On April 18, the Bureau of Land Management unveiled a final rule that permits the granting of leases pertaining to "restoration and mitigation," among other improvements.
Many users of federal land are worried that this ruling may deny current users their rights to graze, wood, and minerals.
The final rule improves and clarifies ideas that were initially put forth in April 2023. With five public meetings and a 90-day comment period, the BLM received over 200,000 comments, the great majority of which were in favor of the initiative. In reaction to the insightful feedback, the BLM improved and clarified the ideas presented in the proposed rule.
The final rule:
Instructs BLM to oversee the health of the landscape. A comprehensive understanding of the health and condition of the landscape is essential for successful public land management that provides natural resources, wildlife habitat, and clean water, particularly as ground conditions change as a result of climate change. The rule instructs the BLM to manage public land uses in line with the principles of land health, which will support ecosystems that support healthy populations and communities of plants and animals; watersheds that support soils, plants, and water; and wildlife habitats on public lands that safeguard threatened and endangered species in accordance with the multiple use and sustained yield framework.
gives us a way to use mitigation and restoration leases to safeguard and restore our public lands. With the use of restoration leases, the BLM can collaborate with the right partners to restore damaged lands with more clarity. With mitigation leases, developers will have a standardized and transparent way to invest in land health on public lands in order to offset their impacts, just as they may already do on state and private holdings. The final rule makes it clearer who is eligible to receive a restoration or mitigation lease, restricting possible lessees to qualified people, companies, non-governmental organizations, conservation districts, state fish and wildlife agencies, and tribal governments. Leases for mitigation and restoration will not be granted if they would be in conflict with currently permitted usage. explains how Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, or ACECs, are designated and managed. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act directs the BLM to prioritize the designation and protection of ACECs, and this is further explained in detail in the final rule. The final rule, which addressed public comments, makes it clear that the BLM's discretion to proceed with current project applications remains unaffected by its evaluation of new ACEC nominations and temporary management options.
The Montana Natural Resource Coalition (MTNRC), according to two distinct spokespeople, has grave reservations about the proposed rule. The BLM has allegedly broken the law by refusing to cooperate with county land use plans and by adding to a highly precise lists of "principled or major uses" for BLM land, according to Todd Devlin, executive director of MTNRC, and Ross Butcher, who helped found the organization.
Cooperator Status
Butcher, the president of the Montana Association of Counties, the chair of the Fergus County (Montana) Commission, and a member of the National Association of Counties' Public Lands Committee, claims that the community was involved in the development of Fergus County's land use plan. The county's customs, culture, and economy are all taken into account in the design. Fergus County sent comments on the BLM's proposed regulation, together with roughly seventeen other Montana counties and a number of counties from New Mexico and Arizona.
According to Butcher, this made those counties eligible to be regarded as cooperating agencies. Nevertheless, it appears that the BLM has not gotten in touch with the counties or given their land use plans any thought.
"Each of those counties has standing in this discussion because we filed the comments as a corporate," he stated.
Butcher predicted that there would be legal action taken at this moment.
According to Butcher, a proper analysis of the circumstances, such as an environmental impact statement, or EIS, would take into account both the natural and human environments.
"Our county spent time figuring out its economy, culture, and customs. Being an agricultural town, we value the agricultural economy in its whole as well as the tourism industry, mineral mining, and other facets of the economy. We as a county want our resources managed in a manner that emphasizes the real use of our properties, both public and private. Together, we have created this plan," he remarked. We want the BLM to think about this and coordinate their efforts accordingly. They must do what is known as a compatibility study to ascertain whether their proposed strategy will have an impact on both the natural and human environments. With a scheme like this, they will take federal land that is vital to our agricultural economy, customs, and culture and use it for one single use only, rather than several uses. That will not be beneficial. Agriculture production keeps our small towns afloat by creating an economy that funds things like emergency services, schools, and other necessities. Here we are, working the land to create new wealth. Butcher remarked, "If they haven't thought about this county plan, they have failed and it's an illegal decision.
He stated, "That's where local governments come in for our people and say,'stop, you need to review this.'"
