The lands and realty program manages the underlying land base that supports all resources and management programs in the Planning Area. Management decisions for lands and realty are limited to BLM-administered public lands, though lands and realty actions during the life of the RMP could involve other surface managers. The primary activities of the lands and realty program include (1) land use authorizations such as ROWs, leases, and permits, (2) land tenure adjustments, including sales and other types of disposal actions, exchanges, donations, acquisitions of lands and interests in lands (i.e., access easements), and (3) withdrawals, classifications, and segregations. As part of the processing of lands and realty actions, the BLM works cooperatively with other federal agencies, the state of Wyoming, cities and counties, and public and private landholders.

Land Status

The BLM administers 3,189,743 acres (56 percent) of surface lands in the Planning Area (Table 3–37). Private land ownership accounts for the second largest amount of surface land ownership in the Planning Area. Of the four counties in the Planning Area, Big Horn County contains the largest amount of BLM-administered land (Table 3–38).

The BLM administers 4,219,790 acres of federal mineral estate in the Planning Area (Table 3-38). The CYFO extends west beyond the Planning Area boundary, but the USFS and the National Park Service manage these lands and the associated mineral estate, and they are not further addressed in this RMP and EIS. Although the BLM administers the leasing of the mineral estate underlying USFS and BOR withdrawn lands, mineral management decisions on these lands are made by the surface management agency. On many of the private lands, the mineral estate (all of the minerals or portions of the minerals) is reserved to the U.S. Government. In these cases, the BLM administers the mineral estate and the private landowners administer the surface estate. These lands are referred to as split-estate (ownership) lands.

Land Use Authorizations

Land use authorizations include various authorizations to use public surface for leases, including ROWs under Section 501 of FLPMA, permits, and easements under Section 302(b) of FLPMA; Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) leases under the R&PP Act of June 14, 1926 (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.); and airport leases under the Federal Public Airport Act of 1928, as amended (49 U.S.C. Appendix, Sections 211-213). This section briefly describes land use authorizations and the authorizing regulations for these lands and realty actions.

Rights-of-Way

FLPMA Section 501 authorizes the BLM to grant ROWs for infrastructure and facilities that are in the public interest and require ROWs over, under, upon, or through BLM-administered lands. Most ROW applications in the Planning Area are for linear developments such as roads, pipelines, and other associated infrastructure. Refer to Section 3.6.3 Rights-of-Way and Corridors for a detailed description of ROWs in the Planning Area.

Leases, Permits, and Easements

Section 302(b) of FLPMA authorizes the BLM to issue leases, permits, and easements for the use, occupancy, and development of public lands. The field offices in the Planning Area administer six long-term special land use permits, three of which authorize farming on 60 total acres. In addition, an average of seven short-term permits are managed in the Planning Area each year, which can include short-term permits for commercial filming projects. The BLM has never authorized easements for public land use in the Planning Area.

Recreation and Public Purposes Act Leases and Conveyances

The R&PP Act authorizes the BLM to lease or convey public surface to state and local governments and qualified nonprofit organizations for recreation and/or public purpose uses. Examples of typical uses under the R&PP Act include historic monument sites, campgrounds, schools, parks, public works facilities, and hospitals. Lands are typically leased first until development of the site is completed and then, if appropriate, the BLM may convey a title. Lands proposed to be leased or conveyed under the R&PP Act must first be classified as suitable for such use. R&PP classifications segregate the land from operation of the public land laws other than the R&PP Act; the R&PP Act precludes disposal by sale, exchange or other means, but specifically allows for R&PP lease or conveyance. R&PP classifications also segregate areas from operation of the mining laws, closing the area to mining of locatable minerals. R&PP classifications do not segregate areas from mineral leasing. R&PP leases and conveyances reserve all minerals in the land to the United States.

The BLM administers 13 R&PP patents covering 2,249 acres and leases covering 845.5 acres; there are three pending applications totaling 1,253 acres. Table 3–39 lists existing and pending R&PP leases in the Planning Area.

Airport Leases/Grants

Six communities in the Planning Area have an associated public airport  Powell, Cowley, Greybull, Worland, Thermopolis, and Cody. In 1950, the BLM conveyed 650 acres of public land to Big Horn County/City of Greybull for the Greybull Airport, with an additional 70 acres proposed for a runway expansion. In 2004, the BLM conveyed 80 acres of public land to the City of Worland to allow shifting of the primary runway and an extension of the runway and taxiway at the Worland Municipal Airport. The BLM has not received any other airport or airway applications.

