The Public Lands Rule could be great for conservation – we should give it a chance

The Bureau of Land Management Conservation and Landscape Health rule, commonly known as the Public Lands Rule, went into effect nationwide on June 10, 2024. Originally announced a year ago by the Department of the Interior, the intent of the rule is to address the increasing conservation needs on the 245 million acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) across the country.

It’s hard to live in Idaho without setting foot on some portion of the state’s 12 million acres of BLM land. Whether you’re hunting pronghorn antelope in the sprawling sagebrush sea south of the Snake River or hiking with the family dog in the Boise foothills, these lands provide boundless opportunities for Idahoans to recreate outdoors. They also provide core habitat for iconic species such as sage grouse and critical winter range for migrating herds of mule deer, pronghorn, and elk.

But recreation and wildlife habitat are far from the only uses, and BLM lands are managed with a multiple use mandate that includes grazing cattle, drilling for oil and gas, and mining among other uses such as the rapidly increasing demand for renewable energy development. Most commercial uses operate under lease agreements, and the use of this land is indispensable to industries, such as ranching, on which the Idaho economy depends.

While the BLM works to make all activities compatible with wildlife conservation, the habitat quality on these lands has been deteriorating for decades and the agency’s budget rarely comes anywhere near what would be required to remediate the combined effects of commercial and recreational pressure, to say nothing of the increasing threat of wildfire  and the assault of invasive species such as cheatgrass that outcompete native grasses in the wake of the flames. On average, over a million acres of sagebrush burn each year due to invasive grasses that fuel wildfire. Grassland bird species have declined by more than 40% since the 1960s. The status quo has not been enough to promote a healthy ecosystem.

This is where the Public Lands Rule comes into play. The headline is that it puts conservation on the same footing as traditional commercial uses such as grazing and extraction, but the real meat of the rule is that it introduces the concept of conservation leases on BLM land. For an agency with a chronically strapped budget, this rule establishes an innovative mechanism to leverage private conservation funding on public lands. These new leases come in two forms. One is mitigation leasing, which is commercial. If an agency such as a solar developer builds on a particular parcel of land, for example, the BLM may require that they enter into a mitigation lease to offset that impact by improving the habitat in another area of BLM. The other is restoration leases, where a nonprofit or a state agency can apply for and fund a lease specifically designed to promote conservation. Prior to this rule, there was no similar leasing mechanism in place for promoting long-term private funding of conservation on BLM lands.

The rule also directs BLM field offices to focus on conserving areas that are already healthy and intact, but also to identify landscapes in need of restoration, draw up plans for restoring these landscapes, and focus on science-based tools for evaluating landscape health.

It all sounds great for conservation, but the rule has been heavily controversial since the time it was first announced. The Idaho State House of Representatives voted to oppose it in a non-binding resolution. Some industry groups and other public officials in Idaho have publicly denounced the rule as a threat to grazing, as well as energy and mineral development.  

Much of this controversy is undeniably self-inflicted on the part of the BLM, which rolled the initial version of this rule out without clarifying some key considerations that could impact interested groups such as ranchers who were understandably concerned about what this could mean for their livelihoods. Could an out of state environmental group come in with a conservation lease and outcompete cattle grazers, locking them out of the landscape? Some also wondered if this rule was even necessary, given that conservation and environmental considerations are already incorporated into the process when the BLM reviews a commercial lease application.

But despite the clumsy nature of the rollout, the BLM addressed these issues in its final rule – clarifying, for example, that conservation leases will not be issued “where existing rights and authorized uses are in place and would conflict with the conservation use”. The rule is not designed to supplant existing uses, but to enhance our collective ability to conserve the land we use and the wildlife that depend upon it.

The BLM needs new tools to help ensure that the vast landscapes it manages are healthy for the 21^st century. This rule is an innovative approach. It can and should be compatible with other existing uses. It deserves a chance to succeed.