Rule2026-09386
Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rule
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 12, 2026
Effective
June 11, 2026
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentLand Management Bureau
Abstract
Through this final rule, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is fully rescinding the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, issued as a final rule on May 9, 2024. This action restores balance to federal land management under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield by prioritizing access, empowering local decision-making, and aligning the BLM's implementing regulations with statutory requirements and national energy policy.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25787-25796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09386]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Parts 1600 and 6100
[Docket Number: BLM-2025-0001; A2407-014-004-065516, #O2509-014-004-
125222; LLHQ21000]
RIN 1004-AF03
Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rule
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Through this final rule, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
is fully rescinding the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, issued
as a final rule on May 9, 2024. This action restores balance to federal
land management under the principles of multiple use and sustained
yield by prioritizing access, empowering local decision-making, and
aligning the BLM's implementing regulations with statutory requirements
and national energy policy.
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 11, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle W. Moorman, Chief, Division of
Regulatory Affairs and Directives, telephone: 202-527-2433, email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#117a7c7e7e637c707f512d7031796374772c" http: blm.gov">blm.gov</a>">kmoorman@<a href="http://blm.gov">blm.gov</a></a>. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Response to Public Comments
IV. Procedural Matters
I. Executive Summary
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is issuing this final rule to
fully rescind the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule (2024 Rule),
which amended 43 CFR part 1600 and established 43 CFR part 6100. This
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.
[[Page 25788]]
The 2024 Rule introduced unnecessary complexity and placed
operational constraints on the BLM's planning and permitting processes.
It also inappropriately elevated conservation as a discrete ``use'' of
the public lands, contrary to FLPMA's intent and statutory framework.
By rescinding the 2024 Rule, the BLM eliminates mechanisms--such as
restoration and mitigation leasing--that threatened to restrict
productive use of the public lands and introduced uncertainty and
unnecessary burdens in planning and permitting. Existing authorities
and tools remain sufficient to address conservation objectives without
imposing prescriptive mandates or rigid timelines on public land users
and the BLM itself. Repeal of the 2024 Rule will, therefore, improve
the BLM's management of the public lands by restoring the more
efficient processes in place prior to that Rule's promulgation and
removing any thumb on the scale in favor of conservation at the expense
of productive use and development of the public lands and their many
important resources.
This final rule restores the regulations that govern Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), 43 CFR 1610.7-2, to the
framework in place since 1983, ensuring ACEC designations remain site-
specific, based on appropriate relevance and importance criteria, and
integrated into land use planning decisions. The rule also eliminates
provisions that would allow third parties to obtain leases for
restoration or mitigation on public lands. Such leases are not
necessary for the BLM to achieve its conservation objectives through
its own affirmative land management and go beyond what the BLM may
legally grant under FLPMA, which only allows the BLM to grant third
parties authorization to ``use, occup[y], and develop[ ]'' the public
lands (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)). Additionally, the rule rescinds provisions
governing Land Health Standards (LHS), which imposed procedural burdens
and timing requirements that disrupted established processes. The BLM
will continue to apply LHS under existing grazing regulations and may
consider future refinements to that framework through separate
rulemaking.
In preparing this final rule, the BLM has reviewed, evaluated, and
responded to substantive comments received during the public comment
period. The BLM received 138,161 comment letter submissions, including
129,029 duplicative form letter submissions and 9,132 unique
submissions. Commenters expressed both support for and opposition to
rescinding the 2024 Rule. Many of the public comments supported the
BLM's proposal and provided their views as to how the 2024 Rule was
overly restrictive, economically harmful, and inconsistent with FLPMA.
The BLM generally agrees with these comments and finds that they
support the decision in this final rule to make no changes relative to
the proposed rule.
Many other comments, meanwhile, opposed rescission on the theory
that the 2024 Rule could help the BLM to address conservation,
ecosystem protection, impacts of permitted activities, and tribal
engagement. These opponents were concerned that rescission of the 2024
Rule might reduce protections for cultural, biological, and
recreational resources, and suggested the rescission could impact the
BLM's ability to proactively reduce risks that the comments associated
with climate change, such as catastrophic wildfire and flooding events.
In addition to expressing views about the problems with or value of
the 2024 Rule overall, many comments also opined on the value of
rescinding particular provisions. With respect to the 2024 Rule's ACEC
regulations, many commenters saw them as regulatory overreach and
expressed concern that provisions for temporary management and the
presumption in favor of designation, among other aspects of the 2024
Rule, would lead the BLM to make overly broad ACEC designations that
would incidentally--or even intentionally--crowd out productive uses of
the public lands. Opponents of the proposed rule, meanwhile, cast the
ACEC provisions as necessary updates to improve designation processes.
The proposal to eliminate the 2024 Rule's restoration and
mitigation leasing provisions drew mixed reactions as well. Supporters
of the proposal to rescind pointed out that the 2024 Rule lacked
clarity, was built on a faulty understanding of the scope of the BLM's
leasing authority under FLPMA, and could preclude other, productive
land uses. Opponents of rescission highlighted potential benefits the
leases could have with respect to proactive conservation and climate
resilience.
Those who supported rescission noted that the 2024 Rule's land
health provisions would lead to delays and place a heavy burden on BLM
staff for any and all management actions the Bureau might take.
