Suchergebnisse

"BLMNVGI890031114"--P. [ii]. ; "April 1989"--P. 1. ; Shipping list no.: 89-458-P. ; Cover title. ; Mode of access: Internet.

When the Bureau of Land Management (blm) was formed in 1946, the agency and the lands it managed had an ambiguous identity and future. Formed by President Truman through the merger of the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service, the blm inherited the remaining 450 million acres of public-domain lands in the American West and Alaska, which I will refer to simply as "the public lands." With those lands, the blm also inherited a set of property-rights regimes—that is, a set of property rights, privileges, and relationships that control land and resource access, withdrawal, management, exclusion, and alienation—that were strongly reflective of the nineteenth-century frontier era. They were marked by private initiative, self-regulation by public lands users, and common-law principles of prior use and appropriation. Indeed, public lands users often acted as if they held common-law rights to the public lands, claims that western congressmen defended through appropriations and oversight.

This study examines argument as a link between technical information & policy recommendations in wilderness environmental impact statements (EISs) produced by the Bureau of Land Management. As the EISs went from draft to final form, their structure & content changed. The changes reflect a shift to incorporate wilderness protection into the policy agenda for public lands. The analysis suggests that EISs can be understood as a form of argumentative discourse in which agency personnel frame issues & make normative arguments through technical analyses. 4 Tables, 1 Appendix, 65 References. Adapted from the source document.

"BLM/WO/GI-06/024+1278." ; "October 2006." ; Shipping list no.: 2007-0121-P. ; Cover title. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Testimony issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Accurate cost information is crucial for proper program management. Such information is especially important for the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Mining Law Administration Program (MLAP) because this program partially funded through mining fees that Congress has earmarked only for mining law administration operations. Some labor costs and several contracts and services were improperly charged to MLAP, causing other subactivities to benefit from funds intended for MLAP operations. Therefore, fewer funds have been available for actual MLAP operations. Although BLM has tried to make correcting adjustments for some of these improper charges, it has not established specific guidance or procedures to prevent improper charging of MLAP funds from recurring. Until additional procedures for MLAP are developed and effectively implemented, Congress and program managers can only place limited reliance on the accuracy of MLAP cost information."

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The mission of the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is to maintain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. BLM employs about 11,000 people, with information technology (IT) playing a critical role in helping BLM perform its responsibilities. The bureau estimates that it will spend about $146 million on IT initiatives in fiscal year 2003. GAO was asked to evaluate BLM's IT investment management (ITIM) capabilities and determine the bureau's plans for improving these capabilities. GAO's evaluation was based on applying its ITIM maturity framework, which identifies critical processes for successful IT investment management."

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Mining Law Administration Program (MLAP) is responsible for managing the environmentally responsible exploration and development of locatable minerals on public lands. The program is funded through mining fees collected from the holders of unpatented mining claims and sites and by appropriations to the extent that fees are inadequate to fund the program. Congress and program managers need accurate cost information in order to make informed program and budgeting decisions. However, GAO found that BLM's financial records did not accurately reflect the true costs of its programs because the costs of labor and a number of contracts and services costs were charged to MLAP and not to the appropriate program. As a result, other subactivities benefited from the charging of these improper costs and fewer funds have been available for actual MLAP operations. BLM has taken steps to make correcting adjustments for improper charges to MLAP contracts and services; however, additional adjustments are needed to correct for labor costs that were improperly charged to MLAP. Until these adjustments for improperly charged labor are made, Congress and program managers can place only a limited reliance on the accuracy of MLAP cost information."

This article examines the organizational reputation of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) using Daniel Carpenter's reputation and power theory as a theoretical and methodological base. Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) is utilized to guide and organize case selection, as it is the legal mandate behind BLM authority and represents the fullest extent of the agency's activities. The findings of this case study indicate that the BLM has a negative reputation in all but the legal-procedural dimension. Three implications are identified: (a) FLPMA serves only to define the procedural-legal aspect of public planning process, (b) the inability of FLPMA to define a purpose to public lands management has its root in the large scope of activity required of the BLM by FLPMA, and (c) finally, retention has placed the BLM and the federal government in a precarious position of an owner rather than custodian of the public lands.

The Trump administration has pursued many controversial goals in managing U.S. public lands, including shrinking national monuments and cutting back protection for threatened species. Its latest disruptive move targets the government employees who oversee these resources.