THE BLM CONSERVATION RULE

BLM has proposed changing its most fundamental and widely influential regulations. The proposed rule for “Conservation and Landscape Health” (88 Fed. Reg. 19583, April 3, 2023) would change how BLM carries out its most basic legal responsibility: the Federal Land Management and Planning Act of 1976.

By changing the FLPMA rules, this changes everything BLM does. This is not about grazing only, nor about grazing permits directly. It may help or hinder WSF’s mission in several ways.

Fast and loud praise and condemnation followed the announcement. People with permits and approvals for uses of BLM generally oppose it. Those who use BLM lands as “casual use” such as hiking and biking generally support it. As a hunting organization, WSF has not yet taken a position because its effect on hunting, habitat and population management, and water developments is unclear.

The uncertainties stem from the meaning given to “conservation.”

The straightforward meaning of using nature without using it up or wearing it out seems lost. Now it seems to mean protection and restoration where no uses occur. A debate in which the key term means different things makes for the worst argument.

BLM says the purpose of the rule is to change course on providing multiple uses sustainably. BLM sees lands in bad shape, so the mission hasn’t worked. To put BLM lands back in shape, BLM proposes to restore and protect more and bigger areas.

To those opposing the rule, this means less of their favorite uses. To those in favor, more. At the heart of the disagreement is the same inner conflict any conservationist feels when imposing limits on oneself and extending oneself to give back. There’s always a temptation to take more and take a break in giving back. Conservation is both limits and actions to sustain use.

The odd thing about the BLM Conservation Rule is the idea that “conservation is a use on par with other uses under FLPMA”. Other uses are not part of conservation? Is conservation not the discipline applied to all uses that ensures they can continue? The rule calls itself conservation “in a broader sense” while limiting conservation to “protection and restoration actions”. Original conservation is the broader term and is the only way to BLM’s goal “to ensure that the nation’s public lands continue to provide minerals, energy, forage, timber, and recreational opportunities, as well as habitat, protected water supplies, and landscapes that resist and recover from drought, wildfire, and other disturbances.”

Even stranger, this oddity is the main reason BLM has proposed the rule. BLM says existing policy for conservation and ecosystem management does not apply conservation to all resources. This is strange because an ecosystem comprises all resources and uses –how is anything left out?

Toward the BLM’s meaning of conservation, the rule proposes three ways the agency will proceed.

First, for places BLM considers “intact”, it intends to designate more Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). These are places designated in Resource Management Plans “where special management attention is needed to protect important historical, cultural, and scenic values, or fish and wildlife or other natural resources.” ACEC’s already exist in both rule and policy and BLM proposes to consolidate existing policy in the regulations. As we vigilantly examine Wilderness and National Monuments for access for hunting and management, we will do so with ACECs.

For degraded places, BLM intends to offer “conservation leases” to bidders who will “restore public lands or provide mitigation for a particular action.” It’s unclear whether such leases would preclude uses such as hunting, water developments, or even grazing that helps in restoration. Each lease would start with a 10year term, extended if necessary to meet its objectives. The boundaries of a conservation lease could be anywhere. This is not an alternative for grazing allotments.

For all permitted uses of BLM lands, BLM will require land health assessments as currently required for grazing permits. These assessments will be required for every use of BLM lands. The obvious question here is, as Land Health Assessments have proven unaffordable for grazing leases, how will BLM afford these assessments for anything else? And will assessments for other uses further delay assessments for grazing leases?

The meaning of conservation and the meaning of rule changes will require more time to consider. There’s not likely much WSF can do about the evolving meaning of conservation, but we should try. There may not be much openness at BLM to consider (or even clarify) what the new rules mean for hunting, management, and water development —but we will certainly try to understand and influence that. WS