On Thursday, June 15, the Bureau of Land Management extended the public comment period for the new proposed rule, prompted by significant opposition from congressional Republicans. Six western governors likewise opposed the rule, writing that it was a “solution in search of a problem” in the vast protected federal lands of the western United States.
The deadline for public comment is now July 5, pushed forward 15 days from June 20.
“The proposed Public Lands Rule is essential to our work, to ensuring we can respond to changes on the landscape,” said BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning in a statement. “We appreciate the useful public input we’ve already received through five public meetings and the first 75 days of the comment period. This extension will allow us to continue to work with the public to make sure that the final rule is durable and effective.”
Opposition to the Proposed Rule
Most opposition to the proposed rule is due to its treatment of the multiple-use mandate in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). “Uses” of public lands under the rule would include conservation — which will often mean nonuse of the land.
Chris Stewart’s staff counsel, Celeste Maloy, along with many Republican congressmen, governors and public, was frustrated that the rule would fundamentally change FLPMA. “We’re doing all we can [to prevent this],” she said, “but they need to see an overwhelming negative response to this or it’s going to keep coming back.”
As of Tuesday, more than 137,000 comments have been submitted to BLM, according to Regulations.gov.
The response has been negative among many Republican leaders, but there have been concerns that it may not be enough. Even the extra 15 days extended comment period does not give interested parties much time to share their voice on this issue.
“While we appreciate the additional 15 days, it seems unlikely that two extra weeks over a holiday will give BLM time to facilitate the kind of dialogue needed to address the mountain of concerns that have already been expressed on the rule,” said Kaitlynn Glover, Public Land Council’s executive director.
Western Governors Ask for a Restart
The governors of Utah, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota and Wyoming are also highly opposed to this proposed rule, and would rather see it torn down and started anew. In a letter to U.S. Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland on Wednesday, they wrote their disapproval of multiple pieces of the proposal that violated the FLPMA.
According to the governors, the new proposed rule would violate NEPA regulations and existing conservation on BLM lands. “In short, the Proposed Rule seems to be a solution in search of a problem when so much BLM land in the western United States is already under strict Federal protection,” they wrote.
In addition, they felt that the proposed rule had excluded the state and local governments from making decisions on “conservation leases,” in favor of individuals and advocacy groups. And some of the wording in the rule was very problematic for the continuation of responsible uses of the land. For example, “The Proposed Rule’s proposed restrictions on ‘intact landscapes’ could ultimately punish westerners for being good stewards of the land,” they wrote.
In conclusion the governors urged “the BLM to set aside the Proposed Rule in favor of a new, collaborative process with states, local governments, and stakeholders coming to the table.”
You can read more about the rule and submit your comments on Regulations.gov until July 5.
– The Byway
Feature image caption: A sign indicates the end of the public lands border in Garfield County, Utah. Many public lands leases in Garfield are used for grazing local cows. The BLM’s new proposed rule could jeopardize that contract. Courtesy KUER.