Unauthorized Use, Trespass, and Illegal Dumping

Unauthorized use and trespass are the use, occupancy, or development of public land or its resources without a required authorization, or in a way that is beyond the scope and terms and conditions of an authorization; this definition excludes uses defined as casual use in the regulations (43 CFR 2920.1-2[a]).

Some trespass actions, such as illegal dumping, can cause unmitigated damage to public lands and natural resources. In the event the BLM is not able to identify a responsible party, the cost to resolve trespass and to clean up and reclaim the affected public land is often passed on to the general public. These costs direct appropriated funds away from planned work, and affect the BLM’s ability to complete its mission. In addition, the public does not receive fair market value for use of the public lands, lands that could be otherwise available for use can become unavailable.

Trespass has been an ongoing problem in the Planning Area. Limited staff and funding is a contributing factor allowing trespass to continue unabated. When trespass actions go undetected or are not addressed, there is no incentive to cease and no deterrent to further trespass action. Known illegal activities include placement of beehives; indiscriminate dumping of trash, debris, and household wastes; farming/irrigation of public land; corrals; fences; and construction of roads and other utility-related features. Agriculture trespass and trash dumping are the most common, with numerous small-acreage areas involved. There are no known hazardous material issues associated with permitted facilities. An inventory of closed landfills in 2007 indicated there are no problem areas that need to be addressed in the CYFO; there has been no similar inventory for the WFO portion of the Planning Area.

In the CYFO planning area, there are more than 30 substantial (one to five acres or more) unresolved trespass cases, and another 60 to 70 possible cases involving less than one acre in the CYFO. In the WFO, there are 57 documented cases of realty trespass and one documented case of ROW trespass. Typically, three to five cases are resolved each year, with some situations requiring a formal land survey to determine property boundaries. There is a potential for other unauthorized agricultural and occupancy trespass situations to occur in the Planning Area.

Land Tenure Adjustments

Scattered parcels of BLM-administered land can be difficult to manage as part of the public land system. In many cases, the small size of the scattered parcels, their isolation from other parcels of public land, and lack of legal access can make them of marginal utility for retaining in public ownership. Occasionally, these isolated parcels can serve other resource purposes, such as providing wildlife habitat in an area that has been fragmented by suburban development or providing recreational facilities.

Land tenure (or land ownership) adjustment refers to lands and realty actions that result in the retention or disposal of BLM-administered lands, or BLM acquisition of non-BLM-administered lands or interests in lands. The FLPMA requires that public land be retained in public ownership unless, as a result of land use planning, disposal of certain parcels is justified. Parcels of land designated as potentially available for disposal are more likely to be conveyed out of federal ownership through an exchange rather than a sale. Acquisition of and interests in lands are important components of the BLM land tenure adjustment strategy. Acquisition of and interests in land can be accomplished through several methods, including exchange, purchase, donation, and condemnation. The BLM uses its condemnation authority only to provide for needed access when no other alternatives are reasonable and negotiations for access have been unsuccessful.

The BLM acquires lands and interests in lands to accomplish the following actions:

Exchanges

Exchange is the process of trading lands or interests in lands. Conducted under the authority of Section 206 of the FLPMA, land exchanges are a tool that enables the BLM and other landowners to improve land management, consolidate ownership, and protect environmentally sensitive areas. By exchanging public land that is isolated and difficult to manage, the BLM is able to acquire other lands with importance for recreation, wildlife, fisheries, wetlands, habitat for threatened and endangered species, wilderness, open space, scenic, cultural, and other resource conservation purposes. Land exchanges allow the BLM to reposition lands into more manageable units and to meet community expansion needs.

Exchanges are the primary means by which the BLM acquires land. Except for exchanges that are congressionally mandated or judicially required, exchanges are voluntary and discretionary transactions with willing landowners. Lands to be exchanged must be of approximately equal monetary value and in the same state. Exchanges must also be in the public interest and conform to applicable BLM land use plans and other relevant guidance.

There has been only modest exchange activity in the Planning Area, although interest in exchanges continues to increase. The most recent land exchanges were the Hoodoo Ranch/Hunt Oil Exchange (7,848 acres conveyed, 6,487 acres acquired) in 1995 and the Great Western Exchange (6,894 acres conveyed, 2,399 acres acquired) in 1999. Another recent exchange resulted in the acquisition of 2,839 acres of private land in the South Big Horn Mountains area. One exchange involving the Sheep Mountain area is in the feasibility analysis stage.

