdf.

43. The Cobell settlement was approved by Congress on 

November 30, 2010, (Claims Resolution Act of 2010) and 

signed by President Obama on December 8, 2010.

44. Statement of Jamie Connell, Acting Deputy 

Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department 

of the Interior, Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forest, and 

Mining, S. 368, Federal Land Transaction Facilitation 

Act Reauthorization, April 25, 2013.

45. Bureau of Land Management, Law Enforcement 

Year-End Review 2009 (Washington, DC: 2010), 1 

and 27, www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/

Law_Enforcement/law_enforcement.Par.8043.File.dat/

LawEnYER09Web.pdf (accessed April 10, 2012).

46. Bureau of Land Management, “Arrests Made in 

Operation Targeting Network Selling Stolen Native 

American Artifacts,” news release, June 10, 2009, http://

www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2009/june/

NR_0510_2009.html

27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Salazar Outlines 

Broad Opportunities for Common Ground on 

Wilderness,” press release, June 1, 2011, www.doi.

gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Outlines-BroadOpportunities-for-Common-Ground-onWilderness.cfm.

28. Bureau of Land Management, “Requirement to 

Conduct and Maintain Inventory Information for 

Wilderness Characteristics and to Consider Lands 

with Wilderness Characteristics in Land Use Plans,” 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-154, July 25, 2011, 

www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_

Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2011/

IM_2011-154.html.

29. Bureau of Land Management, “Planning for 

Special Designations within the National System of 

Public Lands,” Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-

215, September 21, 2009, www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/

info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/

national_instruction/2009/IM_2009-215.html (accessed 

August 29, 2011).

30. Bureau of Land Management, “Interim Management 

Policy for New Components of the Bureau of Land 

Management’s National Landscape Conservation 

System designated through the Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act of 2009,” Instruction Memorandum 

No. 2009-226, September 30, 2009, www.blm.gov/wo/st/

en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/

national_instruction/2009/IM_2009-226.html (accessed 

August 29, 2011). 

31. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office 

of the President, “President Obama Announces Plan for 

Community-Based Conservation through the America’s 

Great Outdoors Initiative,” press release, February 16, 

2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/

ceq/Press_Releases/February_16_2011 accessed Nov. 13, 

2013.

32. The BLM moved the tourism program to the NLCS 

division in 2011.

33. Nationally, including all participating agencies and 

sites, in 2012, 175,000 volunteers worked at 2,206 sites in 

all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 

Guam (www.publiclandsday.org/about).

34. Bureau of Land Management, “Making a Difference: 

BLM’s 2012 Volunteer Annual Report,” 2013, www.blm.

gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Law_Enforcement/nlcs/

education__interpretation/volunteers.Par.16531.File.

dat/2012_Volunteer_Annual_Report.pdf.

35. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Guidance for Implementation of Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy, February 2009, 

http://www.nifc.gov/policies/policies_documents/

GIFWFMP.pdf.

36. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Interior Withdraws 

Legally Flawed Plan for Oregon Forests, Presses for 

Sustainable Timber Harvests,” news release, July 16, 

2009, www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/2009_07_16_

release.cfm.

37. Western Oregon Task Force, Western Oregon Task 

Force: Final Report to the Secretary of the Interior

(July 22, 2010), 5.

38. Ibid., 5-6. 

39. Ibid., 6. These mitigation measures require the BLM 

and the U.S. Forest Service to conduct surveys for certain 

rare or unusual species and manage habitat where they 

occur. Surveys can take up to 2 years. 

40. Pacific Rivers Council et al. v. Shepard, 11-CV-442-

HU (United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland 

Division 2012).

41. Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, letter to 

members of Congress, October 7, 2009, www.blm.gov/

pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_

Resources/wild_horses_and_burros/salazar_proposals.

Par.51495.File.dat/Salazar_Reid%20Letter.pdf (accessed 

August 17, 2011).

47. Bureau of Land Management, Law Enforcement YearEnd Review 2011 (Washington, DC: 2012), 20, www.blm.

gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Law_Enforcement/

law_enforcement.Par.64775.File.dat/FY2011_

YearEndReview.pdf.

48. Bureau of Land Management, Law Enforcement YearEnd Review 2009 (Washington, DC: 2010), 11, www.blm.

gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Law_Enforcement/

law_enforcement.Par.8043.File.dat/LawEnYER09Web.

pdf (accessed April 10, 2012). 

49. Ibid.

50. An Act for the establishment of a General LandOffice in the Department of the Treasury, April 25, 

1812 (2 Stat 716). The act stated that the duties of the 

General Land Office Commissioner, under the direction 

of the Treasury Department (and after 1849 under the 

Department of the Interior) were: “to superintend, 

execute and perform all such acts and things, touching 

or respecting the public lands of the United States, and 

other lands patented or granted by the United States, 

as have heretofore been directed in law to be done or 

performed by the office of the Secretary of State, of 

the Secretary and Registrar of the Treasury, and of the 

Secretary of War, or which shall hereafter by law be 

assigned to the said office,” http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/

prog/cultural/ak_history/homesteading/homesteading_

laws.print.html.

51. The number of acres continues to decrease as the 

BLM transfers lands, primarily through the Alaska land 

conveyance program.

52. Bureau of Land Management, The BLM: A Sound 

Investment for America, 2013. In 2011, BLM lands 

directly generated about $63 billion and supported 

674,210 jobs. About $59 billion of that was from energy 

and mineral resources. The extraction of these resources 

and their introduction into the market boosted the 

American economy by $126 billion. Timber, grazing, 

and recreation activities added $9 billion for a total of 

$135 billion in indirect economic output. 
Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 173

Epilogue | The Bureau Looks to the Future, 2013 and Beyond

Although the BLM’s roots go back to the 

establishment of the GLO in 1812, the agency and 

its mission are still relevant to the nation today, 

200 years later, and as we look toward the future.

The BLM today is one of the taxpayers’ best 

investments economically, and it contributes 

significantly to our quality of life. The BLM 

manages the public lands to provide America 

with working landscapes, offering exceptional 

recreational opportunities while providing essential 

services to communities. These public lands meet 

the energy, mineral, and recreational needs of 

the nation while assuring the sustainability and 

ecological health of our most precious cultural and 

natural resources.

The BLM’s employees are its most valuable asset, 

and every day, they face making decisions that 

balance conservation with other uses of public 

lands. The BLM has developed a roadmap to guide 

our direction, called “Winning the Challenges 

of the Future,” in which it identifies four 

principal goals: 

Think Big: The BLM will manage across 

broad landscapes to tackle problems and 

issues at their natural scales, looking beyond 

geopolitical boundaries and working across 

jurisdictions to ensure healthy public lands 

and to provide their fullest social and 

economic value to the nation. 

Do It Right the First Time: The BLM will 

adopt a “proactive and nimble approach to 

planning” to promote collaboration with 

partners, addressing issues at different 

scales, making decisions that readily address 

the rapidly changing environment and 

conditions, and ensuring that the BLM has 

a highly skilled workforce that reflects the 

public it serves.

Be a Good Neighbor: The BLM will 

respect that its land management decisions 

contribute to the stability of the communities 

that depend on public lands and waters for 

their income, identity, and well-being. The 

BLM will engage communities and partners 

to improve the quality and sustainability of 

resource management decisions.

Work for America: The BLM will recognize 

the full potential of the agency to contribute 

to the well-being of the nation and the 

quality of life enjoyed by its citizens. 

The BLM will also strive for an adaptive 

management approach and encourage 

employees to use flexibility, creativity, 

innovation, and partner-developed processes 

to address the challenges facing the BLM and 

the public it serves.

The BLM has a bright future. As an agency, we must 

continue to reach out to the nation’s youth and 

young adults, educate them in citizen stewardship, 

and encourage them to enter public service to help 

other people, even those they don’t know and those 

yet to be born. The challenges and opportunities 

to make a difference in public land management 

will continue, but by working as a team with 

partners and the public, the BLM will ensure that 

all Americans and future generations can use and 

enjoy the public lands—their national heritage.

