Bureau of Land Management just rescinded this public lands rule

On Monday, the Bureau of Land Management issued a new rule “fully rescinding” the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule of May 2024.

That rule, which is more often referred to as “the Public Lands Rule,” recognized conservation as one of the multiple uses of public land. Taking it a step further, the rule also considered conservation “an essential component of lands management.”

The agency’s webpage describing the rule says “the BLM knows the importance of balancing the use of our natural resources with protecting public lands and waters for future generations.”

But this week’s final decision was not a surprise considering the Department of the Interior proposed changing the rule last September.

“The 2024 Public Lands Rule, formally known as the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, made conservation (i.e., no use) an official use of public lands, putting it on the same level as BLM’s other uses of public lands,” read the DOI’s press release last fall.

Those other uses are not explicitly outlined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which governs the public land management for “multiple use and sustained yield,” but primarily emphasize grazing, natural resource extraction and recreation.

After following the steps outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, which included a full review and public input, the reasons for rescinding the rule did not change.

“This action restores balance to federal land management,” reads the notice published in the Federal Register, “by reaffirming the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, ensuring conservation does not restrict productive use of the public lands, and reducing regulatory burdens that impede efficient decision-making.”

Public support for the rule

Before the rule was rescinded, however, about 81% of the 245 million acres managed by the BLM were already available for natural resource extraction. Of those, the One Big Beautiful Bill mandated that 100% of all land nominated become available for lease within 18 months. The rule had not yet been implemented in any significant ways.

But it did hold broad public support both at the time it was created and during the public comment period. Of the 130,000 public comments the federal government received last year, a review found that 97.9% opposed rescinding the rule. That was an increase from the 92% that supported it in 2023.

The moment the notice was posted, conservationist groups expressed alarm and frustration over the decision.

“Congress directed the BLM to manage public lands in a way that balances uses like outdoor recreation with needs as varied as grazing, energy development and conservation of wildlife habitat,” said Alison Flint, acting vice president for federal policy at The Wilderness Society. “The administration’s rescission of the BLM Public Lands Rule flouts both the agency’s legal mandate and the overwhelming wishes of the American people for public lands to be managed in a balanced and sustainable way that conserves special places for future generations.”

Why was the rule rescinded?

Though the Public Lands Rule had not been implemented since it was established in 2024, there was concern that it could be used as a roadblock to other potential projects on public lands.

In a statement last fall, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said that “the previous administration’s Public Lands Rule had the potential to block access to hundreds of thousands of acres of multiple-use land — preventing energy and mineral production, timber management, grazing and recreation across the West."

Another argument was about civics and semantics. Regarding civics, the Mountain States Legal Foundation questioned whether the rule’s implementation was legal to begin with in its amicus brief for rescinding the rule.

“We have a representative democracy — including people from states who are not in the West — who together voted to make the law what the law is ... the laws represent the public interest,“ Ivan London, a senior attorney with Mountain State Legal Foundation, said last fall.

“It might not be an individual’s interest. It is the public’s interest. And not because one person said so, right? Because of this whole elaborate, difficult, burdensome process that’s required to make a law in the first place.”

As for semantics, could conservation really represent “multiple use and sustained yield”? For London, conservation could not be a use when nothing specifically was being done to the land.

“A non-use is not a use, and if Congress said you have to allow multiple uses, then then you can’t turn a non-use into a use,” London said. “Congress said public lands are for the public to use and the BLM has to manage them accordingly ... even if conservation is a use, how can you do that and have a sustained yield? Unless you’re doing mental gymnastics to have a sustained yield of nothing.”

In the notice, the Interior summarized its reasons similarly.

The Public Land Rule “inappropriately elevated conservation as a discrete ‘use’ of the public lands, contrary to FLPMA’s intent and statutory framework. By rescinding the 2024 Rule, the BLM eliminates mechanisms — such as restoration and mitigation leasing — that threatened to restrict productive use of the public lands and introduced uncertainty and unnecessary burdens in planning and permitting."

How will conservation be impacted?

In a statement, Steve Bloch, the legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said that the BLM putting conservation on equal footing with other uses gave the agency a means to restore degraded lands and protect others for current and future generations.

By rescinding it, the agency took away one of the best existing mechanisms to do that work, per Bloch. He also expressed frustration that the strong public support was not taken into account.

“Americans and Utahns widely supported the rule and we are deeply disappointed to see the Trump administration’s shortsighted effort to undo it,” Bloch said.

The National Park Conservation Alliance said it understood the rule was to right an imbalance of multiple use that favored mining and oil and gas development over recreation and conservation.

It’s also concerned that the decision will open more lands adjacent to national parks to activities that might negatively impact the environments of some of America’s most treasured landscapes.

“This is a major loss for the long-term stewardship of millions of acres of public land that belong to all of us ... The Bureau of Land Management has an enduring obligation to protect these landscapes for future generations,” Beau Kiklis, associate director at the National Parks Conservation Association, said in a statement. “(It) fits a pattern of brazen attempts to sell off and sell out our shared public lands at the expense of public access and conservation ... This rollback is the latest attempt by the administration to chip away at America’s conservation legacy while ignoring the will of the people.”