Overview
Title
Public Land Order No. 7958; Extension of Public Land Order No. 6597, as Extended; for White Mountain Petroglyphs Site, Wyoming
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is making sure a special area in Wyoming with cool ancient drawings on rocks, called the White Mountain Petroglyphs, stays protected for another 20 years, so people can't settle, sell, or dig for gold there, but they can carefully take out oil or gas if needed.
Summary AI
The Bureau of Land Management has extended a land order originally issued in 1985, protecting a 20-acre area in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, known as the White Mountain Petroglyphs Site. This order prevents the land from being settled, sold, or used for mining but allows for mineral leasing, ensuring protection of valuable Native American cultural resources and natural beauties. The extension will last for 20 years starting January 15, 2025, unless a review determines further extension is needed. This action aims to safeguard the site's cultural, wildlife, scenic, and educational values.
Abstract
This order extends the duration of the withdrawal created by Public Land Order (PLO) No. 6597, as extended by PLO No. 7621, for an additional 20-year period. PLO No. 6597, as extended, withdrew 20 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Sweetwater County, Wyoming from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights, to protect the White Mountain Petroglyphs Site. Extension of the withdrawal is necessary to protect the Native American, cultural resource, wildlife, scenic, and educational values of, as well as the capital investment in, the White Mountain Petroglyphs Site.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The recent Federal Register notice from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the extension of a public land order protecting the White Mountain Petroglyphs Site in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Initially set in 1985 and previously extended, this order will now remain in place for another 20 years, starting January 15, 2025. By maintaining this order, the BLM aims to continue safeguarding the area's significant Native American cultural resources, as well as its wildlife, scenic, and educational values. The land remains closed to settlement, sale, and mining, although mineral leasing can still occur under preexisting laws.
Key Issues and Concerns
Despite the protective intention of this order, several issues stand out in the document. First, it does not provide clear details about the criteria or processes for evaluating the necessity of extending the land order in the future. This lack of transparency might leave stakeholders uncertain about how and why decisions are made.
Furthermore, the document makes no mention of any public consultation or input in the decision-making process. In policymaking, especially concerning public lands of cultural significance, involving the public can enhance transparency and accountability.
The justifications for the order focus on protecting cultural and environmental values but are quite general. In such cases, providing supporting data or evidence could strengthen the rationale. Additionally, the document omits any mention of how these protections and management efforts will be funded, leaving questions about financial responsibility and resources.
Potential Public Impact
For the general public, this land order aims to preserve a historically and culturally significant site for future generations. It emphasizes safeguarding the area's natural and cultural riches, which can enhance educational opportunities and local tourism. However, there might be financial implications related to site management, potentially impacting local or federal budgets.
Impact on Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, such as the Native American communities, may view this order as a positive step toward protecting their heritage and cultural landmarks. Conversely, those with interests in land development or mining could perceive it as a restriction on potential economic activities.
Environmental advocates are likely to support the continued protection because it aligns with conservation goals. On the other hand, the lack of detailed information on the ecological significance of the withdrawal could be a point of concern.
In conclusion, while the extension of the public land order plays a crucial role in preserving important cultural and environmental resources, the document leaves several questions unanswered. Clarity on evaluation processes, transparency in decision-making, and details on funding and stakeholder engagement could further enhance the order's legitimacy and effectiveness.
Issues
• The document lacks specific details regarding the evaluation criteria or process for the extension of the land withdrawal, which may make the decision-making process unclear.
• There is no mention of any public consultation or input process related to the extension of the land order, which could raise concerns about transparency.
• The justification for the withdrawal, while mentioning protection of cultural resources, wildlife, and educational values, is relatively general and lacks detailed evidence or data supporting these claims.
• The document does not specify how the management and protection of the White Mountain Petroglyphs Site will be funded and whether there are associated costs involved.