John Day River in Oregon. McCoy Flat in Utah.

Agua Fria National Monument in Arizona.
Appendix | Directors of the Bureau of Land Management (Senate-Confirmed)*

Fred W. Johnson

1946–1948

Cy Jamison

1989–1992

Marion Clawson

1948–1953

Jim Baca

1993–1994

Edward Woozley

1953–1961

Charles Stoddard

1963–1966

Tom Fry

1998–2000

Boyd Rasmussen

1966–1971

Kathleen Clarke

2001–2006

Burt Silcock

1971–1973

James Caswell

2007–2009

Curt Berklund

1973–1977

Robert Abbey

2009–2012

Frank Gregg

1977–1981

Robert F. Burford

1981–1989

Neil Kornze

2014–2017

Karl Landstrom

1961–1963

Pat Shea

1997–1998

Menominee Recreation River in Wisconsin.

* Gaps were filled by acting directors appointed by the Secretary of the Interior.
Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 177

Index

Fall Creek Falls on the Snake River in Idaho.

Scenery along the Alpine Loop National Back Country Byway in Colorado.

Bolded page numbers indicate photographs only.

“202” wilderness study areas, 80

abandoned mines, 54, 118, 138, 141, 153

Abbey, Robert, 64, 82, 137, 141, 175

Abel, Mike, 81

access

data, 70, 109, 123, 143, 158 

public land, 19, 31, 67, 79, 102, 113, 150, 159, 168

roads and trails, 20, 112, 113, 149, 164

Adobe Town Wilderness Study Area, WY, ii–iii

adoptions, wild horses and burros, 38, 39, 64, 107, 152, 159

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 59, 109

affordable housing projects, 118

Agricultural Research Service, 104

Agua Fria National Monument, AZ, 173

Alaska

archaeology, 57–58

energy management, 23–24, 26, 65, 87, 138

land transactions, 22, 27, 28, 116

law enforcement, 119

National Petroleum Reserve, 65, 87, 138

paleontology, 110

rivers, 55

trails, 149, 151

wildfire, 83

Alaska Federation of Natives, 116

Alaska Fire Service, 1

Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, 116

Alaska Lands Act, 22

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 87, 116

Alaska Native Allotment Act, 116

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 22, 28, 116

Alaska Native Corporations, 28

Alaska Pipeline Office, 24

Albietz, Judy Kammins, 28

Alder Creek, CO, 51

Allosaurus fossils, 57, 110

Allred, Stephen, 131

Alpine Loop National Back Country Byway, CO, 177

American Farm Bureau Federation, 106

American Forest Foundation, 60

American Forest Resource Council, 96

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), 94, 137–138, 

139, 140

American River, 17

America’s Great Outdoors initiative, 150, 152

“America’s Priceless Heritage,” 109
178 Index Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 179

Anasazi Heritage Center (Canyons of the Ancients Visitor Center 

and Museum), CO, 59

Ancestral Puebloans, 59, 115, 165

ANCSA Conveyance Division, 28

Anderson, Bob, 66

Anderson, Carol, 50

Andrus, Cecil D., 22, 33

Animal Liberation Front, 108

antifederal groups, 72

Antiquities Act, 22, 30, 63, 75, 77, 110

Anza Trail Coalition, 56

Apatosaurus fossils, 117

Appraisal Foundation, The, 114

appraisals of land value, 114

aquatic conservation strategy, 53

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, 101

Aquila Power, 96

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 15

archaeology, 15, 57–59, 119, 147, 165

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, AK, 87

areas of critical environmental concern, 4, 16, 79, 161, 162, 163

Arizona

habitat protection, 13, 51, 102

land transactions, 29, 115

law enforcement, 34, 165–166

mining, 141

paleontology, 111

recreation, 19

renewable energy, 92, 93, 94

tribal consultation, 126

value of public lands, 167

volunteers, 56

wilderness areas, 115

wildfire, 84

Armstrong, Bob, 63

Arndorfer, Robert, 28

Arnold, Robert, 28

arson, 120

Ascherfeld, Sheri, 156

assessments. See also assessment, inventory, and monitoring (AIM)

habitat, 53, 99

Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness, NM, 58

Black Rock Desert, NV, 122, 151

black-footed ferret, 51

Boatner, Tom, 83, 84

Boise District lands, ID, 130

Boise Interagency Fire Center, 36

Boise State University, 14, 51

Bolt, Jeannie, 39

Bone Cabin Quarry, WY, 117

bonytail chub, 102

border safety, 165–166

Boyd, David, 91

Boyd-Peak, Kari, 85

Brady, Ray, 140

Breithaupt, Brent, 57, 117

Brigham Young University, 147

“Bring Back the Natives,” 51

Bronczyk, Stan, 28

Brong, Elaine, 95

Brown, Gloria, 46

Bryant, Laurie, 117

buffelgrass, 84

bull trout, 53

bullfrog, 101

Bumpers, Dale, 26

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 25, 116, 160

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

communications, 50, 160

data management, 123–124

history, ix, 1–2, 30–31, 168

landscape approach, 99, 100, 131, 141–142, 143, 153

multiple use management, ix, 1–2, 3–4, 17, 127, 130

organizational structure, 130

planning, 3–6, 123–125, 132, 148, 153

sustained yield, 2, 3–4, 7, 45

workforce changes, 2, 9, 25, 75, 77, 132

workforce diversity, 33, 46, 81, 127–129, 137, 157

workforce goals, 173

workforce training, 62, 128

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 127

Burford, Robert F., 11, 38, 174

Interior Columbia Basin, 47, 48

assessment, inventory, and monitoring (AIM)

Great Basin Restoration Initiative, 82

rangeland, 158

technological advances, 123–124

Association of O&C Counties, 96

Atigun River, AK, 75

Audubon Society, 13

aviation, 36, 122

Babbitt, Bruce

oil and gas leasing, 87

conservation lands, 75, 76, 77, 144

ecosystem management, 42

mining reform, 66

rangeland management, 11, 49, 50, 105, 106

rights-of-way, 164

Utah wilderness reinventory, 80

Baca, Jim, 175

Back Country Byways, 54

bald eagle, 162

barred owl, 97

Basin and Range National Monument, NV, x

Bate, Allan, 60

Battlement Mesa Forest Reserve, CO, 31

Baucus, Max, 110

Bauer, Larry, 25

Bear Creek, OR, 10, 12

Bear Trap Canyon, MT, 21

Beaver, David, 115, 162–163

Beckwith, Sarah, 39

Benefield, Mike, 44

Berklund, Curt, 31, 174

Berkowitz, Paul D., 33

Bibles, D. Dean, 9

Big Al (fossil), 57, 110

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve, 52

bighorn sheep, 13

Bills, Thomas, 100

biomass energy, 95–96

Bird, Lola, 86

Bisti Beast (fossil), 58

Burning Man festival, 122, 151

Bush, George H.W., 34, 61

Bush, George W., 66, 75–76, 87, 95, 109, 140, 152

Bush Dome, TX, 67

Butz, Earl, 36

Cacophony Society, 122

Cactus Cliff, CO, 113

Cadastral Indian Program, 116

cadastral surveys, 57, 70, 86, 116, 137, 160

Cahuilla Band of Indians, 126

Calamaio, Chip, 50

California

conservation, 7–8, 13, 45, 102

forests and timber, 96–97

land transactions, 29, 161, 162, 163

law enforcement, 32, 33, 34, 119, 121

recreation, 19

renewable energy, 66, 92, 93, 94, 140

trails, 80

tribal consultation, 126

wilderness designations, 76

wildfire, 37, 86

California Coastal National Monument, 161

California condor, 13, 51

California Desert Conservation Area

creation, 5, 61

law enforcement, 30, 32, 33

National Landscape Conservation System, 144

recreational area designation, 17

volunteers, 56

wilderness inventory, 20

California Energy Commission, 66

Camfield, Daniel, 31

Campbell, Mike, 36

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, CO, 114, 115, 136, 147, 161

carbon dioxide sequestration, 142

Carrigan, Tim, 14

Carrizo Creek, NM, 51

Carter, Jimmy, 8, 19, 22

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, OR, 56, 161

Casias, Robert, 70
180 Index Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 181