Opponents of rescission argued that those provisions and the associated
monitoring requirements should be retained on the theory that they
promote transparency and responsible land management. More detailed
responses to representative substantive comments are provided in
section III of this preamble.
After consideration of the substantive comments, the BLM finds that
full rescission of the 2024 Rule aligns the BLM's regulations with
statutory requirements and national energy policy, avoids unnecessary
litigation risk, and supports efficient, transparent management of
public lands. This deregulatory action does not alter the BLM's
authority under FLPMA to take management actions to conserve public
lands and resources, as appropriate. The BLM will continue to
responsibly manage under principles of multiple use and sustained yield
while using existing tools to provide for resource conservation, as
appropriate, notwithstanding the rescission of the 2024 Rule effected
by this final rule.
II. Background
The BLM manages approximately 245 million acres of public lands,
roughly one-tenth of the land area of the United States, primarily
under FLPMA, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). FLPMA requires that,
unless ``public land has been dedicated to specific uses according to
any other provisions of law,'' the Secretary, through the BLM, must
manage the ``use, occupancy, and development'' of the public lands
under principles of multiple use and sustained yield, in accordance
with applicable land use plans, and to serve present and future
generations (43 U.S.C. 1732(a)). ``Multiple use'' refers to balancing
varied uses, including recreation, range, timber, mineral development,
and use of other natural scenic, scientific, and historical values.
``Sustained yield'' refers to managing public lands and resources in
perpetuity to achieve a high-level annual or regular periodic output of
the various renewable resources of the public lands, consistent with
multiple use.\1\ In addition, FLPMA
[[Page 25789]]
directs the BLM to take actions necessary to prevent unnecessary or
undue degradation of the lands (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)). FLPMA provides the
BLM with the authority and direction to ensure public lands and other
resources and values are managed ``to sustain the health, diversity,
and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present
and future generations'' (<a href="http://blm.gov">blm.gov</a>; see also 43 U.S.C. 1702(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ More specifically, multiple use ``means the management of
the public lands and their various resource values so that they are
utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and
future needs of the American people; making the most judicious use
of the land for some or all of these resources or related services
over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic
adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the
use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination
of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the
long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable
resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber,
minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic,
scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated
management of the various resources without permanent impairment of
the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with
consideration being given to the relative values of the resources
and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the
greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.'' 43 U.S.C.
1702(c). Sustained yield ``means the achievement and maintenance in
perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the
various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with
multiple use.'' Id. Sec. 1702(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2024, the BLM promulgated the Conservation and Landscape Health
Rule, which was codified in amendments to 43 CFR part 1600 and the
newly created 43 CFR part 6100 (89 FR 40308 (May 9, 2024) (hereinafter,
2024 Rule)).\2\ The 2024 Rule purported to establish a ``policy for the
BLM to build and maintain the resilience of ecosystems on public
lands.'' (89 FR 40308). The BLM has determined, however, based on a
review of the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, and after
consideration of public comments received in response to the proposed
rescission of the rule, that the 2024 Rule is unnecessary to achieve
that goal and is, in fact, harmful to the BLM's efforts to efficiently
manage the public lands under applicable law. The BLM has determined
through its review that the 2024 Rule vested too much discretion in
individual authorizing officers to preclude productive uses of the
public lands (e.g., grazing, mining, and energy development) as
incompatible with the goals of conservation that were promoted in the
2024 Rule. Among other things, the 2024 Rule identified conservation as
a permissible third-party use of the public lands that could be
authorized through leases issued under FLPMA. This is contrary to the
BLM's mandate and statutory authority. It is not appropriate, or
logical, to treat conservation as a ``use'' under FLPMA. Under a more
appropriate interpretation and implementation of FLPMA's mandate, the
BLM works to responsibly conserve resources to ensure balanced
development while also achieving long-term productivity of those
resources, in all cases consistent with the principles of multiple use
and sustained yield. This may be achieved through land management
efforts, including in partnership with other entities, but it does not
follow that FLPMA's leasing authority allows for conservation (i.e.,
mitigation and restoration) as a ``use.'' By rescinding the regulations
promulgated by the 2024 Rule across 43 CFR parts 1600 and 6100, the BLM
will avoid these unnecessary burdens to decision-making and management
of public lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Although formally titled the Conservation and Landscape
Health Rule, most discourse surrounding the 2024 Rule refers to it
colloquially as the Public Lands Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rescission of the 2024 Rule will restore the regulations
governing ACECs at 43 CFR 1610.7-2 to those that the BLM had been
following for ACEC designation and management since 1983. That prior
framework provides a clear, legally sound process for identifying and
managing ACECs through land use planning, consistent with FLPMA. The
restored regulations ensure that ACEC designations remain site-specific
and are based on relevant criteria. By rescinding the provisions
adopted in 2024, the BLM is removing ACEC procedures that introduced
complexity and uncertainty into the planning process, including by
allowing for interim management of nominated areas even before that
planning process can be completed.
Rescission of the 2024 Rule also eliminates burdensome requirements
that the BLM consider certain values (e.g., ``intact landscapes'') in
planning and document a justification for implementation-level
decisions that would have potential impacts to those values. The BLM
should, and already does, consider and account for the full range of
issues and values when engaged in the planning process and for the
impacts of permitting authorized land uses and other implementation-
level management decisions. To provide by rule additional requirements
to do so risked incentivizing strategic litigation challenging the
BLM's planning and permitting decisions that could hamper the
implementation of those decisions.
