You are here: home   Blogs   The Range Blog   Salazar goes wild
The Range Blog

Salazar goes wild

Document Actions
Tip Jar Donation

Your donation supports independent non-profit journalism from High Country News.

Red Lodge | Jan 20, 2011 12:00 AM

By Heather Hansen, Red Lodge Clearing House

It wasn’t long after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was in Denver last month, announcing a new “Wild Lands” policy, that debate over the order flared: will it illegally lock up too much land as “hands off” wilderness, or does it rightfully restore protection for wild tracts of land?

Secretarial Order 3310, a.k.a. “Wild Lands,” makes it a “high priority” for the Bureau of Land Management, which manages 245 million acres in western states, to identify and protect “lands with wilderness characteristics” and to consider that distinction when deciding what can be done with those areas. This includes some hotly-contested areas like the Vermillion Basin in northwest Colorado and Utah’s red rock country, as well millions of acres in Arizona, New Mexico and Idaho.

Opponents insist the Wild Lands policy circumvents Congress. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings issued a statement calling the move a “backdoor approach,” saying, “the Administration clearly knows that the law only allows Congress to designate Wilderness areas, though somehow they hope giving it a different label of ‘Wild Lands’ will pass legal muster.”

Newly-minted Utah Senator Mike Lee jumped on the bandwagon. As his first official act in office this month, Lee demanded documents from Salazar relating to the policy. On his Facebook page, Lee posted, “I will not sit idly by while the federal government puts a choke hold on our most valuable resources.” Utah Rep. Rob Bishop (R), the chair of the House National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee agreed, calling the policy, “a blatant attempt to usurp Congress' role over public land management.”

Lee and Bishop are sweating the fact that roughly 7 million acres in Utah have wilderness character, and the Wild Lands policy could potentially prohibit resource extraction on some portion of those.

Utah's Red Rock CountryIdaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson, who also happens to be the new chair of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, which hold the BLM’s purse-strings, threatened to strip funding related to designating new wilderness. “There's concern, and there always has been, that the administrative branch of the government—particularly when the Democrats are in control—in the old ‘war on the West,’ that they are going to try to put more of our lands off the table for multiple use,” he said.

But, the truth is, the Wild Lands policy isn’t entirely new. It basically restores authority to the BLM that was removed in 2003 during the Bush administration. At that time, a settlement (called the “No More Wilderness” plan)—which involved more backroom than courtroom negotiations—between Interior and the state of Utah concluded that the BLM could not protect land simply for its wilderness value. This flew in the face of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which specifically requires BLM to “preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition.”

For the past seven years, the agency has been limbo, forced to ignore its own handbook on how to manage wilderness. During that time, much land with wild qualities has been lost.

BLM’s director, Bob Abbey, expressed some relief when he spoke in Denver, alongside Salazar. “The new Wild Lands policy affirms the BLM's authorities under the law—and our responsibility to the American people—to protect the wilderness characteristics of the lands we oversee as part of our multiple use mission… Today's secretarial order will help the BLM take a giant step toward meeting its goal of balanced stewardship,” he said. Whether or not it will also put an end to the agency being jokingly referred to as the “Bureau of Livestock and Mining” remains to be seen.

To understand what the “Wild Lands” designation might mean, it helps to look at two other BLM designations for public land. “Wilderness Areas” are designated by Congress and cannot be modified, except by legislation, and “Wilderness Study Areas” are managed to protect wilderness characteristics until Congress decides whether or not to permanently protect them as Wilderness Areas.

What’s new is that Wild Lands, unlike the two other wilderness distinctions, can be modified through a public administrative process. It does not mean, for better or worse, that a “wilderness” label can be slapped on an area by a BLM field office and all activity there must cease in perpetuity. (Some conservationists feel this doesn’t provide enough protection to vulnerable areas.) The use of Wild Lands will be open to public input, and those comments must be taken into account as the BLM decides how to manage an area.

