In a decision long seen coming, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rescinded the “public lands rule,” which formally recognized conservation as one of the many uses of land the BLM should manage its holdings for. That meant not using, or developing, land for energy or leasing it for grazing, was as justifiable a decision as putting up a parcel or oil and gas auctions.
With the rule being pulled, it means land managers no longer have to factor in some land’s conservation value when deciding new management strategies. This could potentially put more BLM-administered parcels up for lease to oil and gas companies. That follows on the heels of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which mandated that 100% of all land nominated for an oil and gas lease has to come available within 18 months.
Gutting The Rule
According to the Deseret News, the Interior Department secretary Doug Burgum said last fall that the public lands rule, as created by the Biden administration, 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.”
Furthering the push to gut the rule was the fact that some legal groups didn’t think the BLM could place “non-use” of land on equal footing with uses like grazing or energy leasing.
Ivan London, a senior attorney with Mountain State Legal Foundation, told the Deseret News that he doesn’t think conservation could be considered one of the “multiple uses” the BLM manages land for, when conservation means that “nothing specifically was being done to the land.”
Pushback
The National Parks Conservation Association is among the many groups concerned by the loss of this rule. Their official release says that “This move upends a balanced land management approach away from accounting for wildlife conservation, cultural resource protection and recreational use in favor expanded oil and gas drilling, mining and industrial development on millions of acres of public lands as part of a broader push to sell off public lands to private interests.”
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance has also spoken out, with their Legal Director saying “America’s wildest public lands face unprecedented threats from the Trump administration and its repeated decisions to prioritize fossil fuel development and extractive industry over clean water, wildlife habitat, and wild open spaces. This is especially the case in Utah, where Trump’s policies are having direct and irreversible impacts on the nation’s redrock wilderness.”
Challenges to the rule’s rescission are likely, and some groups may pursue lawsuits to that end.
Part Of A Trend?
The Trump Administration hasn’t been sly in its attempt to sell off public lands. As recently as last year, there was broad support for Utah Senator Mike Lee’s amendment that would have listed millions of acres of Forest Service land for sale. The state of Utah also recently filed for title to 18 million acres of BLM-managed land within its borders.
Some critics call the rescission of the public lands rule just another attempt to sell off land. However, it’s important to note that the public lands rule didn’t exist until 2024. Before then, BLM administered its lands without conservation as a recognized use. While far from perfect, hunting and fishing access were recognized uses.
The change that will likely have the most impact is the requirement in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that mandates all parcels of land nominated for oil and gas leasing have to hit the market within 18 months. Those lands are still public, but a lease allows companies to construct roads, build wells, and extract oil and gas from that land.
Thank you for posting.