FLMPA PROBLEM
The Bureau of Land Management Policy Act, which is in charge of the BLM, specifies that "Principal or major uses" encompasses and is not restricted to
- Domestic cattle grazing
- Development and exploitation of fish and wildlife
- Exploration and extraction of minerals, rights of way
- Recreation outside and the production of timber
Devlin added that the BLM will require legislative approval to include "restoration and mitigation" leases or "conservation" in its plan as the language expressly indicates that BLM uses are "limited" to those six uses.
"They can't just include a 'use,'" And this one would take precedence over all others," he remarked.
Similar to how the Antiquities Act has been applied, Devlin is concerned about the designation and management of ACECs and thinks that this rule change is an attempt to remove additional land from production.
A SECTION OF THE AGENDA 30X30?
Devlin and Butcher concur that the ultimate objective of the BLM suggested plan is likely to be the advancement of the natural asset class securities scheme, and that it is an attempt to carry out President Biden's 30x30 proposal.
The notion to establish a new tradeable asset class called "natural asset companies," which would have permitted investments in land, water, and air management, was recently rescinded by the New York Stock Exchange, but it is still on the table. This was probably suggested as a choice for businesses trying to project a more "green" image.
The idea has not vanished, even if the NYSE will not be making investments in Natural Asset Companies at this time. Butcher is concerned that the BLM mitigation and restoration leases are just one component of the plan.
How they intend to use it is unclear. Butcher notes that one possible outcome is that China purchases the rights to national parks or conservation easements.
All of this is eventually a part of the 30x30 plan, but for that to happen, they need a framework, such as the ability to lease BLM or other federal land for the 'conservation' reason, which means taking it out of production. Additionally, doing so removes it from its six guiding purposes.
MANY USE ISSUES
Concerns over the BLM's proposal were raised by the House Committee on Natural Resources, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Governor Mark Gordon of Wyoming.
"The finalized rule would change standards regarding multiple use decisions and broadly permit the BLM to lease lands under new, imprecisely defined restoration and mitigation leases." These mitigation and restoration leases, often known as conservation leases, may prohibit present and future BLM permit holders from accessing federal land. Other uses, such grazing, energy production, mining, or recreational activities, would not be permitted and would be permanently banned from those properties even after a conservation lease expires if the government deems they are incompatible with a lease. The House Committee on Natural Resources stated in a statement that "this would effectively lock up those lands from multiple use, including potential historic uses of the land."
The "Conservation and Landscape Health" rule reorganizes agency priorities by placing a recently created use on par with past uses that Congress had authorized. Additionally, the law overemphasizes the use of restrictive Areas of Critical Environmental Concern designations, which have harmed the quality of land and water in the West. According to a news release from NCBA, the outcome is a framework that gives the BLM greater control over how land is managed, more conflict on the landscape, and more challenges in carrying out the agency's purpose and providing programs to stakeholders throughout the West.
Public Lands Council President Mark Roeber, a Colorado rancher and federal grazing permittee, stated, "Our priority continues to be defending grazing across the West, and despite our repeated warnings to the BLM, the agency is forging ahead with a rule that threatens their ability to make sure even the most basic of functions can be delivered in a timely way." As we've seen thus far, there is a rule that makes participating in conversations on sage grouse and other topics far more difficult. The devil is in the details. The timing of this rule increases ambiguity and liability from radicals who merely want to push livestock farmers off of functioning landscapes, disenfranchising permittees who are trying to be good partners and engage in other conservation activities.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) made a false attempt to change public image of the regulation by renaming it the 'Public Lands regulation,' as opposed to its previous name, the 'Conservation and Landscape Health Rule,' or by referring to conservation leases as'mitigation' or'restoration' leases. Governor Gordon of Wyoming stated, "It totally ignores the public's rejection of the administration's attempts to shove the '30×30' plan down our throats.
"D.C. bureaucrats believe that D.C. is the source of all power. It is our responsibility to remind them that the people hold the power. Butcher stated, "If you are going to make judgments on federal lands in Montana, you must work with the local communities who have a say in how these plans are implemented.
