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

Members of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance are supporting two moratoriums on concentrated animal feeding operations to be voted on today by the Arkansas Administrative Rules subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council.

Concentrated animal feeding operations are large agriculture facilities which keep animals confined in small spaces.

Gordon Watkins, president of the alliance, said Regulations 5 and 6 include a moratorium on swine Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in the watershed, but Regulation 5 does not include adequate public notification requirements. He pointed out the regulation only requires a request for a permit be posted on the Department of Agriculture website.

"If someone wants to put a 10,000-animal hog-confinement facility next door to you, you'd probably like to know about that," Watkins contended. "Secondly, in order to oppose a permit -- legally -- it's a 30-day comment period, and unless you submit comments on it, you do not have standing to legally challenge a permit."

He acknowledged Regulation 6 has stronger notification requirements which include notifying nearby landowners, publishing the permit request in the local newspaper and contacting school superintendents within a 10-mile radius of the proposed facility.

The last concentrated animal feeding operation allowed near the Buffalo National River, C and H Swine, was shut down in 2019. Watkins added he is a farmer but feels the area needs to be protected.

"It's the first National River ever created in the country. It's also a state icon," Watkins stressed. "If you look at any of the literature, put out by the department of tourism to promote the state, you'll see images from the Buffalo National River. It's an economic engine to some of the poorest counties in the state."

It was discovered in 2018 the C and H swine operation contaminated the water quality in Big Creek and the Buffalo River. Today's meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m.


get more stories like this via email

CORRECTION: In the second paragraph, the term "mature forests" was replaced with language to more accurately describe the lands connected to the provided stastic. (1:53 p.m. CST, Oct. 30, 2024)

Did you check out fall colors in Wisconsin this month and wonder how old the trees are? There is a chance they are not in what's known as an "old-growth forest."

Regional voices are weighing in on a federal plan to expand these lands, to tap into their benefits. The U.S. Forest Service has gathered public input on a proposed National Old Growth Amendment, with a priority to conserve and restore these characteristics on federal lands. Only 17% of the acres within federally managed forest land falls under the category.

Jeff Niese, a Wisconsin-based forestry consultant, supports expanding the acreage, describing it as an underrepresented landscape in the Badger State.

"Foresters have a long-range perspective on managing ecosystems, not just trees," Niese explained. "We have a better concept of what we started with if we have saved all the pieces in some of our forest ecosystems and types."

Such pieces can include standing dead trees and multilayered canopies. Conservation advocates said they set the tone for more biological diversity and carbon sequestration. The amendment is expected to emphasize local solutions and Niese hopes the final plan sets aside some parcels of land where nature is in charge of the management, aside from forest supervisors. He cautioned political and economic factors can complicate efforts.

The initiative also strives to be more inclusive of tribal leaders.

Jason Schlender, executive administrator of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, sees promise in having a bigger voice.

"If it's to support wild rice restoration, or if it's to assist with deer populations, those are things that we can do based on research and based on knowledge transferred to us from an Indigenous perspective," Schlender emphasized.

As The Pew Charitable Trusts has pointed out, Schlender stressed climate change poses a threat to old-growth forests. Pew officials say among other things, the final plan should articulate a framework for establishing future generations of old-growth forests. Even in places where logging is no longer a primary threat, skeptics suggest the Forest Service has not placed enough scrutiny on the timber industry.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.


get more stories like this via email

As Election Day approaches, Oregonians and people around the country can see how their members of Congress voted on issues related to national parks.

The National Parks Action Fund's 2024 Congressional Scorecard grades members based on votes, on things like an amendment to cut park funding by 13%.

Don Barry was assistant secretary of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks in the Interior Department under President Bill Clinton, and lives in southern Oregon.

He said the state has an abundance of public lands that are important to residents, and thinks cutting the park service by 13% would be devastating.

"People move to Oregon now not to cut timber and make two-by-fours," said Barry. "They move to Oregon because of the beauty of the natural resources that are here. And so, how Congress votes on the funding for the federal land-managing agencies - the Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service - matters."

Barry said unfortunately his member of Congress, Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Ontario, received a failing grade on the scorecard.

Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, R-Happy Valley, received a 'C.' The rest of state's representatives - all Democrats - received 'A's.'

House Republicans proposed national parks cuts in government spending negotiations to decrease the national debt.

Kristen Brengel, executive director of National Parks Action, said people across the country love visiting national parks - and so, it matters what happens to them in Congress.

"If you want to judge how a member of Congress has voted on national parks," said Brengel, "it's sort of similar to making sure the values of this member of Congress line up with your own and your family's."

The scorecard grades were based on other votes as well, including oil and gas development around certain national parks and weakening protections under the Endangered Species Act.