Whether or not Wild Lands is a legitimate status may ultimately depend on what we perceive as the overarching value of certain public lands. The Wild Lands order eloquently declares that, “Many of America’s most treasured landscapes include public lands with wilderness characteristics that provide visitors with rare opportunities for solitude and personal reflection.”

Does that suggest that an emotional take-away is more valid than an economic one? Or, as the order suggests, is there an approach that combines both finances and feeling? “In an increasingly developed world, public lands with wilderness characteristics provide social, cultural, economic, scientific and ecological benefits for present and future generations,” it says.

Wild Lands is not, as the policy’s outspoken critics would lead us to believe, a job-killing, revenue-shrinking idea. There’s a reason Peter Metcalf, CEO of Black Diamond Equipment (which is based in Utah), was standing next to Salazar in Denver: the outdoor recreation industry contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy, supports 6.5 million jobs and generates $88 billion in state and federal tax revenue. Criticism that discounts this economic reality reveals a tired allegiance to extractive industries or, at the very least, it shows a profound lack of imagination.

Image of BLM land in Utah courtesy Heather Hansen.

Heather Hansen is an environmental journalist working with the Red Lodge Clearinghouse /Natural Resources Law Center at CU Boulder, to help raise awareness of natural resource issues.

Essays in the Range blog are not written by High Country News. The authors are solely responsible for the content.

Wild Lands Policy changes very little
niko
niko
Jan 21, 2011 08:35 AM
“But, the truth is, the Wild Lands policy isn’t entirely new. It basically restores authority to the BLM that was removed in 2003 during the Bush administration.”

The first sentence is right on. But the second sentence is not.

Salazar’s wild lands policy changes very little. Extremely little. BLM has always had the ability to protect wilderness characteristics, even under the Bush Administration. Utah v. Norton said BLM’s authority to designate Wilderness Study Areas expired. Conservation groups took it to court. They haven’t won yet. But after Utah v. Norton, Norton put out a policy on managing lands with wilderness characteristics. It said that BLM could do wilderness characteristics assessments to determine if WCs were present. If they were, the policy let the BLM manage these areas in a wide variety of ways. They could choose not to protect those wilderness values at all, or they could choose to fully protect them.

And many BLM offices did. Lands with wilderness characteristics were protected through Resource Management Plans (RMPs) in Utah, Idaho, and Colorado. You mentioned Vermillion Basin. Well the Little Snake RMP closed hundreds of thousands of acres of lands with wilderness characteristics to all surface disturbing activities DURING the Bush Administration. Offices were challenged by sagebrush rebel interests, contending BLM did not have the authority to manage lands as “de facto wilderness.” They lost. BLM has always had such authority.

The new policy merely reminds BLM they have the authority to protect wilderness values. It does not undo Utah v. Norton. Only the courts can do that. BLM can still not designate WSAs. The secretary says BLM offices should protect lands with WC, unless there’s a good reason not to. But he still allows BLM offices a lot of discretion in how they manage these areas.

I wonder why new administrations come in and think they have to change policies when they can get what they want under old polices. I’m convinced it’s nothing more than a PR stunt. They need to change policy to get people to notice. This is a change in emphasis, a shift in philosophy, and a good one that I personally welcome. But this is not a policy change.

Email Newsletter

The West in your Inbox

Follow Us

Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Follow our RSS feeds!
  1. The death of backpacking? | Younger people don’t seem interested in this out...
  2. A graceful gazelle becomes a pest | Inrroducing an African gazelle called the oryx for...
  3. What's killing the Yukon's salmon? | An ecological mystery in Alaska has scientists and...
  4. Plains sense | Ten years after Frank and Deborah Popper first pro...
  5. North Dakota wrestles with radioactive oilfield waste | Regulators look at raising the limit for radiation...
HCN Classifieds
Subscriber Alert
More from Politics & Policy
The battle for women’s suffrage continues
The Tea Party loses one
Reflections on the Wilderness Act at 50 The concept may need some rethinking, but it's still an important way to preserve some of our most treasured land.
All Politics & Policy
 
© 2014 High Country News, all rights reserved. | privacy policy | terms of use | powered by Plone