In the time honored Democratic tradition of “Depends what your definition of ‘is’ is,” the Bureau of Land management is proposing to restructure what the definition of “use” is. The BLM’s proposed rule for “Conservation and Landscape Health,” released for public comment on April 3d, would like to define “conservation” as a “use” within the strictures of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)

Well…huh.

What’s that all about? Depends on whose slant you read. This is from a Nevada piece on environmentalists/conservationists v ranchers

A proposed rule by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) looking to put conservation on equal footing with other public land uses — such as oil and gas leases, solar energy development, grazing and mining — represents a potentially seismic shift in how millions of acres across Nevada are managed.

…Established in 1946, the BLM manages 245 million acres of public land nationally, with 48 million of those acres in Nevada. Across the West, 155 million acres of BLM land are permitted for grazing and another 24 million are permitted for oil and gas, according to Nada Wolff Culver, BLM’s deputy director for policy and programs. In Nevada alone, 43 million acres are permitted for grazing, the most in the nation.

…According to environmental advocates, the rule will help protect Nevada’s landscape as a push to transition to renewable energy continues across the state and nation. Nevada is at the forefront of international lithium exploration needed for green energy development, and the state is also pushing to transition to 50 percent renewable energy by 2030, putting pressure on the BLM to analyze an endless stream of permits for solar, geothermal and other projects.

…But many of Nevada’s ranchers and agricultural producers who lease land from the BLM for grazing have been burned by bureaucratic red tape too many times to trust the rule will be anything but another headache, said Jon Griggs, manager of Maggie Creek Ranch near Elko and president of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association.

…“The closer you work with the Bureau of Land Management, the more concerned (with the proposed rule) you are,” Griggs said.

The “rule” certainly has some fuzzy elements to it that really don’t make a lot of sense to me, but seem ripe for manipulation and not to universal benefit. As you can imagine with the bent of this administration, it seems to be favoring conservation groups enormously. As opposed to when Obama kept waving a magic wand, declaring this parcel or that parcel sacred ground, this lets the bureaucracy manipulate the outcome for favored groups. You know there’s mischief afoot when “Science™-based decision making” is supposed to be a net positive.

…BLM’s proposed rule on “Conservation and Landscape Health” strengthens protections for public lands by adding the term “conservation” as a new “use” within BLM’s Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). This act mandates the federal government’s ownership of public lands and allows BLM to protect the varied resources provided by said lands.

The new rule would promote the protection and restoration of public lands under the use of conservation. Conservation uses would also be equally prioritized alongside other uses, like recreation and scientific uses, according to the proposal. The restoration of degraded landscapes and the advancement of science-based decision-making would also be prioritized through the rule.

The Biden Admin's proposed Conservation and Landscape Rule puts virtually all 244 million acres of federal land into permanent "conservation" status i.e economically inactive.

These 244 million acres provide over $200 billion in economic activity in 11 western states.

— US Oil & Gas Association (@US_OGA) June 15, 2023

It also gives the federal government an outsized role in local land use. There’s a havey-cavey scheme of “conservation leases” available, along with designations for areas that aren’t already under government control to be nominated for such. It’s really a jumble.

…BLM’s proposed rule would also prioritize the designation and protection of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). According to the proposed rule, these are areas where special management attention is needed to protect their various environmental, historical or cultural benefits or to protect public health.

The proposed rule would strengthen the role ACECs play in land management and require authorized officials to identify areas that may be eligible for ACEC status, potentially bringing more lands under BLM protection.

However, the rule also allows BLM to implement protections for ACEC-nominated lands that haven’t received a formal designation, the governors contend, which would circumvent the ability for states, counties and the public to comment on whether the lands should be protected in the first place.

…The proposed rule would also institute a new tool, conservation leases, which would allow qualified individuals, tribal governments and environmental groups to support restoration activities, habitat improvements and mitigation actions on public lands for a period of up to 10 years.

Owners of the lease would be able to temporarily close public access to these lands for conservation purposes, but the leased lands would generally be open for public use and recreational activities.

These leases should not disturb state or tribal land use management processes or other existing rights, the proposed rule states, nor are they intended to inhibit other land uses, such as grazing or mining.

Well, you know the government is carefully crafting the lingo when they say “should not” instead of “WILL not,” and “nor INTENDED to inhibit” instead of “SHALL NOT inhibit.” That tells you right there they are meant to do both and ride roughshod over whatever grazing rights or mineral rights you had on the property.

Lefty leaning papers like the Gannett paper above have their noses out of joint that six of the big Western state governors have fired off a letter seeking a withdrawal of the proposal.

Gov. Kristi Noem and a handful of Republican governors are opposing a proposed rule from the Bureau of Land Management that would strengthen conservation protections for public lands in the U.S.

Ooo, Republicans so mean and hateses little deers, horsies, and gooses

The governors point out in the very first paragraph of their legislative footnote stacked message that the BLM was never meant to be the National Park Service focused on “preservation.” The entire point of the BLM’s existence is land MANAGEMENT for all uses.

And, again, the proposed rule would allow members of the public to nominate lands to be administered by the BLM under these ACEC protections, even though they weren’t in the system yet.

…The BLM’s Proposed Rule would flip the principle on its head, in direct violation of FLPMA. The Proposed Rule states that if ACEC nominations are received outside of the land use planning process, “interim management may be evaluated, considered, and implemented to protect relevant and important values until the BLM completes a planning process to determine whether to designate the area as an ACEC” (emphasis added).10 In short, the Proposed Rule would allow the BLM to start managing potential ACECs in their inventories as ACECs without going through the planning process and without any input from states, local government, or the public. This “interim management” would constitute a clear violation of FLPMA if it resulted in a “change of the management or use of public lands” prior to formal designation.11

Historically, ACEC designations have been used judiciously by the BLM in western states, with full consideration given to the concerns of states, local governments, and stakeholders. Existing ACECs are spread throughout western states and are limited to relatively small areas. If the Proposed Rule is adopted, we anticipate a tremendous expansion of lands managed with ACEC-level protections after being nominated by members of the public and placed under “interim management” outside of the formal ACEC designations process.

A government sanctioned, partisan land grab under the “conservation’ banner. There’s a million ways to take advantage of that.

And this administration is openly hostile to American energy. They’d love being able to shut it down via a back door that left their hands clean.

…Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the draft conservation rule is the creation of “conservation leasing.” Each BLM office would be required to identify lands in need of restoration work. Energy developers could then pay to lease those areas for restoration work as a condition of approval to develop other BLM lands, according to the agency. Conservation leases would be limited to a 10-year term. Other entities, such as conservation groups, could also opt to pay for a conservation lease.

Opponents, such as the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, see conservation leasing as a way to lock up BLM lands that would otherwise be available for development. Obermueller said it’s an attempt to bypass congressional authority to withhold certain federal lands from the multiple-use doctrine.

“The BLM is trying to do an end-around Congress and grant to itself the ability to shut off other uses,” Obermueller said.

“If conservation leasing doesn’t preclude [oil and gas activity], that’s something we’re absolutely willing to discuss. But that’s not how the rule is written.”

The Biden administration doesn’t care about rules unless they wrote them, and they certainly care even less about what Congress thinks.