As noted above, the repeal of the restoration and mitigation
leasing provisions at 43 CFR 6102.4 and 6102.4.1 will prevent the
prioritization of conservation activities that could exclude other,
productive uses. The BLM has the tools, information, and processes
necessary to manage the public lands without inviting third parties to
seek land use authorizations for the conservation activities
traditionally performed by the Bureau.
Finally, the provisions of the 2024 Rule governing the development
and implementation of LHS imposed rigid timelines and procedural
requirements that disrupt established planning processes and create
administrative burdens, interfering with efficient land management. The
preexisting regulatory framework for LHS, which appears in the grazing
regulations, provides sufficient authority to address land health
concerns while allowing flexibility to apply standards in other
contexts without imposing prescriptive mandates. Moreover, the BLM may
consider future refinements to its approach to LHS through a separate
rulemaking.
For those reasons, and the reasons discussed in more detail below
and in the preamble to the proposed rule (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section in Federal Register publication [90 FR 43990] dated September
11, 2025), the BLM is promulgating this final rule to fully rescind all
aspects of the 2024 Rule. In preparing this final rule, the BLM has
reviewed, evaluated, and provided responses to substantive comments
received in response to the proposed rule during the public comment
period. A summary overview of public comments and the agency's
responses thereto follows.
III. Response to Public Comments
On September 11, 2025, the BLM published a notice in the Federal
Register proposing to rescind the 2024 Rule and initiating a 60-day
public comment period on that proposed rule. The public comment period
ended on November 10, 2025. During this comment period, the BLM
received 138,161 comment letter submissions, including 129,029
duplicative form letter submissions and 9,132 unique submissions.
Comments of general support or opposition to the proposed rescission of
the 2024 Rule that did not elaborate on specific reasoning for support
or opposition, and comments addressing topics outside the scope of the
2024 Rule and elements of the proposed rescission were deemed non-
substantive. The BLM analyzed and is responding to those comments that
provided new information, identified potential errors, requested
clarifications, or offered specific suggestions and rationale
applicable to the proposed rescission. A general synopsis of those
comments is provided below, followed by detailed summaries of, and
responses to, comments addressing the proposed rescission of the 2024
Rule's provisions pertaining to ACECs, restoration and mitigation
leasing, LHS, and monitoring, as well as comments that discussed
economic considerations and the statutory authorities relevant to
rescission of the 2024 Rule.
Among the many comments, commenters indicated both support for and
opposition to rescinding the 2024 Rule. Those supporting rescission
viewed the 2024 Rule as overly restrictive and harmful to economic
[[Page 25790]]
interests, while those opposed to rescission took the position that the
2024 Rule was important for conservation, ecosystem protection, and
tribal involvement.
Those who supported rescission pointed to the 2024 Rule's many
procedural requirements, noting that such requirements slow down land
management decision-making on the front end and introduce litigation
risk on the back end. Supporters of rescission also expressed concerns
about provisions of the 2024 Rule, including the ACEC and leasing
provisions, that could be used to prioritize conservation above other,
productive uses of the public lands, contrary to the direction in FLPMA
generally to manage those lands under principles of multiple use and
sustained yield.
Opponents of rescission, meanwhile, highlighted risks to tribal,
historic, cultural, biological, recreational, water, and air resources,
as well as increased wildfire threats and climate impacts, suggesting
that rescission of the 2024 Rule could amount to removal of protections
for these resources.
Comments specific to the ACEC provisions reflected these
contrasting views. Comments that supported the proposed rescission
noted that the 2024 ACEC provisions amounted to unnecessary regulatory
overreach and argued, in particular, that the temporary management
provisions and presumption in favor of designation would result in an
increase in the number and geographic scope of ACEC designations and
other actions to preclude productive use of the public lands, going far
beyond what Congress intended in FLPMA's ACEC provisions. Opponents of
rescission viewed the 2024 ACEC regulations as necessary updates to
address issues with the ACEC designation process, including with
respect to timing, public comment periods, temporary management, and
impacts on tribal and cultural interests.
The 2024 Rule's restoration and mitigation leasing mechanisms
received similarly mixed feedback. Many commenters criticized the 2024
Rule's leasing provisions' lack of clarity, questioned their statutory
basis, and raised concerns about their potential to restrict other land
uses. Opponents of rescission emphasized their view that the leasing
provisions carried the potential to benefit proactive conservation,
increase climate resilience, and leverage collaborative restoration
efforts. Some commenters offered suggestions for amending, rather than
wholly rescinding, the leasing provisions.
Commenters who favored rescission noted that the 2024 Rule's land
health provisions introduced significant management burdens to all BLM
decision-making processes and, as such, were likely to cause delays and
increase litigation risk. Opponents of rescission, meanwhile, expressed
support for the rule's LHS and monitoring requirements, arguing for
their potential to promote ecosystem resilience and transparency.
Commenters also discussed the economic effects of the 2024 Rule and
its impacts on local governments, small businesses, and rural
economies, raising concerns, in support of the BLM's proposal to
rescind the rule, about revenue losses from reductions in grazing and
mineral development and impacts on recreation and tourism that the 2024
Rule would likely cause. Comments also proffered views on the benefits
of rescission for economic growth and regulatory certainty. Opponents
of rescission, meanwhile, suggested potential economic advantages could
flow from maintaining the 2024 Rule by supporting recreation,
restoration economies, and ecosystem services.