Caswell, James, 92, 109, 130, 131, 132, 175

cattle. See rangeland management

Cave Research Foundation, 16

caves, 16

Centennial Hills Park, NV, 71

Center of the American West, 144

Cerberus Action, 165

Challenge Cost Share, 13, 51

Charlie, Danny, 127

cheatgrass, 35, 82, 84, 155

Chicago Botanic Garden, 103

Chihuahuan Desert, 84

Childs, Craig, 144

China, 141

Chinn, Ramona, 116

Christensen, Todd, 50

Christmas Mine, AZ, 94

Civish, Bill, 56

Clark, William, 11, 26

Clark County Conservation of Public Lands and Natural Resources Act, 76

Clarke, Kathleen, 80, 95, 175

Classification and Multiple Use Act, 17, 127

Clawson, Marion, 2, 11, 174

Clean Air Act, 6

clean energy. See renewable energy

Clean Water Act, 6

Clearwater River, ID, 54

Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, UT, 110, 111

Clifford, Frank, 49

Cliffside Gas Field, TX, 67

climate change, 65, 82, 92, 141–143

Clinton, Bill

climate change plan, 65

ecosystem management, 44, 47

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, UT, 63

mining reform, 66

National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), 75

tribal consultation, 126

weed control, 54

Clover Creek, ID, 51–52

coal production, 23–26, 89, 92, 141

rangeland management, 9, 106

renewable energy, 93

rights-of-way, 163, 164

timber production, 8, 43, 96–97, 157

wild horse slaughter, 63–64

Cook, Lori, 102

Coquille Indian Tribe, 97

Corn Springs Campground, CA, 137

county sheriffs, 118–119, 122

Crapo, Mike, 145

Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, NV, 139

crime. See law enforcement

Crouse, Mike, 53

Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool, 153

cultural resources, 15–16, 57–60, 63, 109–111, 115, 165

cutthroat trout, 51, 53, 91, 162

data management, 123–124

Dawson, Bruce, 79

Deep Creek Mountains Wilderness Study Area, UT, 80

Deinosuchus fossils, 111

Delta River, AK, 101

democracy and conservation, 168

Deschutes River, OR, 20

Desert Land Act, 1

Desert National Wildlife Refuge, 118

desert pupfish, 51

“Desert Renewable Energy and Conservation Plan,” 126, 140

Desert Sunlight Solar Farm, CA, 140

desert tortoise, 13, 71, 140

DesGeorges, Sam, 18

dinosaur fossils, 57–58, 59, 110, 111, 117

Disabled Sports USA, 150

Dishpan Butte Herd Management Area, WY, 159

Division of Environmental Education and Volunteers, 61

Doherty, Kevin, 100

Dombeck, Mike, 42, 50, 53, 130

Dominguez Canyon Wilderness, CO, 78

Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area, CO, 78

Dominguez-Escalante Trail, CO, 17

Douglas Forest Protective Association, 44

Douglas Point Special Recreation Management Area, MD, 41

Cobb, Klaus, 56

coho salmon, 162

collaborative planning, 145

Colorado

conservation, 13, 51, 78, 98

cultural resources, 115

energy management, 26, 90, 91, 92

interpretive areas, 59

land acquisitions, 115

paleontology, 110, 113

recreation, 17, 113

value of public lands, 167

wildfire, 68

Colorado Mesa University, 78

Colorado Plateau, 51, 143

Colorado River, 13, 19, 51–52, 54

Colorado squawfish, 13

Columbia River Basin, 42, 47–48, 53

Columbia spotted frog, 14

Colville River, AK, 110

Community Partnerships Directorate, 152

Congressional Western Caucus, 148

Connell, Jamie, 91

Conner v. Burford, 27

Conservation and Land Management Internship Program, 103

Conservation Division, 25

Conservation Fund, 115

Conservation Fund, The, 161, 163

conservation lands, 55, 75–81, 110, 144–149, 152, 162–163

Conservation Lands Foundation, 78

Consumnes River Preserve, CA, 51

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, iv–v

continental rifts, 18

controversies and conflicts

collaborative problem-solving, 145

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, UT, 63

hazardous fuels, 95

mining, 66, 141

motorcycle race closure, 71

northern spotted owl, 8, 42, 43, 97

oil and gas production, 27, 87, 88, 89, 90, 138

Dreier, Gary, 50

drought, 68, 83, 94, 107, 123, 158

Drucker, J.D. “Sam,” 117

drug enforcement, 33, 34, 165–166

Drury, William, 31

Dukes, Melissa, 127

Durland, Pat, 37

Earth First! 8, 43

Earth Liberation Front (ELF), 108

Earthjustice, 90, 164

Eastern States, 26, 79, 130

Eastside Ecosystem Coalition of Counties, 48

Eaton, Marietta, 147

Ebner, Joel T., 89

economic value of public lands, 166, 167

ecosanctuaries, 159

ecosystem management, 41–45, 47– 49, 51–52, 141–142

“Ecosystem Management in the BLM: From Concept to Commitment,” 43

educational programs and resources, 58–59, 60, 147, 152

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail, NM, 56

El Malpais National Conservation Area, NM, 19, 76

elk, 13

Elmore, Wayne, 10, 12, 42, 53

Endangered Species Act

conservation before listing, 51

enactment, 6

habitat protection, 12

Healthy Forests Initiative, 95

listed species, 13–14, 43, 44, 71, 79, 154, 163

O&C lands, 96, 97, 157

rangeland management, 106

Recovery Fund, 154

restoring populations, 13

Endangered Species Committee, 43

Endangered Species Recovery Fund, 154

energy management

climate change considerations, 65

energy independence, 23–24, 87, 138

mining reform, 66

oil shale, 26, 91, 92, 138

permits, leasing and royalties, 24–27, 88, 90
182 Index Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 183

Powder River Basin resurvey, 89

renewable energy, 66, 92, 94, 138–140

rights-of-way, 92, 94

Roan Plateau resources, 91

Energy Policy Act, 88, 90, 92–93, 127, 131, 140

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 23, 88

Energy Security Act, 26

“Enhancing Renewable Energy Development on the Public Lands,” 93

environmental and conservation groups

collaborative work, 56, 145, 161

forestry concerns, 8, 43, 47, 97, 157

grazing permits, 49

oil and gas concerns, 23–24, 87

protest actions, 8, 43

rights-of-way concerns, 164

violence, 108

Environmental Education Division, 60

environmental impact statements (EIS)

