荒野政策的生、死、来世:土地管理局保护荒野价值的权力演变

Liv Brumfield
{"title":"荒野政策的生、死、来世:土地管理局保护荒野价值的权力演变","authors":"Liv Brumfield","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2332599","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has had a troubled relationship with wild lands, the nation’s last remaining places with wilderness characteristics. While for twenty five years BLM recognized wilderness values as a resource it must balance and could stringently protect consistent with the multiple use mandate, in 2003 the agency largely disclaimed that interpretation, potentially imperiling future protection of wild lands yet undesignated as wilderness or wilderness study areas. Since then, the agency has made incremental – but potentially powerful – steps toward reclaiming a view of its authority that could afford more protection for yet-undesignated wild lands. Although BLM’s current policy does not authorize strong “default” protection for wild lands as before, it does direct the agency to survey and consider wild lands in all land plans and project approvals. This article traces the evolution of BLM’s interpretation of its duty and authority under FLPMA to manage lands with wilderness characteristics. The article concludes that, while over time BLM’s view of its responsibility toward yet-undesignated wilderness has narrowed, the recent controversial Wild Lands Policy and ensuing agency guidance re-acknowledge wilderness values as a legitimate FLPMA resource to be protected. It remains to be seen if and how the agency will use its reclaimed authority to meaningfully protect the nation’s remaining vulnerable wild lands.","PeriodicalId":445990,"journal":{"name":"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Birth, Death, and Afterlife of the Wild Lands Policy: The Evolution of the Bureau of Land Management's Authority to Protect Wilderness Values\",\"authors\":\"Liv Brumfield\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2332599\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has had a troubled relationship with wild lands, the nation’s last remaining places with wilderness characteristics. While for twenty five years BLM recognized wilderness values as a resource it must balance and could stringently protect consistent with the multiple use mandate, in 2003 the agency largely disclaimed that interpretation, potentially imperiling future protection of wild lands yet undesignated as wilderness or wilderness study areas. Since then, the agency has made incremental – but potentially powerful – steps toward reclaiming a view of its authority that could afford more protection for yet-undesignated wild lands. Although BLM’s current policy does not authorize strong “default” protection for wild lands as before, it does direct the agency to survey and consider wild lands in all land plans and project approvals. This article traces the evolution of BLM’s interpretation of its duty and authority under FLPMA to manage lands with wilderness characteristics. The article concludes that, while over time BLM’s view of its responsibility toward yet-undesignated wilderness has narrowed, the recent controversial Wild Lands Policy and ensuing agency guidance re-acknowledge wilderness values as a legitimate FLPMA resource to be protected. It remains to be seen if and how the agency will use its reclaimed authority to meaningfully protect the nation’s remaining vulnerable wild lands.\",\"PeriodicalId\":445990,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2332599\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2332599","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自从1976年《联邦土地政策和管理法》(FLPMA)通过以来,土地管理局(BLM)与野生土地的关系就一直很紧张,野生土地是美国仅存的具有荒野特征的地方。25年来,土地管理局一直认为荒野是一种资源,它必须平衡并严格按照多种用途授权进行保护,但在2003年,该机构在很大程度上否认了这一解释,这可能危及未来对未被指定为荒野或荒野研究区域的荒地的保护。从那时起,该机构采取了渐进的——但潜在的强大的——步骤,以恢复其权威的观点,可以为尚未指定的野生土地提供更多的保护。虽然BLM目前的政策没有像以前那样授权对荒地进行强有力的“默认”保护,但它确实指示该机构在所有土地规划和项目批准中调查和考虑荒地。本文追溯了BLM在FLPMA下对其管理具有荒野特征的土地的责任和权力的解释的演变。文章的结论是,虽然随着时间的推移,BLM对尚未指定的荒野的责任的看法已经缩小,但最近有争议的荒野政策和随后的机构指导重新承认荒野的价值是FLPMA保护的合法资源。该机构是否以及如何利用其重新获得的权力来有意义地保护美国剩余的脆弱野生土地,还有待观察。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Birth, Death, and Afterlife of the Wild Lands Policy: The Evolution of the Bureau of Land Management's Authority to Protect Wilderness Values
Since the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has had a troubled relationship with wild lands, the nation’s last remaining places with wilderness characteristics. While for twenty five years BLM recognized wilderness values as a resource it must balance and could stringently protect consistent with the multiple use mandate, in 2003 the agency largely disclaimed that interpretation, potentially imperiling future protection of wild lands yet undesignated as wilderness or wilderness study areas. Since then, the agency has made incremental – but potentially powerful – steps toward reclaiming a view of its authority that could afford more protection for yet-undesignated wild lands. Although BLM’s current policy does not authorize strong “default” protection for wild lands as before, it does direct the agency to survey and consider wild lands in all land plans and project approvals. This article traces the evolution of BLM’s interpretation of its duty and authority under FLPMA to manage lands with wilderness characteristics. The article concludes that, while over time BLM’s view of its responsibility toward yet-undesignated wilderness has narrowed, the recent controversial Wild Lands Policy and ensuing agency guidance re-acknowledge wilderness values as a legitimate FLPMA resource to be protected. It remains to be seen if and how the agency will use its reclaimed authority to meaningfully protect the nation’s remaining vulnerable wild lands.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Rethinking Venice from an Ecosystem Services Perspective Covenanting for Nature: A Comparative Study of the Utility and Potential of Conservation Covenants The Logic of State Authority on the Control of Agrarian Resource (Socio-Anthropological and Islamic Perspective) Perverse Incentives and Safe Harbors in the Endangered Species Act: Evidence from Timber Harvests Near Woodpeckers Property and Land
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1