The U.S. Department of the Interior has proposed rescinding the Bureau of Land Management’s 2024 Public Lands Rule, also known as the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. The move, announced under Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, aims to restore what the administration describes as a “balanced, multiple‑use” approach to managing public lands—reinforcing energy development, grazing, timber, and recreation, while reducing what is seen by supporters as restrictive environmental regulation.

What the Public Lands Rule Did

The 2024 rule elevated conservation—defined as protection, restoration, and health of landscapes—to be an official use of public lands, on par with traditional uses like grazing, energy production, mining, timber harvest, and recreation. The rule introduced several new tools and standards:

• It required the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to assess the health of all approximately 245 million acres it oversees, using land health standards. Before the rule, those standards were only used over lands managed for livestock grazing (about 155 million acres).
  
  
• It created “restoration leases,” allowing third parties to lease lands for restoration work where existing uses permit.
  
  
• It placed greater emphasis on science and data in planning, and required more landscape‐scale planning for intact ecosystems, degraded lands, and identifying where conservation or restoration makes most sense.

Supporters of the rule argued that it responded to increasing threats from climate change, habitat loss, wildfire risk, and degraded ecosystems. For instance:

• Only about 25% of the floodplain acres managed by BLM were found to be “healthy, active, and connected” to rivers/streams.
  
  
• The BLM also finds that roughly 20% of the land it manages fails to meet its own land health standards.

Public support was strong: a comment‐period analysis found that 92% of public comments encouraged adopting the Public Lands Rule as written or strengthening its conservation measures. Only about 4.5% asked for withdrawal or weakening. 

According to the Interior Department's announcement:

• The 2024 rule is viewed as exceeding statutory authority by putting “conservation or no‑use” ahead of other multiple uses.
  
  
• The rule is claimed to create regulatory uncertainty, risk of litigation, delays in permitting, and restricted access for grazing, development, and recreation. 
  
  
• The administration argues local communities, states, tribes, and industries whose livelihoods depend on public lands were sidelined under the rule, and that rescinding it will restore their voices.

From the date of publication in the Federal Register, the proposed rescission opens a 60‑day public comment period. 

The Other Side of the Coin: Conservation Advocates Push Back

While proponents of rescission stress economic access and flexibility, conservationists, scientists, and outdoor recreation stakeholders warn that rolling back the rule could threaten long‑term land health, biodiversity, recreation economies, and climate resilience. 

Key arguments include:

1. Ecosystem Degradation and Fire Risk: Supporters of the rule note that many BLM lands are under pressure from climate change, drought, invasive species, and wildfire. For example, about 1.3 million acres of sagebrush habitat are degraded each year, with nearly three‑quarters of the threats to that biome tied to climate change and habitat fragmentation.
   
   
2. Public Use and Recreation: BLM lands saw a 38% increase in visitation from 2012 to 2022. Conservation advocates argue that healthy landscapes are crucial to support recreation, from hiking and fishing to camping, which in turn supports rural economies.
   
   
3. Legal Requirement and Public Opinion: The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 includes conservation among the uses of public lands (including wildlife habitat, watershed protection, scenic and recreation values). And as noted above, 92% of comments during the rulemaking process supported the Public Lands Rule or strengthening its conservation measures. 
   
   
4. Long‑Term Costs vs Short‑Term Gains: Conservationists warn that allowing more extraction or unrestricted grazing without stronger landscape health requirements can lead to degradation that increases the costs of restoration, flood mitigation, water quality, wildfire suppression, and loss of biodiversity—expenses borne by governments and communities. (While precise dollar amounts are more difficult to estimate in many cases, some studies suggest large public value in prevented degradation.)

What's at Stake

• Economic livelihoods vs. environmental health: Ranchers, energy companies, timber workers, and counties may gain from fewer regulations and greater certainty. On the other hand, outdoor tourism, recreation businesses, wildlife‑dependent sectors, and communities relying on clean water and healthy ecosystems may suffer if public lands degrade.
  
  
• Regulatory clarity vs. long‑term risk: Proponents of rescission argue that the rule introduced uncertainty; opponents counter that clear science‑based standards are also certainty in terms of knowing what land health looks like and what is required.
  
  
• Short‑term benefits vs. long‑term sustainability: Removing restrictions may boost development or resource extraction in the near term; but conservationists caution that degraded lands may be harder and more costly to restore, and may lose certain ecological functions permanently.

Depending on the feedback, the Interior could finalize the rescission as proposed, modify it, or abandon it. Given the strong public support originally for the Public Lands Rule, and the legal and scientific data backing conservation concerns, the outcome may shape public lands policy for years to come.

Bottom line: The debate centers on how best to balance historic uses of public lands—grazing, mining, timber, energy production, recreation—with conservation imperatives in an era of climate change and ecological stress. Rescinding the Public Lands Rule signals a pivot toward prioritizing development. Whether that pivot stabilizes or undermines ecosystem health, local economies, and public values remains to be seen.