ecosystem management, 47, 48

energy management, 23–24, 27, 92

forest management, 7–8

land use planning, 124

rangeland management, 9

renewable energy, 94, 137, 140

riparian areas, 53

vehicle management, 19

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 45, 48, 54

Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 98

ePlanning, 124

erosion, 10, 12, 52, 145

Ervine, Gene, 55

Evans, Kevin, 122

Exxon, 26

“Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation,” 152

“Fair Market Value Policy for Federal Coal Leasing,” 26

Faithful, Bob, 28

Falise, Roxanne, 100

Fall Creek Falls, ID, 176

Favorite, Christy, 116

Federal Aviation Administration, 122

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 31, 108, 120, 165

“Fish and Wildlife 2000: A Plan for the Future,” 13, 14, 51

Fish Lake, OR, 17

fish management, 12–14, 42, 51–53, 162

fishing, 19, 54, 63, 76, 101, 102, 151, 162

Flathead National Forest, MT, 27

Fleming, Steve, 16

Florida, 37, 79

Fluer, Scott, 39

Fontana, Joseph, 108

Foote, Jim, 62

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 44

forest management, 7–8, 31, 43–45, 95–97, 157, 162

Forest Management Act, 31

Forest Reserves, 31

Fort Chaffee Military Reservation, 26

Fort Egbert, AK, 55

Fort Ord National Monument, CA, i, 149

Fort Stanton-Snowy River National Conservation Area, NM, 16, 147

Fortymile Wild and Scenic River, AK, 55

fossils, 57–59, 110–111, 113, 119

“Fossils on Federal and Indian Lands,” 110

Frandsen, Ed, 11

Frederick, Ken, 84

Freudenthal, David, 99

Friends of Red Rock Canyon, 56

Friends of the Desert Mountains, 56, 163

Fry, Tom, 77, 175

Gallatin National Forest, MT, 27

Gandiaga, Kyle, 120

Garden Park Fossil Area, CO, 113

Garnet Winter Trail, MT, 19

General Land Office (GLO), ix, 1–2, 11, 30–31

General Mining Act, 66

Geographic Coordinate Data Base, 70, 86

geographic information system (GIS), 70, 86, 97, 111, 123, 158

geothermal energy, 132, 139

Gerard, Larry, 100

Gerber Stew Project, 96

Ghost Dancer, 34

Gila River, AZ, 13

Gila topminnow, 51 Pine Forest Range Wilderness in Nevada.

Federal Caucus, 101

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act, 16

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act, 24

Federal Ecosystem Management Analysis Team (FEMAT), 42

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), 70

Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic 

Weeds, 54

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)

conservation, 5, 12, 13, 42, 106, 146

cultural resources, 15

effect on workforce, 127

enactment and early response, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11

inventories, 20, 148

land transactions, 27, 29, 116

law enforcement, 31, 32

rights-of-way, 164

value of public lands, 168

wilderness study areas, 61, 63, 80

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), 114, 115, 161, 162

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 113

Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, 24

Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, 26–27

“Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review Final 

Report,” 69

Fehlau, Robin, 145

Finfer, Larry, 114

fire management

crime, 108, 120

equipment and technology, 35, 85, 86, 156

habitat protection, 154

history, 34–37

increase in wildfires, 82–84

landscape restoration, 82, 104

multiple objectives guidelines, 155

multiple objectives policy, 155

prescribed burn, 157

safety concerns, 68–69, 156

training, 36, 44, 156

wildland-urban interface, 37, 95

Yellowstone National Park, 37

firearms, 33, 34

Glenn, John, 68

global positioning system (GPS), 60, 70, 156

global warming (climate change), 65, 82, 92, 141–143

Goat Well erosion control structure, AZ, 137

Gold Belt Scenic Byway, CO, 113

gold rush, 55

Goldbach, Mark, 112

Goodbar, James, 16

Gooseberry Mesa National Recreation Trail, UT, xi

Grand Canyon National Park, AZ, 141

Grand Gulch Primitive Area, UT, 33
184 Index Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 185

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, UT

controversy, 63, 73

educational resources, 60, 77, 147

establishment, 63, 72–73

jurisdiction of the BLM, 77

paleontology, 111

roads, 164

symposiums, 63, 147

volunteers and friends, 56

Grand Staircase-Escalante Partners, 56, 60

Grazing. See also rangeland management

districts, 1, 9

fees, 1, 11, 49

public lands, 2, 4, 9–10, 12, 29, 49, 51–52, 53, 63, 76, 77, 140, 145, 167, 168

rangeland health, 9–10, 12, 38, 50, 98, 105–107, 158

reforms, 49, 105–107

Taylor Grazing Act, 1, 9–10, 12

Grazing Service, ix, 1, 11, 31, 127, 168

Great Basin Fire Center, ID, 36

“Great Basin: Healing the Land, The,” 82

Great Basin Native Plant Selection and Increase Project, 82

Great Basin Restoration Initiative, 82, 84, 99

Great Kiva, CO, 136

Great Outdoor Museum, 57–59

greater sage-grouse, 51, 82, 99, 100, 140, 154

Green River Formation, 92

greenhouse gas emissions, 65, 142

Gregg, Frank, 6, 174

Grey, Zane, 115

Griffith, Marty, 117

Gros Ventre Range, WY, 39

ground-water resources, 16

Gryposaurus monumentensis fossils, 111

Guadalupe National Back Country Byway, NM, 54

Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area, CO, 75

habitat protection

aquatic habitat, 12–14, 51–53, 101–102, 162

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 87

ecosystem management, 42–43

forests, 8, 43, 96–97, 162

landscape approach, 99–100, 153–154

land acquisitions, 162

law enforcement, 120

recreation, 19, 54

weed demonstration areas, 54

wildfire, 82, 84

Idaho Conservation League, 106

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 14

Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association, 145

Iditarod National Historic Trail, AK, 149, 151

immigration enforcement, 165–166

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area, CA, 71, 119, 121, 151

Incident Command System, 36, 84, 121, 159–160

Incident Remote Automatic Weather Station, 156

Indian Land Surveyor Program, 116

Indian River, FL, 79

Indian tribes and people

Blackfeet Tribe, 129, 160

BLM employees, 127, 129

Cahuilla Band of Indians, 126

Columbia River Basin, 48

Coquille Indian Tribe, 97

cultural resources, 59, 109, 165

Jupiter Inlet, FL, 79

land transactions, 28, 116

Northwest Forest Plan, 97

Owyhee Canyonlands, ID, 145

royalties, 160

Shoshone-Paiute Tribe, 145

tribal consultation, 109, 126, 129

InFish, 42

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 65

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 42, 47, 48, 53

interpretive areas and centers, 17, 56, 59, 81

“Intrigue of the Past: Investigating Archaeology,” 59

invasive species

animal species, 97, 101

Healthy Lands Initiative, 98

plant species, 84

Recovery Act, 137

weed demonstration areas, 54

wildfire risk, 35, 82–84, 155

hadrosaur fossils, 111

Hagryphus giganteus fossils, 111

Hahn, Martha, 47

Hale, Tom, 117

Hall, Tex, 129

Hamilton, Larry, 50

Hansen, Jim, 64

Hanson, Dale, 117

Harvey, Larry, 122

Hassett, Terry, 28

Hastey, Ed, 33, 72

hazardous fuels reduction, 95, 96

Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, 96

Headwaters Forest Reserve, CA, 162

Healthy Forests Initiative, 95

Healthy Lands Initiative, 97–98, 132

helium, 67

Hellebust, Kane, 89

Hells Canyon Wilderness, AZ, 64, 114, 115

Herrera, Theresa, 18

Hesse, Mark, 113

Hester, Pat, 58

Hodel, Donald, 164

Holdren, Jeff, 164

Holtzman, Susan, 42

Homestead Act, 1

horses and burros, wild, 38–39, 63–64, 107–108, 158–160

Hovenweep National Monument, CO, 115

Howard Hughes Corporation, 56

Howell, David O., 151

Hughes, Jim, 114

Hummel, Buzz, 16

Humphrey, Cathy, 48

Hunsaker, Dave, 56

hunting, 14, 17, 39, 63, 76, 77, 91, 151, 159, 168

Hurshman, Tom, 93

Ickes, Harold, 1

Idaho

collaborative planning, 124, 145

habitat protection, 13, 47, 51–52

Healthy Lands Initiative, 98

inventories. See also assessment, inventory, and monitoring (AIM)

fish and wildlife, 12

FLPMA mandates, 4

rangeland, 49

wild horses and burros, 38

wilderness, 20–21, 80, 148

Ironwood Forest National Monument, AZ, 165

Irvine, Amy, 144

Jackson, Henry, 22

Jackson, William Henry, 115

Jackson’s Castle, CO, 115

James, Jerry, 122

Jamison, Cy, 19, 43, 49, 58, 175

Jarbidge Wild and Scenic River, ID, 145

Jefferson, Thomas, 30

Jenny Creek, OR, 51–52

John Day River, OR, 172

Johnson, Ann, 28

Johnson, Fred W., 2, 174

Johnson, Walter, 34

Johnson Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern, CA, 161

Joint Fire Science Program’s SageSTEP Project, 82

Jones, Robert A., 41

Jones, Robert E., 47

Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, AZ, 56

Juen, Jesse, 98

juniper, 35, 82, 84, 86, 115

Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area, FL, 79

K-9 officers, 34, 71

Kaiparowits Plateau, UT, 111, 147

Kampschror, Beth, 60

Kansas, 39, 67

karst areas, 16

Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, NM, 150

Keeler, Kevin, 149

Kelley, Clarence, 31

Kempthorne, Dirk, 93, 97–98, 131, 140

Kenna, James G., 126

Kennedy, John F., 2, 30

Kew Royal Botanic Gardens (UK), 103

King Range National Conservation Area, CA, 17, 61, 162
186 Index Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 187

