ST. GEORGE — President Joe Biden’s administration proposed a new public lands rule emphasizing conservation. With approximately 42% of Utah stewarded by the Bureau of Land Management, the rule has captured the public’s attention. While proponents laud the change and detractors condemn it as detrimental, others feel the rule doesn’t go far enough.
The “Conservation and Landscape Health” rule, first proposed in March, lists conservation as a use of BLM lands on par with grazing, recreation and resource extraction, among others.
The U.S. Department of the Interior says it will aid the agency in identifying and conserving areas that need restoration and increase access to outdoor recreation, according to a news release issued by the department.
“As the nation continues to face unprecedented drought, increasing wildfires and the declining health of our landscapes, our public lands are under growing pressure,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said. “It is our responsibility to use the best tools available to restore wildlife habitat, plan for smart development, and conserve the most important places.”
The proposed rule is intended to build on previous investments in public land, water and clean energy in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act by directing land managers to identify and prioritize land management projects to restore habitat health, like invasive species removal, the release states.
“BLM lands are an economic driver across the West, and the proposed rule will ensure those lands and the resources they produce continue to be available for future generations,” it reads.
The BLM expects to meet these goals by developing restoration plans and prioritizing areas based on partnership opportunities and land and water health. It would establish a framework for conservation leasing, where an interested party could propose an agreement with the BLM for restoration or mitigation projects, according to a BLM fact sheet.
Leasing is considered a tool for the agency — not a requirement and can be used to compensate the public for environmental impacts created by development.
The proposed rule would broaden land health standards beyond the agency’s grazing program, which is considered best practice by many state and federal land management agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service.
“By using land health assessments and building conservation decisions into the land management process, the proposal would enable the BLM to better work with local communities and developers to identify appropriate places to site projects and deconflict development proposals,” the fact sheet reads.
Additionally, the proposal would instruct the BLM to preserve intact spaces to support wildlife, migration corridors and ecosystems as part of its effort to “protect and preserve lands in their natural condition where appropriate,” the fact sheet states.
The public comment period closed on July 5, with the BLM receiving over 216,000 comments. A decision is expected to be announced in 2024, BLM press secretary and spokesperson Brian Hires told St. George News.
Southern Utah, others react
According to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, approximately 92% of the comments submitted supported the rule change, and recent polling found that most Americans support conservation and public lands initiatives.
For instance, a 2022 poll conducted by the Benenson Strategy Group found that 70% of polled likely voters in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada would feel more favorably toward Biden’s administration if he increased focus on conservation, with approximately 59% of Republicans 92% of Democrats and 75% of independent participants supporting his America the Beautiful initiative.
Approximately 84% agreed that public lands bring Americans together, with 81% saying leaders should “do more to protect public lands for hunting, fishing, and recreation.”
About 66% said “the current administration hasn’t done enough to create and protect new public lands and national monuments,” the poll found.
However, about 56% felt there is too much federal regulation over public lands, with 50% supporting resource extraction on public land.
The Utah Democratic Party and various organizations have voiced support for the proposed rule, including REI, The Conservation Alliance, the Outdoor Industry Association and The Moutain Pact.
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance wrote that the proposal highlights the necessity for the BLM to work with local communities to increase focus on conservation, ensure access to public land and combat the impacts of climate change.
“The plan seeks to correct a system that has been wildly imbalanced,” the nonprofit adds. “Currently, 90% of BLM land is open to drilling whereas only 14% are managed for conservation.”
The BLM manages approximately 245 million acres in the Western U.S., with about 22.8 million acres in Utah, representing about 42% of the state.
In June, Rep. John Curtis, a Utah Republican, introduced HR 3397 in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill would require the BLM to withdraw the rule and disallow them from taking “action to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule described in paragraph (1) or any substantially similar rule,” according to its text.
The House Committee on Natural Resources passed the bill, releasing a statement that the proposed rule would have “devastating impacts on communities across the West.”
The release included statements from various opposing parties, such as the American Exploration and Mining Association, the Public Lands Council and the Western Energy Alliance.
Concerns raised include that resource extraction would be limited, ranchers would be pushed from the landscape, small businesses would be impacted and energy prices would increase.
Many are uncertain how conservation leasing would work and worry that the new rule would restrict multiple uses and access to BLM land.
The Wilderness Society described these statements as an attempt by “extractive industries” to “defend their stranglehold on leasing of public lands,” adding that the bill would “junk” public input.
“Over 216,000 public letters run through the shredder with one fell swoop,” they write, adding, “This is a vague catchall explicitly designed to prevent the agency from taking any meaningful conservation action in the future.”
The Washington County Commission also submitted a letter after a public discussion. Commissioner Adam Snow said that 1976’s Federal Land Policy Management Act guarantees multiple uses of BLM land, allowing grazing, recreation and extraction, with many uses requiring a permit.
“(The land is) conserved by definition unless there is a permitted use to do otherwise … They will sell leases to conserve land that can then be used for no other purpose,” he said. “That is a horrible idea.”
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox reiterated these sentiments, writing in a letter posted to X, formerly known as Twitter: “The Proposed Rule could push BLM lands into a protection-oriented management regime more akin to the National Park Service.”
“We oppose the Proposed Rule and urge the BLM to start over, withdraw its proposal, and instead focus its efforts on working closely with states, local governments, and stakeholders on rulemaking that will truly enhance active management and actual conservation of BLM lands within the framework of multiple use and sustained yield,” he wrote.
The Bureau stated that the proposed rule would not change its multiple-use mission but would ensure its ability to deliver results in the future.
“Energy development, mining, grazing, timber, outdoor recreation, and other uses will continue,” they write.
Additionally, the proposal would not impede development or change existing land management planning processes.
“If the proposed activities in a conservation lease would conflict with existing authorizations, such as if a specific type of restoration would not be compatible with grazing and the proposed location is already subject to a grazing authorization, then the conservation lease could not be issued,” the Bureau states
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists says the proposal doesn’t go far enough, noting that conservation leasing would be available on a fraction of the agency’s stewarded lands, and questions the use of these agreements to compensate for the impacts of development.
“While investing in restoration at conservation leasing sites will surely improve habitat quality on those parcels, the best way to offset lost habitat is to add new protected habitat elsewhere,” they write.
“Conservation leasing sounds like a win … On closer inspection, the conservation lands available to lease are more restricted than the full inventory of public lands. A conservation lease could not block an oil and gas lease for example.”
Echoing their statement, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, issued a news release stating that they still have questions about the proposal. For instance, could the program benefit land already in the BLM’s livestock program, which encompasses 150 million acres, since a conservation lease could not retire a grazing allotment?
The bulletin said that while successful mitigation efforts should be permanent, conservation leases will have limited terms intended to end after a stated goal was achieved or after 10 years.
“The lease duration proposed does not correspond to the length of time it takes to conduct an ecological restoration and monitor results of a project in arid ecosystems, which can be difficult and have no guarantee of success,” the Bulletin writes.
Additionally, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility wrote that while the proposal has “laudatory goals,” it “is wholly unworkable given BLM’s current organizational capacity,” as the agency is understaffed and the system itself is dysfunctional.
“BLM’s use of climate change as a justification is hard to take seriously because the agency has been notorious in ignoring the climate impacts of the activities it presently permits,” Rocky Mountain PEER Director Chandra Rosenthal said in the release.
Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2023, all rights reserved.