BLM nixes conservation rule for public lands

Laura Lundquist

(Missoula Current) Announcing the repeal of yet another federal land rule, the Trump administration continues to demonstrate that its definition of “multiple use” on federal land does not include wildlife or habitat conservation. That’s prompted many groups to speak out.

On Monday, the Bureau of Land Management issued a final rule rescinding the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, also called “the Public Lands Rule,” which was approved two years ago during the Biden administration. The rescission becomes effective on June 11, 30 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register. Conservationists say it’s another nail in the public-lands coffin.

“Repealing the Public Lands Rule is the clearest example yet that the Trump administration will stop at nothing to sell out our country’s precious landscapes to private industry. The rule simply acknowledged the fact that conservation on public lands has value, but even that was too much for Trump and his billionaire backers to tolerate,” said Athan Manuel, Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program director in a release. “By now, the administration’s playbook is clear – disregard the will of the American people, refuse to protect our public lands, hand control over to corporate polluters, then dispose of these landscapes entirely.”

The Conservation and Landscape Health Rule made leases possible for conservation for the first time, putting conservation on equal footing with industrial uses, such as grazing and natural resource extraction. The public submitted more than 215,000 comments in July 2024, most of which were in favor. Some of those who were opposed had been misinformed and thought they’d lose their grazing leases to conservation leases, which wasn’t part of the rule.

Two years ago, former BLM director Tracy Stone-Manning said the rule would safeguard the health of public lands in three ways: by protecting the best, most intact landscapes; by restoring the lands and waters that needed it; and by using science and indigenous knowledge to make land decisions.

That meant some parcels among the BLM’s 245 million acres, found mostly in the West, could remain as they are or even be restored. Montana contains more than 8 million acres of BLM land, mostly in the eastern portion of the state.

The Public Lands Rule had been in place for only about 16 months when, in September 2025, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced his intent to rescind the rule. A 60-day comment period followed, and the vast majority of more than 61,000 comments opposed Burgum’s proposal. Categorizing a random sample of 5,000 comments as “supportive,” “opposed” or “neutral,” the Center for Western Priorities estimated that about 98% of the comments opposed rescinding the Public Lands rule.

On Monday, Aubrey Bertram, Wild Montana federal policy director, cited two recent polls that show a bipartisan majority of Westerners, and Montanans specifically, value public land conservation over resource extraction.

“Montana voters want leaders to prioritize conservation over industrial development, but decision-makers would rather sell out our lands to enrich billionaires,” Bertram said. “The decision to repeal the Public Lands Rule betrays Montanans who depend on healthy public lands and waters, and prioritizing short-term corporate gains over long-term stewardship will have lasting consequences for our children and grandchildren.”

The BLM’s recent announcement said Burgum’s decision to rescind the rule “restores balance to federal land management under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield by prioritizing access, empowering local decision-making, and aligning the BLM’s implementing regulations with statutory requirements and national energy policy.”
However, the Public Lands Rule didn’t limit access to the general public, unlike industry leases that block public access. On Monday, conservation organizations said the BLM’s justification of “prioritizing access” applies only to industry, particularly those enabled by Trump’s executive orders fast-tracking energy development.

"Montana hunters and anglers depend on productive public lands and healthy watersheds to sustain our outdoor traditions,” said Frank Szollosi, Montana Wildlife Federation executive director. “The Public Lands Rule gave conservation a needed seat at the table, so our interests were fully considered in BLM land management decisions. Rescinding this is a politically motivated and short-sighted step backward for Montana’s fish and wildlife, our sporting heritage, and the future of our public lands.”

Also on Monday, the White House released a proposed rule that would overhaul the BLM’s grazing regulations, reviving and advancing an earlier effort to weaken government oversight on 155 million acres of public land across the West. The rule would eliminate public input on grazing policies and leases; loosen BLM oversight on overgrazing; and redefine grazing to exclude all animals except domestic livestock such as sheep and cattle. A 60-day comment period will open on Tuesday.

High Country News and ProPublica reported that roughly two-thirds of public lands grazing is controlled by just 10% of permittees, including large corporate and billionaire-owned operations.

“The gutting of the grazing regulations reflects the Trump Administration's war on science and evidence-based decision-making,” said Chandra Rosenthal of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “Coupled with the drastic reductions in staffing levels to monitor and manage grazing, our public lands will continue to suffer.”

Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.