King Range Wilderness, CA, 76

Klondike gold rush, 55

Kohler, Richard, 57

Kornze, Neil, 175

Kosmoceratops fossils, 111

Krug, J.A., 2

Kuizon, Lucia, 110

Kvale, Erik, 58

Laguna Seca Special Management Area, NM, 51

Lahontan cutthroat trout, 51, 53

Lake Havasu, 102

Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 118

Lake Tahoe, 118

land acquisitions, 115, 160, 161, 162–163

Land and Water Conservation Fund, 115, 161, 162–163

land exchanges, 19, 29, 52, 56, 71, 114, 160, 163

land use planning

California Desert Conservation Area, 5

changes, 41, 123–125, 132

development, 3–4

energy, 94, 140

forests, 8, 43

Interior Columbia Basin, 47, 48

landscape approach, 143

National Landscape Conservation System, 76, 77, 80, 148

rangeland, 10

sage-grouse, 100, 154

travel management, 112, 163

“Land Use Planning for Sustainable Resource Decisions,” 123

landscape approach, 99, 100, 131, 141–142, 143, 153

landscape conservation, 55, 75–81, 110, 144–149, 153, 162

Landstrom, Karl, 174

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, AZ, 52, 167

Law, John, 122

law enforcement

border control, 165–166

history, 30–34

investigations, 27, 108, 119, 120, 121, 145, 165

K-9 officers, 34, 71

local partners, 118–119, 121, 122

public relations efforts, 72–73

Mardikian, Leonard, 89

Martin, Steven, 30–31

Marys River, NV, 51

Mathias, Bob, 30

McCoy Flat, UT, 172

McLane, Dennis, 32

McVee, Curtis, 28

Mead, Matt, 154

Mecca Hills Wilderness, CA, 62

medusahead, 84

Mendiola, Carlos, 35

Menominee Recreation River, WI, 174–175

Merchant, Kim, 81

Merchant, Rachel, 81

Meridith, Denise, 128

Mesa State College, CO, 78

Meserve, Dave, 89

mesquite treatment, 98

Mexico–U.S. border, 165–166

Michigan, 37

Mikel, Michael, 122

Milanovich, Richard, 126

Milford Flat Fire, 84, 86

military personnel and veterans, 150, 157

Miller, Erika, 127

minerals and mining

coal, 23–26, 89, 92, 141

helium, 67

millsite policy, 66

mine cleanup, 54, 138, 141

permits, leasing and royalties, 24–27, 88, 90, 138

rights-of-way (ROW), 92, 94, 164

uranium, 141

Minerals Management Service, 24, 25, 127

minimum impact land use, 62

mission, BLM, 2, 3–4, 47, 75, 126, 127, 130, 132, 146, 151, 173

Missouri River, 17

Mizpah-Pumpkin Creek Grazing District, MT, 1

Monite Explosives Factory, NV, 54

monitoring. See also assessment, inventory, and monitoring (AIM)

habitat, 132

standards development, 71–72

women rangers, 33

“Law Enforcement General Orders,” 72

Leadership Excellence Program, 128

“Learning Landscapes,” 60

Lee, John P., 57, 117

Lee Metcalf Wilderness, MT, 21

Leopold, Aldo, 42, 82

Leshy, John D., 7, 71, 77

lesser prairie-chicken, 98, 163

Let’s Move Outside initiative, 150

Lewis, Jerry, 34

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, MT, 114

Limerick, Patricia Nelson, 144, 168

Lindsey, Robert, 33

Linowes Commissions, 24, 25, 26

Litchfield Wild Horse and Burro Corrals, CA, 108

litigation

forest management, 95, 96, 97, 157

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, UT, 63

oil and gas leasing, 27, 90

rangeland management, 9, 106

rights-of-way, 164

Little Jacks Creek Wilderness, ID, 20

Little Owyhee River Canyon, OR, 53

livestock. See rangeland management

Lonnie, Tom, 26, 27

Lost Creek rock shelter, NV, 56

low impact land use, 62

Lowry Pueblo, CO, 136

Loxahatchee River, FL, 79

Lujan, Manuel, 43

Mack, Rebecca, 130

Maguire daisy, 154

Mammoth Lakes, CA, 132

“Managing the Impacts of Wildfire on Communities and the Environment,” 82

“Managing the Public Rangelands,” 10

manatee, 79

“Manual of Survey Instructions,” 160

Marble Creek Trail, ID, 19

marbled murrelet, 162

Milford Flat rehabilitation, 86

Montana

Garnet Winter Trail, 19

Interior Columbia Basin, 47

land acquisition, 114

oil and gas leasing, 27

riparian-wetland management, 51

weed management, 54

Montana State University, 57

Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, ID, 56

Mormon Trail, 81

Morton, Rogers C.B., 4, 36

Mosher, Elaine, 127

motorized vehicle management, 19, 30–31, 71, 112, 119, 145

Muddy Creek, WY, 51–52

Muddy Mountain Environmental Education Area, WY, 95

Muddy Mountains and Parsnip Peak Wilderness, NV, 76

Muller, Kit, 142, 143

multiple use

ecosystem integration, 42

land use planning, 3, 6, 17, 123

management of public lands, ix, 2, 3, 6, 7, 27, 91, 93

mission, 2, 3–4, 16, 75, 127, 130, 132

National Landscape Conservation System, 63, 77

Mur, Joel, 56

Murkowski, Lisa, 116

Murphy, Tim, 83

Murphy Complex Fire, 82, 83, 84

Museum of Northern Arizona, 111

Museum of the Rockies, 57

Mygatt-Moore Quarry, CO, 110

Mymoorapelta fossils, 110

Nardinger, Joe, 119

National Academy of Sciences, 110, 158–159

National Association of State Foresters, 36

National Cave and Karst Management Symposia, 16

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, 59

national conservation areas (NCAs), 16, 77, 78. See also specific areas

National Conservation Lands. See conservation lands

National Energy Policy, 94
188 Index Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 189

National Energy Policy Development Group, 87–88

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

ecosystem management, 42, 53

enactment, 6

energy management, 88

energy projects, 23–24

environmental groups, 90

land use planning, 124–125

rangeland management, 106

National Fire Plan, 83–84

National Fish Habitat Initiative, 101

National Forest Management Act, 43

National Guard, 34

National Helium Reserve, 67

National Historic Landmarks, 59

National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center, OR, 56, 59

National Historic Preservation Act, 15, 109, 126

National Historic Trails Interpretive Center, 81

National Integrated Land System, 70

National Interagency Fire Center, 36, 68, 82

National Invasive Species Council, 54

National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), 55, 75–81, 110, 144–149, 