Commenters debated the rule's consistency, both legally and as a
matter of policy, with FLPMA and other applicable laws, regulations,
and executive orders. Some viewed the 2024 Rule as lawful (and
necessary), while others expressed concerns, similar to the concerns
that the BLM expressed in its preamble to the proposed rule to rescind
the 2024 Rule, that the 2024 Rule was inconsistent with the BLM's
statutory authority. Additional detail on the nature and context of
these comments, and the BLM's responses to them, is provided below.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
The BLM received numerous comments responding to the BLM's proposal
to restore the ACEC regulations at 43 CFR 1610.7-2 to the form they
took prior to promulgation of the 2024 Rule. With the proposed rule,
the BLM solicited comments as to whether those legacy ACEC regulations
should be restored verbatim, as proposed, or revised to allow for more
efficient and flexible management of ACECs as part of managing the
public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield.
After reviewing the public comments received on the proposed rule, the
BLM here in the final rule is restoring the ACEC regulations to their
prior form under which the BLM had, until just recently, managed ACEC
designations since 1983.
The BLM received comments against the verbatim reinstatement of the
legacy ACEC regulations. Many of these comments raised concerns that
the reinstatement of a 60-day comment period for ACECs would
reintroduce burdensome steps to the planning process. Commenters noted
that these public comment periods often hinder the BLM's ability to
meet required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) deadlines and
that they find these periods inefficient and a hindrance to
streamlining the designation and de-designation process. Other comments
that opposed reinstatement of the legacy regulations suggested that
there were flaws in the ACEC regulations that predated the 2024 Rule.
Commenters discussed the importance of using ACEC designations to aid
in the protection of ecologically, culturally, and scientifically
significant landscapes, consistent with the direction in FLPMA to
prioritize such designation, while still safeguarding access to and
development of public lands.
The BLM received comments opposing the proposed rule and supporting
retention of, or further revisions to, the version of the ACEC
regulations promulgated by the 2024 Rule. These commenters argued that
the existing version or appropriate further revisions to it would
provide greater clarity on ACEC designation and management than would
the 1983 version of the regulations and would, thereby, increase
efficiency. Commenters noted the benefit that comes from giving
regulatory clarity to FLPMA's requirement that special management
attention be required to protect and prevent irreparable damage before
the BLM may designate an ACEC. Commenters suggested that these measures
are lawful, necessary, and consistent with FLPMA's multiple-use and
sustained-yield principles, while they also ensure public participation
and transparency. Other comments noted the benefit of having an
explicit regulation to address ACEC boundaries such as is included in
the 2024 Rule but suggested different language to ensure that ACEC
designations are narrowly tailored to small, well-defined areas while
also allowing compatible uses to continue.
The BLM also received comments supporting the BLM's proposal to
reinstate the legacy ACEC regulations verbatim. Many commenters raised
concerns that the 2024 Rule represented regulatory overreach and set
designation procedures contrary to law. For example, commenters
suggested that the inclusion of a ``presumption'' in favor of
[[Page 25791]]
designation and the procedures for temporary management for nominated
ACECs, without first undergoing planning, are not grounded in FLPMA's
provision for designation of ACECs through the land use planning
process. Commenters further asserted that the 2024 Rule distorts the
original intent of ACEC designations, which are meant to be site-
specific and based on rigorous criteria for relevance, importance, and
the need for special management and expressed concern that the
expansion of ACEC regulations under the 2024 Rule could allow for
large-scale designations that preclude management for other uses
without sufficient justification or procedural protections. Similarly,
comments that supported rescission argued that restricting a State
Director's discretion to remove an ACEC designation was inappropriate,
considering that FLPMA contains no such restriction. Commenters
indicated that the 2024 Rule made it more difficult to remove an ACEC
designation, even when designation is no longer justified. These
commenters indicated that, based on these many concerns, the 2024 ACEC
provisions would likely restrict productive use of public lands.
After reviewing public comments, the BLM is, as part of this
deregulatory effort, restoring the ACEC regulations to the text that
has guided the BLM's management of ACECs since 1983. Commenters
identified concerns with the regulations promulgated by the 2024 Rule,
particularly those provisions that commenters interpreted to create a
presumption in favor of designation and a higher bar for de-designation
and that authorized the BLM to impose restrictions in the form of
``temporary management.'' At the same time these and other commenters
also raised concerns about returning to the regulatory language
previously in place, including concerns about the reimposition of
redundant notice provisions and the old regulations' silence on setting
ACEC boundaries. Ultimately, those concerns are outweighed by the
concerns around the 2024 Rule.
While some of the concerns associated with the 2024 Rule might have
been addressed through further revisions, rather than a return to the
pre-2024 regulations, the BLM has determined that reestablishing those
older regulations verbatim is preferable at this stage. The BLM is best
positioned to navigate gaps in the framework or concerns about its
operation in the context of regulations with which it is familiar from
decades of implementation. Nevertheless, although the BLM is restoring
the ACEC regulations verbatim to their prior form with this final rule,
the BLM is giving further consideration to those comments that
indicated support for further refinement of the ACEC regulations as
part of broader initiatives underway to reduce burdensome regulations
and barriers to efficient management of public lands. The BLM may, in a
separate process, pursue further rulemaking to address the ACEC
regulations in a manner that could address some of the issues raised.