Purchases

Under Section 205 of the FLPMA, the BLM has the authority to purchase lands or interests in lands. Similar to other acquisitions, purchase is used to acquire key natural resources or to acquire legal ownership of lands that enhance the management of existing public lands and resources. Acquisition of lands through purchase helps consolidate management areas to strengthen resource protection. Given the limited funds available through appropriations, the BLM acquires lands through purchase sparingly.

The BLM recently completed several land purchases in the Planning Area using Land and Water Conservation funds. Two such purchases were completed in 2003 and involved lands associated with distinct management areas  a 160-acre in-holding in the Brown/Howe Dinosaur Area ACEC near Shell, and 8,200 acres in the Little Mountain area near Lovell. The BLM recently purchased 153 acres along the Bighorn River to secure property along the river for public access and wildlife habitat. An additional 1,179 acres of land within the Craig Thomas SMA is proposed for acquisition by purchase.

Acquiring access easements across non-federal lands for roads and trails provides for legal public access to “landlocked” public lands. Easement acquisition has been a long-term effort in the Planning Area, largely because of the scattered land pattern in many areas. The BLM usually purchases access easements using appropriated funds, although some have been donated. Most access easements provide legal public vehicular, foot, or horseback access on roads or trails to large blocks of federal land. The BLM currently manages 110 easements acquired for public access across non-BLM-administered land in the Planning Area.

Donations and Condemnations

The BLM occasionally receives gifts or donations of lands or interests in lands when an entity elects not to receive the market value for the interests being conveyed. A donation of $100,000 from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation was part of the Devils Canyon Ranch acquisition in 2003. Lewton Operating Company is in the process of donating an approximately 20-acre access easement along Hazelton and 33 Mile Roads. The BLM has not acquired any lands in the Planning Area through condemnation.

Land Disposal

Public lands have potential for disposal when they are isolated and/or difficult to manage. Disposal actions are usually in response to public requests, such as community expansions. Disposals result in a title transfer, wherein the lands leave the public domain. The BLM coordinates all disposal actions with adjoining landowners, local governments, and current land users.

The BLM manages public sales under the Section 203 disposal criteria of FLPMA. Public lands determined suitable for sale are offered on the initiative of the BLM or through a nomination/request for sale from the public. The BLM does not sell lands at less than fair market value.

Appendix M and Map 42 describe and show properties identified for disposal, restricted disposal, or retention. Tracts of land designated in this RMP as potentially available for disposal are more likely to be conveyed out of federal ownership through an exchange rather than a sale.

Section 209 of the FLPMA specifies that all minerals underlying public lands disposed of by sale shall be reserved to the United States, unless there are no mineral values in the lands or the reservation of mineral rights to the United States is interfering with or precluding appropriate non-mineral development of the land, and such development is a more beneficial use of the land than mineral development.

Approximately 116,800 acres of public lands are currently identified for disposal by sale. However, little public land has actually been offered for sale under FLPMA. Four parcels have been sold in the last 11 years, as follows:

Retention

Lands identified for retention in the Planning Area are BLM-administered lands not identified for disposal and lands not currently classified for disposal (e.g., R Lands and Desert Land Entry [DLE] Lands). The BLM has identified a total of 3,073,014 acres for retention in the Planning Area.

Desert Land Entries

Congress passed the Desert Land Entries Act on March 3, 1877, to encourage and promote the economic development of arid and semiarid public lands in the western United States. The purpose of the Act is to permit reclamation by irrigation of arid public land through individual effort and private capital. Arid lands capable of producing a reasonable cash agricultural crop using irrigation may be considered for a DLE. The lands must be untimbered, surveyed, unreserved, and unappropriated. If an applicant meets the final proof requirements of a DLE, a patent to the legal title of the land may be conveyed.

Most of the lands suitable for agricultural development in the Planning Area have already been placed into private ownership. With the problems of finding suitable public land, limited water available for irrigation, and the high cost of development, it is difficult to acquire a DLE under the 1877 Desert Land Act, but Act authority remains available.

A total of 1,409 acres are currently classified as suitable for entry under the Desert Land Act. There were DLE conveyances in 2003 west of Greybull (280 acres) and two DLE conveyances in 1999 (a total of 457 acres), also in Big Horn County. Since the previous RMPs, the BLM has received a number of DLE applications, but the BLM has not processed the applications because of other higher priority workload commitments, such as energy development.