152, 162

National Law Enforcement Office, 71

“National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on 

Public Lands,” 112

National Marine Fisheries Service, 12, 45, 48, 95, 97

National Mining Association, 141

national monuments

Agua Fria, AZ, 172

California Coastal, 161

Canyons of the Ancients, CO, 114, 115, 136, 147, 161

National Landscape Conservation System, 77

National Outdoor Leadership School, 62

National Park Service (NPS)

caves, 16

cultural resources, 63

fire management, 36, 37

jurisdiction over monuments, 77

land transactions, 29, 114, 115, 118, 162

National Wilderness Preservation System, 20

Nevada

conservation, 13, 47, 51, 76, 98, 159

land transactions, 71, 118

mine cleanup, 54

recreation, 19, 59, 122

renewable energy, 92, 93, 94

Sagebrush Rebellion, 7

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, 118

value of public lands, 167

wild horses, 159

wilderness designations, 76

wildfire, 82, 83, 84, 85

“New Energy Frontier,” 139

New Mexico

caves, 16

cultural resources, 109

habitat protection, 13, 51, 90

Healthy Lands Initiative, 98

land transactions, 163

law enforcement, 34

paleontology, 110

recreation, 18, 56, 59

wilderness designations, 76

New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, 146

New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer, 109

New River, OR, 54

Nine Mile Canyon, UT, 90

Nixon, Richard, 6, 19, 23, 31, 116

“NLCS Science Strategy,” 147

“NLCS Science Summary Report,” 147

“North American Waterfowl Management Plan,” 101

Northern Arizona University, 147

northern spotted owl, 8, 42, 43, 97

Northwest Forest Plan, 42, 44–45, 53, 95–97, 157

Northwest Timber Compromise, 8

Norton, Gale, 76, 95, 106, 116, 164

Norton settlement, 80

Obama, Barack, 126, 129, 137, 144, 149, 150

Obama, Michelle, 150

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 69

off-highway vehicle use, 30, 31, 109, 112, 119, 123, 145, 151

Fort Walton Beach in Florida.

paleontology, 110

Public Lands Act, 144

National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, 65, 87, 138

National Public Lands Day, 60–61, 153

National Register of Historic Places, 59

National Research Council, 70

National Resources Defense Council, 7

National Riparian Service Team, 42, 53

“National Scenic and Historic Trails Strategy and Work Plan,” 80

National Science Foundation, 119

National Science Teachers Association, 60

National Spatial Data, 70

National Speleological Society, 16

National System of Public Lands, 131, 132

National Trails System Act, 6

National Trails Workshop, 80

National Trust for Historic Preservation, 115

National Weather Service, 36

National Wild Horse and Burro Communications Team, 160

National Wild Turkey Federation, 13

National Wilderness Preservation System, 20–21

National Wildfire Coordinating Group, 36

National Wildlife Federation, 19

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 59

Native Americans. See Indian tribes and people

native plant management, 82, 103, 104

Native Plant Materials Development Program, 103, 104

natural gas production, 24–27, 65, 87–91, 100, 138

Natural Resources Committee, 42

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 98, 147, 158

Natural Resources Defense Council, 7, 9, 53, 90

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Andrus, 9

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 9

Nature Conservancy, The, 56, 161

Nau, John, III, 109

Naugle, David, 100

Naval Oil Shale Reserve (NOSR), 91

“Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre,” 70

Needles Field Office lands, 130

Nelson, Judy, 11

Office of Aircraft Services, 36

Office of National Drug Control Policy, 34

Office of the Inspector General, 119

“OHV Strategy,” 112

oil embargo, 23, 24

oil production, 24–27, 65, 87–92, 100, 131, 138

oil shale, 26, 91, 92, 138

Ojito Wilderness, NM, 76, 109, 146

Oklahoma, 67

Olwell, Peggy, 104

Omnibus Public Land Management Act (Public Lands Act), 78, 110, 111, 

144, 146

Onion Creek Trail, UT, 163

“Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1,” 88, 90

Operation Backfire, 108

Operation Green Sweep, 34

Operation Reclaim Our Arizona Monuments, 165
190 Index Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 191

Oregon

ecosystem management, 44, 45, 47, 48

forests and timber, 7–8, 44, 96–97, 157

Healthy Lands Initiative, 98

land transactions, 115

law enforcement, 34

recreation, 54

riparian areas, 10, 12, 51–52, 53

weed demonstration areas, 54

wildfire, 82

Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yields Management Act 

(O&C Lands), 7, 43, 45, 96–97

Oregon Department of Fish, Game, and Wildlife, 51

Oregon Trail, 17, 56, 59, 81, 151

Organ Mountains, NM, 137

Otero Mesa, NM, 90

“Out of Ashes, An Opportunity,” 82

Outdoor Recreation Review Commission, 17

Owen, William (Billy) Octavius, 117

Owens Peak Wilderness, CA, 62

owls, 8, 97

Owyhee Canyonlands, ID, 145

Owyhee Public Lands Management Act, 145

Owyhee Uplands, ID, 14, 82

PACFish, 42, 53

Pacific Lumber Company, 162

Pacific salmon, 53

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, 110, 111, 119

paleontology, 57–59, 110–111, 113, 119

Paleozoic Trackway, NM, 59

Pallette, JuLee, 62

Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness, AZ, 51

Parma Fire Department, ID, 120

Parsons, Wade, 60

“Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land 

Management,” 54

Partners in Resource Education, 60

partnerships

abandoned mine cleanup, 54

caves, 16

energy, 92, 140

“Plan to Educate Young Americans About Their Nation’s Rich Cultural 

Heritage, A,” 58

Plant Conservation Alliance, 104

planning. See land use planning

plants

invasive, 35, 54, 82, 84, 86, 155

native, 60, 82, 103, 104

seed collection and reseeding, 60, 82, 84, 86, 103, 104

Point Reyes National Seashore, CA, 29

Pompeys Pillar Historical Association, 56

Pompeys Pillar National Monument, MT, 3, 56

Ponce de Leon, Juan, 79

Poncha Pass Resource Conservation Area, CO, 3

Pony Express National Historic Trail, WY, 17, 81, 151

Powder River Basin, WY, 24, 65, 88–89, 92, 100, 141

prairie-chicken, 98, 163

Preserve America, 109

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors, 19

Pressler, Larry, 110

Probert, Felicia, 71–72

programmatic environmental impact statements, 140

“Project Archaeology,” 59

Project Independence, 23

Project Learning Tree, 60

Propst, Luther, 167

Prospect Hill, WY, 81

Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range, 38

public access roads, 20–21, 112, 163–164

Public Land Law Review Commission, 2, 4, 7

Public Land Survey System, 70, 116

Public Lands Act, 78, 110, 111, 144, 146

Public Lands Appreciation Day, 60

Public Lands Council, 49, 106

Public Lands Foundation, 29, 41, 131

Public Lands Partnership, 78

Public Rangelands Improvement Act, 10, 11, 38

“Purple Book,” 112–113

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Government, 122

Quail Unlimited, 13

Quiet Title Act, 164

Raft River Fire, ID, 36

environmental education, 60, 152

fish and wildlife, 13, 14, 51, 99, 100, 101, 102, 154

Great Basin Restoration Initiative, 82

Healthy Lands Initiative, 98

helium, 67

Interior Columbia Basin, 48

land and realty, 116

landscape approach, 143

law enforcement, 118–119, 165

Milford Flats, 86

National Landscape Conservation System, 56, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 146, 147, 