Restoration and Mitigation Leasing
Many comments supported the proposal to rescind the restoration and
mitigation leasing provisions contained in the 2024 Rule. Some
commenters warned that the leasing provisions could create a market-
based system for monetizing conservation outcomes, allowing well-funded
entities to obtain quasi-exclusive control of public lands and, as a
result, encourage speculative behavior.
Commenters also argued that the restoration and mitigation leasing
provisions of the 2024 Rule were unnecessary because the BLM already
has effective mitigation tools and longstanding partnerships capable of
supporting landscape-scale conservation efforts. They expressed concern
that the leases, then, were duplicative, confusing, and potentially
disruptive to existing conservation efforts and those long-standing
partnerships in that they could create inequities between landscape-
scale and site-specific conservation efforts. Several commenters said
the 2024 Rule's leasing framework lacked transparency and clarity,
particularly with respect to the definition, allocation, and
implementation of mitigation credits associated with the mitigation
leases for which the 2024 Rule provided. Commenters also raised
concerns that restoration and mitigation leases could encourage passive
management, a particular concern in arid ecosystems where active
stewardship is needed to control wildfire risk, invasive species
spread, and habitat decline. These commenters felt that the leasing
framework did not provide adequate detail to address and adapt to these
potential consequences.
Finally, and most fundamentally, commenters reiterated concerns
that the BLM has heard all throughout the process of first promulgating
and now considering rescission of the 2024 Rule that the leasing
provisions set up a framework for excluding productive uses--grazing,
mineral development, recreation, etc.--of the public lands as
incompatible with a lease for restoration of those same lands,
including a lease for passive restoration. Such exclusion, the
commenters correctly point out, runs contrary to the letter and spirit
of FLPMA's direction, in general, to manage the public lands under
principles of multiple use and sustained yield.
Other commenters supported the 2024 Rule's leasing provisions, and
opposed their rescission, taking the position that they provided a
predictable and accountable framework for addressing environmental
degradation and improving ecosystem resilience. Opponents of rescission
argued that the leasing provisions could provide benefits for climate
adaptation, habitat connectivity, watershed health, and collaborative
conservation. They viewed the leasing program as a flexible tool that
could complement other uses and attract private investment in
restoration. Many commenters offered recommendations for amending--
rather than rescinding--the leasing provisions, including revisions to
expand eligibility for state and local governments, incorporate climate
resilience, require active management and adaptive management, and
clarify standards for judging compatibility of restoration and
mitigation leases with other land uses, along with other suggestions
for adjusting lease terms and valuation methods. Several commenters
highlighted the need for clear coordination mechanisms among the BLM,
state agencies, tribes, local governments, and private partners. They
recommended formal collaboration structures, standardized evaluation
processes, and clearer guidance on how restoration and mitigation
leases could interact with existing uses and rights. Finally, some
commenters expressed concern that removal of the program would reduce
accountability for mitigating development impacts and weaken proactive
land management.
Ultimately, the BLM finds that the 2024 Rule's leasing provisions
are not required to implement FLPMA and exceed the Bureau's statutory
authority by elevating conservation as a discrete ``use'' for those
leases. (For additional discussion of the latter point, see below under
``Statutory Authority.'') While the BLM recognizes the importance of
conservation for responsible management of public lands, existing
authorities--including land use planning under 43 CFR part 1600,
project-level NEPA review, and longstanding partnership programs--
already provide sufficient tools to address environmental impacts,
promote restoration, and prevent
[[Page 25792]]
unnecessary or undue degradation without the additional regulatory
structure created by the 2024 Rule. Because the agency determined that
the 2024 framework is unnecessary--not to mention inconsistent with
FLPMA--suggestions to revise or refine the leasing program do not
warrant further consideration in this rulemaking. Moreover, the many
and disparate suggestions for further revisions to the 2024 Rule
illustrate the concerns with the Rule as written but without
identifying a clear solution short of full rescission. The BLM will
continue to coordinate and collaborate with partners to responsibly
manage for and balance multiple use and sustained yield and will look
for opportunities to strengthen existing conservation tools, improve
coordination with partners, and enhance restoration outcomes.
Land Health Standards
Many comments discussed the 2024 Rule's provisions governing the
development and implementation of LHS and the proposal to rescind them.
Several comments raised concerns about the feasibility and potential
harms of implementing LHS broadly, including the possibility of delays
in issuing land use authorizations, redundant requirements for grazing
permittees, and challenges in applying LHS beyond the grazing context
to which they were limited prior to the 2024 Rule. Other commenters
advocated for retaining the land health regulations in some form,
underscoring the value of monitoring ecological indicators tailored to
track specific resource trends that vary across major ecosystem types.
Still others suggested that the 10-year interval for land health
evaluations, introduced by the 2024 Rule, should be either shorter or
longer, with different commenters taking opposing views. Commenters
also expressed support for the provisions of the 2024 Rule that make
land health evaluations available to the public; apply LHS to evaluate
the effectiveness of restoration projects; and require the
consideration of potential impacts on land health as part of management
decisions.
