|
In the days after the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a landmark proposal to put land conservation on a level playing field with other uses of public lands, reaction from members of Congress who are historically opposed to conservation has been generally quiet. However, a handful of senators have released statements that suggest they’re either unaware of or willfully ignoring how public lands are managed in their own states. In particular, Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota is already pledging to block the use of funds to finalize or enforce the rule, falsely stating that one of the key proposals, allowing for conservation leases on BLM lands, would “conflict with the longstanding tradition of multiple use requirements established by Congress.”
A new Westwise blog shows why Senator Hoeven is mistaken in his belief that he represents a Western state with a large portion of federal lands that would be affected by this rule. Less than 4 percent of North Dakota is federally-managed land —1.7 million acres out of 44.4 million in total. Furthermore, of that small portion of national public land that exists in North Dakota, the BLM only manages 58,000 acres — 0.1 percent of the land in North Dakota. Additionally, the draft rule would not change or conflict with BLM’s multiple use mission—it would enhance it by creating a formal pathway for industry and non-governmental groups to pursue a practice known as compensatory mitigation, using land conservation and restoration to offset the environmental effects of extractive uses of the land.
The draft rule would apply to significant portions of land in Western states that are owned by American taxpayers and managed by the BLM, including Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. For residents, wildlife, and ecosystems in those states, the BLM proposal is long overdue. It would finally make it clear that conservation is, in and of itself, a use of the land, to be considered alongside ranching and extractive uses.
Before Senator Hoeven moves ahead with his crusade to block a plan that doesn’t affect his state, we hope he reads the comments that are being submitted right now, and takes a moment to understand what the BLM proposal truly means for America’s public lands—most of which lie west of North Dakota.
|
[The BLM is] going to really think about achieving conservation goals from the get-go, and not sprinkling them on like salt and pepper on a dish that’s fully baked of oil and gas, and solar development, and rights of way for roads and highways.”
