Rule would recognize “conservation” as a land use
The Bureau of Land Management has proposed a new Public Lands Rule meant to put conservation on an equal footing with other recognized uses—such as timber harvesting, mineral extraction, and recreation—in the agency’s “multiple use” mandate. Stakeholders across the West have weighed in, expressing support and opposition to the rule. On June 20, five Grand County commissioners voted to approve a letter to the BLM in support of the rule; commissioners Mike McCurdy and Bill Winfield opposed the letter.
What is the rule?
The rule, formally called “Conservation and Landscape Health,” has three main purposes: to conserve functional landscapes, restore damaged landscapes, and make smart management decisions based on science.
BLM officials say the agency has authority to draft the rule under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the 1976 piece of legislation that outlines the bureau’s mission. That mission is to manage land for multiple uses—which is an ongoing balancing act—and for sustained yield. Promoting healthy and resilient landscapes, officials say, supports that mission, by ensuring that public lands will continue to thrive and be able to provide things like clean air and water, food, energy, wildlife habitat, and cultural and recreation values. Resiliency is increasingly important, officials argue, in the face of rising pressures including drought, wildfire, development, and increased use.
One element of the rule causing concern among many is the concept of “conservation leases”: entities including individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and Tribal governments would be able to apply to lease public lands for the specific purpose of restoration or protection of the landscape. (The agency solicits comments on whether state and local governments should also be able to make a conservation lease.) The BLM would consider each lease request in context; the rule does not automatically grant such leases.
In a virtual presentation explaining the rule, BLM officials emphasized that conservation leases would not override any existing leases for grazing, oil and gas extraction, or any other existing use. They also noted that, as outlined in the multiple use mandate, other uses could operate on lands leased for conservation if they didn’t conflict with the conservation goals. BLM Acting Assistant Director for Resources and Planning Brian St. George gave an example in the virtual presentation:
“We see grazing to be consistent with, compatible with, complementary to conservation leasing for restoration and mitigation purposes,” he said.
The rule also states that in most scenarios, conservation leases would likely not affect noncommercial uses such as recreation.
The rule also updates and clarifies the process for identifying and designating Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, or ACECs. This designation places increased protections around lands considered to have special natural, cultural, or scenic values.
Utah responds
Utah Governor Spencer Cox and Utah senators Mike Lee and Mitt Romney have formally opposed the rule, alongside leaders from several other western states. Utah Congressional Representative John Curtis (R, District 3) has sponsored a bill that would make the BLM withdraw the rule.
“For decades and decades and decades, Utahns have cared for and protected its public lands. This rule undermines the work of real conservationists, like farmers and ranchers who have kept the land in good health for generations,” Curtis says on his website.
On June 6, San Juan County commissioners voted unanimously to approve a letter to the BLM opposing the rule. With over 40% of the county’s acreage under BLM management, San Juan County leaders say the agency’s policies can affect the local economy; they worry they’ll see more restrictions and reduced economic activity as a result of the rule.
At the June 20 Grand County Commission meeting, several Grand County residents voiced their opposition to the rule as well, expressing fears that conservation leases would end up locking people out of public lands. Some said they worried that uses like recreation and grazing are threatened; some saw the rule as government overreach. Their comments were prompted by a letter on the commission’s agenda expressing support for the Public Lands Rule.
Commissioner Trisha Hedin drafted the letter and presented it to the commission, first acknowledging her personal background in extractive industries—her family works in the logging industry, she said.
“I have utmost respect for extraction,” she said. “I grew up in a timber town.”
Hedin doesn’t see the Public Lands Rule as a threat to commercial uses, but rather as a support to continued multiple use—the BLM explicitly states this intention.
“I do care about healthy landscapes, and I care about sustainable industries far into the future,” Hedin said.
Commissioners Mike McCurdy and Bill Winfield both spoke against the rule. McCurdy pointed to the declared opposition from leaders in Utah and other western states. Winfield noted that Grand County’s opinion will likely not tip the scales on the BLM’s decision regarding a nationwide rule, while it could exacerbate existing tensions between Grand County and Utah state representatives.
“When you sign this letter, you’re putting another bull’s eye on this county’s back at the state level,” Winfield said.
Commissioner Kevin Walker agreed that Grand County’s opinion might not change the outcome for the final rule, but said it’s still important for different perspectives to be aired.
“I think it’s really important for decision-makers to know that there’s a diversity of opinion in the rural west—that there are people on lots of sides of issues,” Walker said. “They shouldn’t assume that just because the governor of Utah says ‘X,’ that every single resident of the state agrees, or every single county within the state agrees.”
Walker said it’s unlikely that the rule, if it goes into effect, will result in major changes in management practices—he sees it as a new presidential administration shifting the tone of the agency’s approach.
“Different administrations come and go, and they change the emphasis a little bit, and I think this is part of that,” Walker said. “I don’t think it’s any revolutionary thing.”
Winfield moved not to approve the letter, and McCurdy seconded. All five other commissioners voted against the motion, and voted in favor of a second motion to approve the letter of support.
Commissioner Mary McGann said she was glad to be a part of healthy debate.
“It’s important to be okay with disagreement,” she said. “It’s part of democracy, it’s what makes democracy work—people have different points of view.”
Public comment
The BLM has extended its 75-day public comment period by 15 days; the comment window now ends on July 5. The bureau has already received tens of thousands of comments in what St. George said is “the longest public comment period in recent memory for the BLM on a proposed rule-making.”
To learn more about the rule and submit a comment, visit https://www.Regulations.gov.