Upon consideration of the many comments related to the 2024 Rule's
LHS provisions, the BLM maintains that those provisions created
additional, counterproductive burdens and challenges to accomplishing
the agency's mission and concludes that the existing LHS regulatory
framework, in place prior to the 2024 Rule as part of the grazing
regulations, offers sufficient ability to address land health without
the additional complexity introduced by the 2024 Rule. For example, as
commenters noted in support of rescission, the 2024 Rule includes
provisions that often require the BLM to act on a fixed or rapid
timetable. Such timing provisions hamstring the Bureau by displacing
its usual processes to meet the deadline. Even with a full recission of
the 2024 Rule, the Bureau can still choose to apply specific LHS
(developed under the grazing rule provisions) when developing and
considering management actions and their alternatives outside the
grazing context. But doing so would no longer be required by regulation
in those circumstances where it does not make sense. Finally, although
the BLM is promulgating a full rescission of the 2024 Rule, including
the LHS provisions therein, it is considering, as part of a separate
rulemaking effort, whether to further refine its approach to the
development and application of LHS. The BLM will consider salient
points raised in comments on this rulemaking as part of that separate
effort.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Commenters suggested there was value in the 2024 Rule's provisions
for standardized data collection and reporting in that they contributed
to enhancing land and water planning and management, while also
promoting transparency and informed decision-making through annual
reporting and public access to land health data. Commenters also asked
how rescission of the 2024 Rule would affect the BLM's monitoring and
evaluation practices, including watershed condition assessments, land
health evaluations, and restoration monitoring, and whether rescission
would limit the BLM's ability to use data collected by state, local, or
partner agencies.
The concerns expressed in those comments are misplaced in that the
rescission of the 2024 Rule is not likely to adversely affect the
bureau's management and monitoring functions. Indeed, the BLM
anticipates that rescission of the rule will aid the bureau by
providing greater flexibility to tailor its monitoring program
appropriately and dynamically. The BLM continues to implement resource
monitoring through the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM)
program, which provides a robust, systematic framework for tracking
resource conditions over time. AIM data support watershed condition
assessments and other analyses regardless of whether the 2024 Rule is
in place. The rescission of the 2024 Rule does not prevent the BLM from
standardizing data collection and reporting, nor does it restrict the
BLM's use of data collected by state or local agencies or alter
existing cooperative data-sharing practices. The BLM remains committed
to incorporating the best available data from all sources to support
informed decision-making and avoid unnecessary duplication of
monitoring efforts. The BLM recognizes the benefits of standardized
annual reporting of land health data for decision-making and may
address that issue in a separate rulemaking effort.
Some commenters expressed concern that rescinding the 2024 Rule
could create uncertainty with respect to cleanup, mitigation, and site
restoration obligations for lands leased for extractive uses. These
comments, too, posit harms that are unlikely to result from rescission
of the 2024 Rule. The 2024 Rule did not alter existing requirements for
cleanup, mitigation, or site restoration. Under current regulations,
and without reference to the 2024 Rule, permittees and lessees engaged
in extractive uses are accountable for avoiding and minimizing impacts
and for reclaiming disturbed areas in accordance with applicable
Conditions of Approval and lease stipulations. The BLM continues to be
responsible for monitoring operator compliance with those requirements,
and rescission of the 2024 Rule does not change that responsibility.
Economic Considerations
The BLM considered numerous comments that addressed the economic
impact of particular provisions of the 2024 Rule and, by extension, the
proposal to rescind them. Those comments contained a range of views
regarding the potential economic impacts of the proposed rule to
rescind the 2024 Rule, with arguments both that it would lead to
economic benefits and that it would lead to economic costs.
Commenters identified potential costs and benefits of restoring the
ACEC regulations at 43 CFR 1610.7-2 to the form they took prior to
promulgation of the 2024 Rule. Some commenters stated that removing
provisions allowing for temporary management of areas nominated to be
ACECs would limit negative impacts to extractive uses or adjacent
landowners while designation is being considered. Other comments
expressed concerns that there would be fewer ACEC designations leading
to degradation of natural, cultural, and scenic resources.
The BLM evaluated the potential positive and negative aspects of
restoring the ACEC regulations at 43 CFR 1610.7-2 to the form they took
prior to promulgation of the 2024 Rule,
[[Page 25793]]
as described in the economic analysis of the rule. That analysis is
revised and improved based in part on public comments received on the
proposed rule. While the BLM is restoring the ACEC regulations verbatim
to their prior form with this final rule, the BLM is giving further
consideration to the comments received regarding the ACEC regulations
as part of the broader initiatives underway to reduce burdensome
regulation and barriers to efficient management of public lands. The
BLM may pursue further rulemaking with respect to ACECs that could
address some of the issues raised.
The BLM received many comments both for and against the proposed
rule on the basis that removing the emphasis on landscape intactness
and restoration in planning will impact industry, communities, and
ecosystem services. Some comments asserted that rescission of the 2024
Rule will lead to economic expansion by prioritizing industry over
conservation. Other comments stated that the change will lead to
economic contraction for communities dependent on outdoor recreation
economies, which are, in turn, dependent on healthy landscapes. Some
comments stated that the rule change will result in losses from a
reduction in ecosystem services.
Some commenters claimed that the BLM's initial economic analysis of
the proposed rule did not fully account for the foregone benefits of
the 2024 Rule. Those commenters criticized the BLM for dismissing these
impacts as merely qualitative, arguing that established nonmarket
valuation methods could and should be used to quantify these costs.