152, 162–163

National Public Lands Day, 61

planning, 41, 125, 173

plant conservation, 103, 104

preservation, cultural and paleontological, 59, 109, 111

public land management, 75, 128, 173

recreation, 19, 54, 112, 113, 150

Restore New Mexico initiative, 98

riparian-wetland management, 51

Roan Plateau, 91

trails, 80, 81, 149

travel management, 112

weed management, 54

wild horses and burros, 158–159

wildfire, 83, 156

Pavek, Gary, 62

Pedrick, Kathy, 94

Pellant, Mike, 82

Penfold, Mike, 50

Penny, J. Russell, 30, 31

Percival, Roy, 36

peregrine falcon, 13

Peregrine Fund, 51

Permian Basin Memorandum of Agreement, 109, 111

petroleum, 23–27, 65, 87–92, 100, 131, 138

Pettis, Shirley, 31

Piceance Basin, CO, 92

Pickens, Madeleine, 159

Pierce, Franklin, 79

pinyon pine, 82, 86

Ramsbacher, Hal, 11

rangeland management

assessment, inventory, and monitoring, 106, 158

Bush administration changes, 105–106

collaborative planning, 145

ecosystem management, 49

fees and permits, 11, 49, 106–107

history, 1, 9–10

land transactions, 29

Resource Advisory Council, 50

riparian areas, 10, 12, 53

“Rangeland Reform ‘94,” 49, 105–106

rangers, 31–33, 73. See also law enforcement

rapid ecoregional assessments, 141–142, 143

Raptor Research and Technical Center, 51

rare earth minerals, 141

Rasmussen, Boyd, 174

Ratcliffe, Bob, 151

Rau, Larry, 100

razorback sucker, 102

“Reaching Common Ground” broadcast, 50

Reagan, Ronald, 11, 19

recordable disclaimers of interest, 164

Recovery Act, 94, 137–138, 139, 140

recreation

America’s Great Outdoors initiative, 150, 152

Burning Man festival, 122

expansion and site development, 54, 150

fishing, 19, 54, 63, 76, 101, 102, 151, 162

history, 17, 19

hunting, 14, 17, 39, 63, 76, 77, 91, 151, 159, 168

Lake Havasu, 102

outcome-based management, 112–113

public access, 112

Rio Grande, 18

Shelf Road Climbing Area, CO, 113

Take It Outside!, 14, 150

veterans, 149, 150

volunteers, 152

“Recreation 2000,” 19, 54

Recreation and Public Purposes Act, 27
192 Index Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 193

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, 54

Red Gulch, WY, 58, 59

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, NV, 19, 56, 118

redband trout, 51

Reid, Harry, 56

Remote Automatic Weather Station, 69, 156

renewable energy

geothermal energy, 132, 139

Obama administration, 138–139

portfolio standards, 92, 93, 94

Recovery Act, 137, 139, 140

rights-of-way (ROW), 160–161

siting on disturbed land, 94

solar energy, 93, 94, 137, 139, 140

wind energy, 66, 92, 139

“Report of the South Canyon Fire Accident Investigation Team,” 68

“Resident Fish Habitat Management,” 13

Resource Advisory Councils, 50

resource management plans (RMPs)

California Desert Conservation Area, 5

caves, 16

early use, 3, 5, 16, 27

Jupiter Inlet, FL, 79

litigation, 90

new approaches, 41, 43, 123, 124–125

Pacific Northwest, 47, 96–97, 157

renewable energy, 94

sage-grouse range, 100, 154

Roan Plateau, CO, 91

travel management, 112

Resource Ordering and Status System, 156

Resseguie, Linda, 140

restoration and rehabilitation

after wildfire, 82, 84, 86, 95

habitat protection, 11–12, 49, 51–53, 99, 118, 141–142

Healthy Lands Initiative, 95–98

native plants, 60, 103–104

Restoration Design Energy Project, 94

Restore New Mexico, 98

Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477, 163, 164

rifts, continental, 18

rights-of-way, 92, 93, 163–164

Rio Grande, 17, 18

Rio Grande cutthroat trout, 51

riparian areas, 10–12, 51–52, 167

“Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990s,” 51–52

Ritchie, Alexandra, 130

rivers. See wild and scenic rivers; specific rivers

Riverside County, CA, 93

roads and public access, 20–21, 112, 163–164

“Roads and Trails Terminology Report,” 112

Roan Plateau, CO, 90, 91

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, 13

Rocky Mountain Field Institute, 113

Rogue National Wild and Scenic River, OR, 17, 115

Rogue River Ranch National Historic Site, OR, ix

Roosevelt, Franklin, 1

Roosevelt, Theodore, 1, 31

Rose, Barry, 143

Roseburg District, OR, 44

Ryerson, Michelle, 68–69

Sage Creek, MT, 51

Sagebrush Rebellion, 7

sage-grouse, 51, 82, 99, 100, 140, 154

Salazar, Ken

climate change, 141–142

conservation, 78, 146, 148

energy policy, 93, 138–140

litigation, 157

mining, 141

rights-of-way, 164

wild horses and burros, 158–159

youth programs, 152

salmon, 101, 162

San Gorgonio Pass, CA, 66

San Juan Basin, NM, 90

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, AZ, 19, 52, 167

San Rafael Swell, UT, 114

San Simon Valley, AZ, 105

Sanchez, Doran, 122

sand dune lizard, 98, 163

Sand to Snow National Monument, CA, 166

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, CA, 56, 126, 163

Save America’s Treasures, 109

Sawyer, Don, 16

Saylor Creek Horse Management Area, ID, 63

Scarlett, Lynn, 109

Schalk, Lynell, 33

Schenk, Kurt, 89

“Science and Children,” 60

seed collection and reseeding, 60, 82, 84, 86, 103, 104

Seeds of Success, 103, 104

Seiberling, John, 22, 31

Sharpe, Maitland, 63–64

sharp-tailed grouse, 51

Shea, Pat, 175

Shelf Road Climbing Area, CO, 113

Shirley Basin, WY, 51

Shore, Willa Mae, 28

Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, 104

Shoshone-Paiute Tribe, 145

Shuckin Fire, ID, 120

Sierra Club, 145, 164

Sikes Act, 12, 31

Silcock, Burt, 174

Simpson, Don, 99

Skywatcher Site, CO, 115

Sleeping Giant Wilderness Study Area, MT, 148

Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, NV, 76

Smith, Steve, 31

smokejumpers, 156

Snake River, 176

Snake River Birds of Prey Area, ID, 51

Snake River Raptors volunteers, 56

Snake River watershed, 42

social media, 160

Society of American Indian Government Employees, 129

soil management, 103, 142

solar energy, 93, 94, 137, 139, 140

Sonoran Desert, AZ, 84, 115, 142

Sonoran Desert National Monument, AZ, 165, 167

South Canyon Fire, CO, 68–69

South Dakota, 51, 110

South Pass, WY, 81

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, 71, 118, 162

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 90, 164

Southwell, Beth, 117

Southwest Natural and Cultural Heritage Association, 56

special recreation management areas, 162

special recreation permits, 122

spiny greenbush, 104

Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, 101

Staley, Web, 60

State of Alaska Permanent Fund Fraud Division, 119

“State of the Public Rangelands 1990,” 49

Stateline Resource Area, NV, 56

Steele Creek, AK, 55

steelhead, 53

Steese National Conservation Area, AK, 22

Stevens, Ted, 22, 87

stewardship contracts, 95–96

Stiles, Mark, 50

Stock Raising Homestead Act, 1, 90

Stockman, David, 11

Stoddard, Charles, 174

Storm King Mountain, CO, 68

Straight Cliffs Formation, UT, 147

Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 23

Stubbs, George (painting), 168

Sue (fossil), 110

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, 4

surveying, cadastral

Alaska, 116

energy management, 89, 137, 161

fire management, 86

history, 1, 30, 70

Indian lands, 116, 160

land disposal, 27

paleontology, 57, 58, 117

sustained yield, 2, 3–4, 7, 45

“Sustaining Working Landscapes,” 105–106

Suzie Fire, NV, 85

symposiums, 63, 144, 146, 147

Synthetic Fuels Corporation, 26
194 Index Our Heritage, Our Future | The BLM and America’s Public Lands 195

Table Rocks Area of Critical Environmental Concern, OR, 161

Takes Horse, Brenda, 129

Taylor Complex Fire, 83

Taylor Grazing Act, 1, 9–10, 12

“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the Cliffs of Mystery,” 58–59

