The BLM's Public Lands Rule and "Periodic Adjustments in Use to Conform to Changing Needs and Conditions" Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

Authors

Jamie Pleune, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of UtahFollow

Abstract

On May 9, 2024, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) finalized new regulations, cumulatively referred to as the “Public Lands Rule.” According to the preamble for the rule, the purpose of the regulations is “to advance the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield mission by prioritizing the health and resilience of ecosystems across public lands.” When making land management decisions, the definition of multiple use requires the BLM to take into account “the long-term needs of future generations.” Those resource needs include “recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values.” Despite this directive, BLM’s practice over the last fifty years prioritized extractive uses, often to the detriment of other land values listed in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). This imbalance, combined with other ecological stresses, has caused widespread degradation of public lands. Degraded landscapes cannot fulfill FLPMA’s mandate to ensure a sustained yield of natural resource values like healthy rangelands, productive forests, abundant fish and wildlife, and functioning watersheds. Opponents argue that the Public Lands Rule is inconsistent with FLPMA and will “lock up” federal lands. This article tests both of those critiques. It concludes that conservation is woven throughout BLM’s public land management duties, particularly the maintenance of ecosystem functions like fish and wildlife habitat, watershed functionality, productive soil, healthy rangelands, and productive forests. Moreover, subsequently enacted statutes and appropriations confirmed Congressional understanding that conservation of landscape health, including resilient and functional ecosystems, is an inherent part of BLM’s land management duties under the principles of multiple use. Turning to the concern that the conservation is a “non-use” that will “lock up” federal land, the last section of this article demonstrates the opposite. Conservation is an economically valuable use of land that is visible in its market value. Additionally, conservation can facilitate other uses by balancing the potential adverse impacts of a project and potentially easing compliance with regulatory standards. As required by FLPMA, BLM’s Public Lands Rule offers appropriate “periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions” on public lands.

Recommended Citation

Jamie Pleune, The BLM’s Public Lands Rule and “Periodic Adjustments in Use to Conform to Changing Needs and Conditions” under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 42 Pace Env’t L. Rev 101 (2024).