They cited research purporting to validate the high economic value of
public lands for activities like hiking and wildlife viewing, which
generate substantial consumer surplus.
OMB has determined that the final rule is significant under section
3(f) of E.O. 12866. The BLM has complied with the requirements of E.O.
12866 by preparing an economic analysis.. Consistent with Circular A-4,
where benefits and costs are difficult to quantify, qualitative
discussion of the issues and evidence may be presented. Contrary to
comments suggesting otherwise, providing a qualitative analysis is not
the same as assuming nonmarket benefits are zero. The BLM recognizes
the validity and applicability of nonmarket valuation methods. However,
applying these methods requires an estimate of a change in resource use
or similar metric. This regulatory change does not change management
decisions and does not have any direct on-the-ground impacts. This rule
does not prohibit or require particular future land management
decisions. Any positive or negative impacts would only result from
future land management decisions that are not constrained by this
regulatory change. It is not possible to predict the future change in
resource use that might result from the complex set of future land
management decisions.
For example, changes in consumer surplus associated with recreation
derive either from a change in the number of trips or the quality of
each trip. The final rule does not expand or restrict recreation on
public lands. By rescinding the relevant provisions of the 2024 Rule,
it may affect future planning and implementation decisions that, in
turn, affect recreation access. The net effect of those future
decisions, and how they might change due to this regulatory change,
however, is unknowable. It is possible that the final rule may create a
process in which a future recreation or restoration activity is denied
while it otherwise would have been approved. It is equally possible
that a different decision, in a different location, may allow
recreation activity where it may otherwise have been denied. This
dynamic can be seen across the breadth of the public comments received,
some of which expressed concerns that rescinding the 2024 Rule would
reduce future recreation activity while others emphasized the repeal
was necessary to ensure future recreation activity.
Comments claim that rescission will affect small entities including
small business, governments, and not-for-profit organizations in
various positive and negative ways by changing the mix of uses
authorized on public lands. Some commenters expressed concern that the
2024 Rule would significantly harm small businesses in the mineral
extraction, recreation, and ranching sectors--including by restricting
those uses in favor of restoration and mitigation leases--and that
rescission of the 2024 Rule would alleviate those harms. Other
commenters expressed concern that rescinding the 2024 Rule would
negatively impact small tourism and recreation businesses by
prioritizing extractive uses.
Again, this regulatory change does not change management decisions
and does not have any direct on-the-ground impacts. Any positive or
negative impacts on small entities would result from future land
management decisions which are not constrained by this regulatory
change. The net result of how those future decisions might change due
to the current regulatory change is highly uncertain. To help further
explain this, the BLM notes that regulatory updates can influence how
public lands are managed by clarifying procedures, streamlining
reviews, or adjusting how types of uses may be considered. These
changes can shape the range of possibilities for future land use, but
they do not directly result in new projects or developments. Actual
land-use decisions depend on many factors beyond the rulemaking
process, including market demand, the cost of development, technical
feasibility, and public involvement. In many cases, these factors are
more influential than the regulations themselves in determining what
ultimately happens on the ground. Therefore, while a regulatory change
might make certain types of uses easier to propose and evaluate, it
does not guarantee that those uses will occur. The BLM agrees that the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis did not sufficiently consider
the impacts on small government jurisdictions. This has been added to
the Threshold Analysis of the Final Rule. Specifically, the analysis
now identifies how future land management decisions could impact the
mix of industry within a jurisdictional area leading to changes in
small government tax bases. Any changes would result from future
management decisions and not directly from this rulemaking effort.
Finally, outfitters and guides commented that subpart 6103's
streamlining and tiering elements of the current rule (Baseline)
provide a useful regulatory framework to guide the BLM's decisions on
their special recreation permits. The BLM acknowledges this feature of
the current rule and has added related information and discussion to
the Threshold Analysis of the Final Rule. The BLM recognizes the
potential positive benefit of the provisions cited in comments by
outfitters and guides and is considering whether to promulgate similar
provisions through a separate rulemaking effort.
Statutory Authority
Many comments discussed the relationship between the 2024 Rule, the
proposed rule to rescind the 2024 Rule, and the BLM's rulemaking
authority under FLPMA. Some commenters argued that the BLM lacked
statutory authority to promulgate the 2024 Rule, or elements of it, at
least, or that the 2024 Rule was otherwise unlawful. Others took the
position that the 2024 Rule was within the BLM's authority to
promulgate. As an initial matter, even if the 2024 Rule were
promulgated consistent with the BLM's authority, there is no suggestion
that FLPMA obliges maintenance of that rule now in the face of the
sound policy reasons for
[[Page 25794]]
rescission, discussed elsewhere in this preamble and in the preamble to
the proposed rule. For example, direction in FLPMA to give priority to
the designation of ACECs does not require that the BLM maintain
regulations pertaining to the designation of ACECs in any particular
form, particularly where, as here, the BLM has judged the 2024 Rule's
ACEC provisions to place unneeded burdens on the designation process.
