The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has issued a final rule fully rescinding the Biden administration’s Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, commonly referred to as the Public Lands Rule, restoring regulations the agency says better align with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s multiple-use mandate.
BLM stated the action “restores balance to federal land management under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) by reaffirming the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, ensuring conservation does not restrict productive use of the public lands, and reducing regulatory burdens that impede efficient decision-making.”
The final rule, published May 12 in the Federal Register, takes effect June 11. According to the BLM, the repeal removes regulations the agency determined added “unnecessary complexity” and created operational constraints on grazing, energy development, mining and other productive uses of public lands.
The rule rescinds amendments that established new conservation leasing mechanisms, revised Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) regulations and expanded Land Health Standards requirements.
The BLM stated the 2024 rule treated conservation as a separate use of public lands rather than part of the agency’s broader responsibility under FLPMA to manage roughly 245 million acres for multiple uses and sustained yield.
A key part of the repeal eliminates restoration and mitigation leasing provisions created under the 2024 rule, with BLM concluding FLPMA allows public lands to be used and developed by third parties, but not set aside primarily for conservation purposes.
The final rule also restores ACEC regulations to the framework used since 1983. According to the agency, the 2024 revisions introduced added complexity into land-use planning and allowed temporary management restrictions on nominated ACECs before the formal planning process was completed.
The agency also removed expanded Land Health Standards provisions from the 2024 rule, saying the requirements created rigid timelines and added procedural hurdles that complicated grazing and land management decisions.
Livestock groups welcome decision
Livestock organizations praised the repeal, arguing the 2024 rule threatened grazing access and would have increased regulatory burdens for ranchers operating on federal allotments.
“From Day One, public lands ranchers were clear with the Trump administration: we needed them to remove policies that illegally picked winners and losers in public land management, and we needed them to deliver on their commitment to bring important reforms to the agency’s 35-year-old grazing regulations,” said Public Lands Council (PLC) President Tim Canterbury.
Canterbury said the Public Lands Rule could have resulted in reduced grazing opportunities “under the guise of ‘conservation’ principles,” despite what he described as the demonstrated benefits of managed grazing on western landscapes.
The organization said it has opposed the Public Lands Rule since it was finalized in 2024 through congressional resolutions, legal challenges and ongoing advocacy efforts. PLC argued the rule could have reduced livestock grazing on public lands while increasing wildfire risks by limiting active rangeland management.
The group said it has pushed for greater flexibility in grazing policy since the 2020 scoping process, contending outdated regulations prevent land managers and producers from fully responding to changing land, livestock and multiple-use needs. According to PLC, updated regulations will strengthen wildfire mitigation, food and fiber production, biodiversity protection and overall public land management.
The Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA) also welcomed the final rule rescinding the Public Lands Rule.
According to MSGA, the 2024 rule improperly placed “equal valuation of non-use of lands in the name of conservation” alongside traditional multiple uses such as grazing and mineral development. The organization also argued the BLM failed to adequately address concerns raised by public land users during the original rulemaking process.
Conservation groups criticize
Conservation organizations sharply criticized the repeal of the Public Lands Rule.
According to statements from the groups, the proposed grazing changes would weaken oversight of public lands across the West while reducing public participation in grazing decisions. They argued the changes would prioritize extractive grazing uses, weaken environmental review and reduce protections for wildlife habitat, watersheds and public land health.
“It’s galling that the agency is claiming that among the reasons for revising the regulations is that grazing permittees have been ‘shouldering a disproportionate share of the burden’ in ensuring achievement of rangeland health,” said Chris Krupp, public lands attorney for WildEarth Guardians.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility also opposed the proposal, citing data showing that millions of BLM grazing acres fail to meet land health standards, with livestock grazing identified as a major contributing factor.
BLM stated existing land management authorities and planning processes remain sufficient to address conservation objectives without the framework established under the 2024 Public Lands Rule. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