Tehachapi Pass, CA, 66

terrorism, 108

Terry Badlands Wilderness Study Area, MT, 131

Teshekpuk Lake, AK, 87

Teton Regional Land Trust, 162

Texas, 67, 84

Theiss, Leslie A., 67

Therizinosaur fossils, 110

Thomas, Jack Ward, 42, 44, 53

Timber Culture Act, 1

timber production, 7–8, 30–31, 43–45, 95–97, 157

Timber Trespass Act, 30

Times- Mirror Company, 60

Titus, Alan L., 111

Tolman, Brett, 165

Trail Tenders, Inc., 56

Trail Through Time, CO, 59

trails. See also specific trails

historic, 17, 18, 56, 114, 149

public access issues, 112, 113

Recovery Act, 137–138

recreational, 17, 19, 59, 75–76, 151

scenic, 80, 81, 137, 144, 149, 151

volunteers, 56, 152

Trails and Travel Management Team (TTMT), 112

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, 23–24

tribal consultation, 109, 126, 129. See also Indian tribes and people

Tribal Liaison Group, 48

Tribby, Dale, 100

TriData Corporation, 69

Trilobite Trail, NV, 59

trout, 51, 53, 91, 101, 162

Trout Creek Mountains, OR, 53

Trout Unlimited, 13

Truman, Harry, 1

Trust for Public Land, 115

Tsongas, Paul, 22

tule elk, 13

turkeys, 51

Twin Falls, ID, 35

Tyrannosaurus rex fossils, 110

Udall, Morris, 22

“Unified Strategy to Implement ‘BLM’s Priorities for Recreation and Visitor 

Services,’” 112–113

United States v. Diaz, 110

University of Utah, 147

Unlawful Inclosures Act, 30–31

Upper Snake/South Fork Snake River Area of Critical Environmental Concern/

Special Recreation Management Area, CA, 162

uranium mining, 141

U.S. Coast Guard, 79

U.S. Court of Appeals, 27, 95, 96, 106, 110, 164

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 38, 47, 95, 104, 115, 147

U.S. Department of Defense, 140

U.S. Department of Energy, 91, 100, 139, 140

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 118

U.S. Department of the Interior

climate change, 141–142

conservation, 22, 71, 76–79, 95–99, 143, 148

cultural resources, 109, 110

energy management, 24–26, 87, 91, 93–94, 138, 140

fire management, 36, 95

FLPMA mandates, 3–5, 24, 32, 33

history, 1–2, 31, 127

Indian lands, 116, 160

land transactions, 29, 71, 114, 115

law enforcement, 32, 33, 35

minerals and mining, 66, 67, 127, 141

rangeland management, 11, 49, 106

wild horses and burros, 38, 63, 107

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 165

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

caves, 16

conservation and habitat protection, 12, 20, 51

fire management, 95

grazing concerns, 106

land transactions, 29, 114, 115, 118, 162

northern spotted owl, 43, 97

sage-grouse, 99, 154

U.S. Forest Service

conservation and habitat protection, 13, 20, 99, 144

ecosystem management, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48

fire management, 36, 44, 82

land transactions, 29, 114, 115, 118, 162, 163

paleontology, 110

rangeland management, 11, 158

weed control, 54

U.S. Geological Survey, 18, 25, 147

U.S. Supreme Court, 31, 32, 49

Utah

conservation, 13, 47, 98

cultural resources, 59, 110, 111

educational resources, 60, 147

energy and mining, 90, 92, 163

Grand Staircase-Escalante controversy, 63, 73

land transactions, 114

law enforcement, 165

litigation, 80

recreation, 54

weed demonstration areas, 54

wildfire, 82, 84, 86

Utah Division of State History, 147

Utah Geological Survey, 111

Utah Museum of Natural History, 111, 147

Utah Partners for Conservation and Development, 86, 98

Utahceratops gettyi fossils, 111

Vail, Del, 31

Vale District, OR, 51

value of public lands, 166–168

vehicle management, 19, 30–31, 71, 112, 119, 145

Veneman, Ann, 95

Ventana Ranch, 163

Vermillion Basin, CO, 143

veterans and military personnel, 150, 157

Vincent Creek Recreation Site, OR, 17

violence, 108, 119, 121

volunteers, 56, 61, 102, 151–153

Walker, Brett, 100

Walker, Danny, 117

“Walking with Dinosaurs,” 110

Warner, Barbara, 60

Washington State, 45, 47, 48, 66

“Watchable Wildlife,” 51

water

effect of mining, 141

effect of solar production, 94

habitat protection and restoration, 53, 98, 101, 102

Indian lands, 126

rangeland, 10, 12, 38, 106

recreation, 17, 18, 54, 101, 102

riparian areas, 10–12, 51–52, 167

Water Conservation Fund Act, 31

Watershed Restoration Initiative, 98

Watkins, Lynn, 62

Watkins, T.H., 22

Watt, James, 11, 24, 25, 27, 127

Wayne, John, 11

weeds, 35, 54, 155

West Indian manatee, 79

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 99, 153, 154

Western Governors’ Association, 41, 153

western juniper, 35, 82, 84, 86, 115

Western Oregon Plan Revisions, 97, 157

Western Oregon Task Force, 157

Western Watersheds Project, 106

Westwater Canyon, NM, 150

Westwater Canyon, UT, 54

wetlands and riparian areas, 10–12, 51–52, 167

White Mountains National Recreation Area, AK, vi–vii

Whitmore, Mike, 89, 117

Whitteaker, Edwin, 34

wild and scenic rivers

Fortymile River, 55

National Landscape Conservation System, 75, 77, 144

recreation, 17, 18, 19

Rio Grande, 17, 18

Rogue River, 17, 115

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 6, 17

Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 31, 38, 63–64, 107–109
196 Index Garnet Ghost Town in Montana.

wild horses and burros, 38–39, 63–64, 107–108, 158–160

“Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook,” 107

Wild Sheep Foundation, 13

wilderness

Bisti/De-Na-Zin, NM, 58

Hells Canyon, AZ, 114, 115

inventories, 20–21, 80, 148

National Landscape Conservation System, 76–78, 144

study areas, 21, 61, 63, 75, 76, 80

Wilderness Act, 6, 20–21, 31

Wilderness Land Trust, 115

Wilderness Society, The, 145, 164, 167

wildfire. See fire management

Wildland Fire Decision Support System, 86, 156

“Wildland Fire Safety Awareness Study,” 69

wildland-urban interface, 37, 84, 95, 96

wildlife habitat 

energy development, 90, 97, 100

intrinsic value, 166

inventories, 4, 10

landscape scale, 153

off-road vehicle use, 19

protection, 12

restoration, 51, 98

riparian areas, 10

stewardship contracting, 96

wildlife refuges, 87, 118

Williams, Chuck, 56

wind energy, 66, 92, 139

Wind River Mountains, WY, 41, 88

Winkle Bar, OR, 115

Wintch, Michael, 31

winterfat, 60

Wolf, Sue, 28

Wolford Mountain Recreation Area, CO, 151

Woozley, Edward, 174

workforce diversity, 33, 46, 81, 127–129, 137, 157

World Fly Fishing Championship, 162

woundfin minnow, 13

Wyoming

conservation, 47, 98, 159

energy management, 24, 65, 88–89, 92, 100, 141

habitat protection, 13, 51, 99, 100, 154

paleontology, 57, 58, 110, 117

recreation, 17, 81, 112

riparian areas, 51–52

wild horses, 39, 159

Wyoming Honor Farm, 39, 107

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative, 98

Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area, OR, 72, 79

Yellowstone cutthroat trout, 162

Yellowstone National Park, 37

Yellowstone River, 101

Young, Don, 87

youth programs, 60, 150, 152

Zaidlicz, Edwin, 127

Zielinski, Elaine, 46, 124

Zion National Park, UT, 114

Zuni Basin, NM, 110

Zuniceratops fossils, 110

Zwang, Cheryle Cobell, 129