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Lands

In 2000, Congress passed the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) to create a special account to receive the proceeds from the sales of certain public lands in western states (not including Southern Nevada sales). FLTFA requires that these lands be “identified for disposal” in an approved land use plan that was completed as of the date of enactment (July 25, 2000). FLTFA funds can be used to acquire in-holdings in areas designated as of July 2000 or tracts adjacent to designated areas.

Based on the three current RMPs for the Planning Area (BLM 1990; BLM 1998a; BLM 1988), applicable lands under the FLTFA include all lands identified for disposal (110,409 acres). In accordance with the FLTFA, lands identified for disposal in this RMP revision would not be subject to the FLTFA because those land disposal decisions would have been made after July 25, 2000. However, Congress is considering the FLTFA for reauthorization. If there is no date restriction in the reauthorization, all lands identified for disposal in Appendix M would qualify under the FLTFA.

Withdrawals and Classifications

Lands are withdrawn under various legal authorities, including Acts of Congress. A withdrawal is a formal action that withholds an area of public land from settlement, sale, location, or entry under some or all of the public land laws; or segregates (closes) the area to mineral entry (locatable mineral development) or mineral leasing (leasable mineral development). Withdrawals are made with the purpose of limiting activities under those laws to maintain other public and resource values in the area, to reserve the area for a particular public purpose or program, or to transfer jurisdiction over an area of federal land from one department, bureau, or agency to another. Withdrawals are established for a wide range of public purposes, including military reservations, reclamation projects, and power-site reserves.

Existing withdrawals in the Planning Area have been established to protect resource values and to transfer jurisdiction to other federal agencies to accomplish their missions and goals. Table 3–40 lists existing and proposed withdrawals, classifications, and other segregations in the Planning Area.

Two public land orders (Public Land Order 7396 on July 6, 1999, and Public Land Order 7370 on November 5, 1998) restored approximately 153,762 acres of previously withdrawn BOR land to BLM ownership.

Land classification is a process required under specific laws to determine the suitability of public lands for certain types of disposal or lease, or suitability for retention and multiple use management. Most land classifications also segregate public lands from operation of some or all of the public land laws and/or mineral laws. Table 3-40 identifies existing site-specific classifications. Pending classifications associated with a proposal/application include two R and 13 DLEs which are under consideration for classification. Lands proposed to be leased or conveyed under the R Act must first be classified as suitable for such use.

The 1964 Classification and Multiple Use Act established several existing classifications. The lands were classified for retention and multiple use management, and against sale, agricultural entry, and mining location, but they remain open to mineral leasing. In the Little Mountain area, approximately 2,800 acres are still included in this group of classifications.

Other segregations result from a variety of actions, such as exchanges and land sales in which the federal mineral rights are reserved to the United States in the land patent.

Management Challenges

There are a variety of management challenges for the lands and realty program in the Planning Area. These are based on historic activities and trends and current and future needs of public resources and internal and external customers. Most management challenges for lands and realty are related to balancing land tenure adjustments and land use authorizations between the maintenance of BLM resource objectives and the needs and desires of the public and other federal agencies.

Resolving trespass, dumping, and illegal use issues on public land is an important management challenge for the lands and realty program. There also are management challenges related to land tenure adjustments and the availability of lands and realty and other BLM personnel. The BLM has not fully surveyed many parcels identified for disposal and is uncertain of the condition of resources in these lands. Inventories of lands listed for disposal might identify unique resources, which could cause the BLM to reconsider these lands for disposal. Inventories of disposal lands and their resources also could increase public interest in land exchanges that would benefit both parties. Land exchanges present their own set of challenges because exchanges require a commitment of resources in both personnel and operating costs. Land exchanges, and potentially any land tenure adjustment, can be issues in relation to the value and appraisals attributed to the land and the equity of the land exchange. Interest groups and the general public are vested in the use of public lands, and the lands and realty program faces internal and external challenges to implement equitable land tenure adjustments that are in the public’s interest.

Timely processing of permits (e.g., filming permits) and leases is a challenge for the lands and realty program. Local filming commissions compete intensively to bring these projects to the Planning Area, where the projects help support short-term economic activity. If the BLM cannot quickly process filming and other permits and leases, applicants often pursue other locations that would not benefit economies in the Planning Area.