BOISE, Idaho - The Bureau of Land Management's headquarters has begun its move West this month, but that hasn't ended controversy over the change.

The Trump administration says the BLM's move to Grand Junction, Colorado, puts the agency closer to the nearly 250 million acres of public land it oversees, the vast majority of which is in western states.

But Boise State University Environment and Public Lands Professor John Freemuth believes the move will neutralize the agency, leaving key people out of decision-making in Washington, DC.

"So they interact with Congress, with other agencies in the government, interest groups, and they can have conversations right there in main Interior," says Freemuth, "rather than be out somewhere in the West, where those conversations are going on, but they're not there. They're not at the table to have them."

About 150 employees received orders to relocate. The agency expects the move to be complete by mid-spring. Sixty employees will stay in the nation's capital, most of whom are politically appointed officials, Freemuth says.

Idaho contains nearly 12 million acres of BLM land.

Freemuth says reorganization doesn't have to be a bad thing - but in this case, he says, BLM leadership wasn't consulted on the move. Employees were simply told it was happening.

Freemuth points out that the relocation has put many staffers in a tough spot, who have already put down roots in DC.

"They have families, their spouses have jobs, and you can't just tell somebody to pick up and move that easily," says Freemuth.

In the end, Freemuth doesn't believe this move will work out for the BLM.

"BLM's leadership, I would predict, will return to Washington at some time in the future," says Freemuth. "So, we're ending up thinking, 'Boy, we just whipsawed a lot of people and what was the real reason for that?', you know, ten years down the road. But we'll see what happens."


get more stories like this via email

The number of mining claims on U.S. public lands is growing. A 27% increase since 2019 has brought the total to nearly a half-million.

A new study showed many are in close proximity to, and could threaten, national parks. In Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, more than 15,000 mining claims are within 30 miles of a national park or monument, according to the National Parks Conservation Association.

Beau Kiklis, associate director of landscape conservation and energy policy for the association, said claims are easy to get, based on a system dating back to 1872. He added a bill now in the U.S. Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources could make it even simpler.

"We're seeing agencies and institutions being dismantled and protections for landscapes being reviewed and compromised," Kiklis pointed out. "When we look at this data, our parks and our monuments, they are threatened from the possibility of future mining."

Kiklis noted mining claims are not held to the same standards of review and public process as other public land uses, and residents receive no royalties from the claims. According to the report, holders of mining claims in 2023 paid less than $10 per acre.

Kiklis emphasized it takes, on average, just three years to permit a mine.

"That's pretty fast when you think about the potential threats that are associated with mining, like impacts to groundwater and water supply for communities, wildlife migration and habitat, air impacts," Kiklis outlined. "You think about other public land uses, like recreation and conservation and so forth."

Across the northern Rockies, there are 141 mining claims within the boundaries of national parks and monuments, including Yellowstone National Park and Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area.

Months after the nation's highest court declined to hear a Utah case about ownership of public lands, a Montana House committee will debate whether to support it.

The Committee on Energy, Technology and Federal Relations is scheduled to hear a resolution today about "supporting Utah" in its 2024 lawsuit against the United States.

Utah claimed it's been deprived of "sovereign powers" because of the federal government's "indefinite retention of unappropriated public lands" there.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in January, but the suit could be refiled.

Kearstyn Cook - program director with of Montana Conservation Voters - said that could set what she calls a "dangerous precedent."

"The State of Montana showing support for such a motion," said Cook, "is just a blatant slap in the face to public land owners and lovers."

The federal government owns nearly 70% of the land within Utah's borders, and 30% in Montana's.

Still, 68% of Montana voters have said they oppose giving states control over national public lands, according to the latest poll.

Montana Conservation Voters collected over 1,000 signatures asking state lawmakers to denounce Utah's efforts. Cook said people want to make their voices heard.

"People who use our public lands," said Cook, "for recreation, hunting, fishing, hiking, for agriculture, for ranching - this in some way, shape or form would impact a majority of Montanans."

The same committee on Tuesday will hear Senate Joint Resolution 14, which would release federal Wilderness Study Areas from their protected status - across more than 1 million acres of Montana public lands - opening them to "multiple uses" including agriculture, timber and mining.

For decades to come, South Dakotans can make use of an expanded wilderness in the southeastern part of the state, as a new land deal will keep hundreds of acres off limits to developers at a time when resource protections are challenged.

The forest land in question sits next to Newton Hills State Park, south of Sioux Falls. The Conservation Fund helped facilitate a deal involving state and federal agencies, where the organization first purchased and secured more than 200 acres of a former Boy Scout campground site. Through the collaboration, those acres were eventually put under the state's control.

Clint Miller, vice president of the central Midwest region for The Conservation Fund, said it means the section of wilderness is no longer at risk of turning into something which does not align with enjoying nature.

"What this prevented is conversion to some other use," Miller explained. "The most likely use that this property may have been converted to would be rural residential homes, multimillion-dollar rural residential homes."

Instead, Newton Hills will take on another 36 acres for things like hiking, and another 176 is set aside for wildlife protection and hunting. For federal public lands, there is new concern about spending cuts under the Trump administration affecting national parks. There is also political pressure to sell off public lands for fossil fuel-related production, with Republicans arguing America needs to reassert its energy independence.

Miller noted a donation and a federal grant from last year helped push the deal across the finish line, key steps since the state lacked funds to cover all the costs. Beyond recreation, he added there is an ecological benefit, describing the unique piece of land as a "forested island" along the Big Sioux River.

"When you look at it from above, you can see this ribbon of green, usually inside of a big land of cropland of corn and beans," Miller observed. "The migratory pathways for the birds, for other animals to move along there is absolutely essential."

Polling has indicated most Americans, no matter their political beliefs, prefer to conserve public lands, not develop them. In a new poll from Colorado College, which reached out to voters in eight Western states, 72% of those surveyed preferred conservation.