American public opinion backs Public Lands Rule
Laura Lundquist
(Missoula Current) Even though a vast majority of the American public supports the federal Public Lands Rule, the Trump administration wants to rescind it.
Monday was the last day to submit public comment on Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s proposal to rescind the Public Lands Rule, which allows the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to lease public land for conservation and restoration efforts.
On Sept. 10, Burgum announced his intention to rescind the rule, which started a 60-day public comment period. Burgum said in a statement that the rule could have blocked logging, grazing and energy and mineral extraction across hundreds of thousands of acres. Overturning the rule “protects our American way of life and gives our communities a voice in the land that they depend on,” Burgum said in September.
But the American public doesn’t appear to agree, based on an analysis of almost 44,000 public comments submitted as of Monday morning. After 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 oppose rescinding the Public Lands rule.
“Interior Secretary Burgum and President Trump should reverse course now and leave the Public Lands Rule in place. The rule was developed thoughtfully, with ample public input, and implements the intention that Congress expressed in (BLM legislation) 50 years ago,” said Aaron Weiss, Center for Western Priorities deputy director in a statement.
Among the comments was a letter from more than 180 community leaders, including City of Missoula mayor Andrea Davis, who joined the Mountain Pact to request that the Public Lands Act be left in place.
“The BLM Lands Rule represents a modern, balanced approach to caring for the lands that sustain our economy, our culture, and our health. Here in the West, we know that strong stewardship of our public lands isn’t partisan; it’s about protecting and enhancing the places and livelihoods that define who we are,” Davis said in the letter.
It is likely that many more comments were submitted on Monday in the last hours of the comment period. For example, 33 organizations signed a 43-page letter opposing elimination of the Public Lands Rule that was submitted on Monday. The letter was signed by The Wilderness Society, Wild Montana, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians and the National Parks Conservation Association, to name a few.“
The extensive record supporting the Public Lands Rule, as well as the information below, demonstrates that law, science, policy, and reliance interests support maintaining the Rule and its common-sense and widely supported regulatory direction.
In addition, the Rule provides extensive economic benefits and government efficiencies that the BLM must fully consider,” the letter said.The majority that opposed the elimination of the Public Lands Rule is similar to the percentage of Americans who recently opposed Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ proposal to repeal the Roadless Rule.
The Roadless Rule protects more than 58 million acres of national forest from road-building and other industrial activity, keeping wildlife habitat intact although trails and some logging is allowed. After more than 625,000 people commented by Sept. 19, another Center for Western Priorities analysis found around 99% opposed rescinding the Roadless Rule.
In April 2023, former BLM director Tracy Stone-Manning proposed the “Conservation and Landscape Health Rule,” also called the Public Lands rule, to restore the agency’s multiple-use mandate by allowing federal parcels to be leased for conservation the same way they’re leased for industrial activities, such as oil and gas drilling or grazing.
Of the BLM’s almost 250 million acres, less than 14% is managed for conservation while 90% is open to, but not necessarily leased by, oil and gas drilling and 60% is open to grazing.Stone-Manning said the rule would safeguard the health of public lands in three ways: by protecting the best, most intact landscapes; by restoring lands and waters that need help; and by using science and indigenous knowledge to make land decisions.
In July 2023, more than 215,000 public comments were received during the 90-day comment period. Center for Western Priorities analyzed those public comments and found 92% supported adoption of the rule. Meanwhile, the governors of Montana, Idaho and Nevada wrote letters of opposition partly based on some misinformation that conservation leases would have priority over grazing or other leases.
Stone-Manning finalized the rule in April 2024. Two months later, the states of Montana, Idaho and North Dakota sued the BLM, alleging that the Public Lands rule was “a policy of obstructing and preventing the development of (public) resources for climate change reasons.” Other Republican states, including Utah, Wyoming and Alaska, filed similar lawsuits. Those cases would be moot if the rule is rescinded.
During an Oct. 5 presentation to journalists, Stone-Manning, who is now director of The Wilderness Society, said it used to be that the pendulum of conservation vs. extraction would swing back and forth with presidential administrations. But the current efforts to rescind conservation rules and lock up or sell off public land are going further than a normal pendulum swing.
The Trump administration is targeting everything that Democratic administrations - particularly that of Joe Biden - have passed, so there’s not much more she could have done while at the BLM to protect conservation and habitat, Stone-Manning said.
“That’s what makes the current political environment so troubling. For the first time in my career, I see a coordinated and credible effort to dismantle the very idea of public lands as a shared resource. We’ve seen the administration actively working to rescind core conservation safeguards like the Roadless Rule.
If they succeed, it’ll be the largest rollback of conservation in our nation’s history,” Stone-Manning said. “When this passes, there will be a rebuilding of sorts. The question is, how will we choose to do that? Will we rebuild (our land management agencies) the way it is today? I would argue that that would not be a very good idea. There will be opportunity in the wreckage.”
Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.