As for suggestions that the 2024 Rule exceeded the BLM's authority,
not all of the arguments advanced by the public comments on the
proposed rule have merit. However, as noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the BLM remains concerned that the 2024 Rule
inappropriately treats conservation as a use alongside other,
productive uses of the public lands. From that misconception of the
role of conservation in the BLM's management of the public lands under
FLPMA, the 2024 Rule allowed for restoration and mitigation leases that
cannot be squared with the BLM's authority under Title III of FLPMA to
authorize third parties to ``use, occup[y], and develop[]'' the public
lands. 43 U.S.C. 1732(b). This is not to say that conservation is not a
legitimate objective of the BLM, but it does not follow that FLPMA's
leasing authority may be used to that end.
Some comments took specific issue with the proposal to rescind the
2024 Rule's definition of ``unnecessary or undue degradation,'' as part
of rescinding the 2024 Rule in its entirety. Although these commenters
are correct to point out that FLPMA obliges the BLM to ``take any
action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the
lands,'' 43 U.S.C. 1732(b), that statutory obligation is not changed at
all by the rescission of the 2024 Rule, just as it applied to the BLM
without regulatory definition of the term ``unnecessary or undue
degradation'' (outside of the limited case of the hard rock mining
regulations) for all the years between enactment of FLPMA and the 2024
Rule. Ultimately, rescinding the 2024 Rule's definition of
``unnecessary or undue degradation'' is appropriate because the
definition applied only within Part 6100, which is itself being wholly
repealed.
Commenters invoked a number of Executive and Secretary's Orders to
argue both in favor of and against the proposal to rescind the 2024
Rule. Commenters have not identified any violation or other legal
inconsistency between this rule and any Executive or Secretary's Order.
To the extent those commenters have suggested that this rule would be
inconsistent with the policy direction underlying any particular
Executive or Secretary's Order, the BLM disagrees. The BLM can and will
continue to implement direction it receives from the President and from
the Secretary of the Interior when managing the public lands. It is not
necessary to maintain the overly burdensome regulations promulgated by
the 2024 Rule to do so. The BLM agrees, meanwhile, with commenters who
pointed out consistency between the proposal to rescind the 2024 Rule
and the policy underlying, for example, Executive Orders 14154,
Unleashing American Energy, 14156, Declaring a National Energy
Emergency, and 14261, Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal
Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241, and Secretary's Orders
3417, Addressing the National Energy Emergency, 3418, Unleashing
American Energy, and 3421, Achieving Prosperity through Deregulation.
The direction provided in those Executive and Secretary's Orders
further supports the BLM's rationale for rescinding the 2024 Rule.
IV. Procedural Matters
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary of the Interior certifies that this final rule will
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). The Final Rule eliminates regulations that directed the
BLM's processes and, thus, is procedural and legal in character. It
does not directly regulate industry or other small entities. Other than
one-time costs associated with reading and adjusting to the Final Rule
(i.e., rule familiarization), the changes will not impose direct costs
or generate direct benefits for any small entities. These regulatory
updates may influence future land management decisions by clarifying
procedures, streamlining reviews, or adjusting how types of uses may be
considered. These changes can shape the range of possibilities for
future land use, but they do not directly result in new projects or
developments. Actual land-use decisions depend on many factors beyond
regulatory requirements.
To the extent the Final Rule leads to changes in future land use
decisions that affect the mix of authorized activity in the future,
there may be indirect impacts of the regulatory change on some small
entities. For example, if the Final Rule leads to future land
management decisions that, in aggregate, increase opportunities for
grazing, natural resource extraction, and energy development relative
to what would otherwise occur, small entities in these sectors may
benefit. Conversely, if the Final Rule reduces opportunities for
environmental consulting, restoration, or remediation, small businesses
in these sectors may be negatively affected. Further, fees associated
with restoration and mitigation leases are transfer payments from lease
holders, potentially including small businesses, to the federal
government that would no longer occur under the Final Rule. Any effects
on businesses that stem from the Final Rule, may impact small
governments by increasing or decreasing sources of tax revenue.
The BLM identified a range of industries that might be affected by
the Final Rule, including those involved in ranching, resource
extraction, energy production, restoration, and recreation, as well as
environmental organizations. Using the size standards developed by the
Small Business Administration, the BLM estimated the number of small
businesses in each industry and the net cost that would be necessary to
result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For this calculation, the BLM defined a significant impact as
one greater than 3% of annual receipts, and a substantial number as 20%
or greater of all small entities operating in a particular sector. The
BLM is not able to quantify benefits or costs that might result
indirectly if the Final Rule leads to different future management
decisions. However, the BLM does not expect the net effects of future
land management decisions on small entities to exceed the estimated
thresholds.
There are no compliance costs for small entities other than
potential rule familiarization costs. If the rule change takes two
hours to read and understand at an hourly wage of $45 per hour, it
would inflict a cost of $90 per business. However, since this
rulemaking is a rescission of a previously new section of regulations,
some industries will see this as a return to the known status quo and
therefore will not incur a familiarization cost (e.g., grazing and
extractive industries). To the extent that additional impacts occur,
the Final Rule is expected to indirectly benefit Ranching, Natural
Resource Extraction, Energy Production, and Energy Transmission
businesses operating on BLM-managed lands. Recreation industries may
feel mixed indirect effects depending on whether the relevant
recreation activity would increase or decrease following subsequent
land use decisions. The
[[Page 25795]]
Final Rule is not expected to change the demand for Restoration and
Remediation services, but rather shift that demand to work on non-BLM-
managed lands. Small governments may be indirectly positively or
negatively impacted if the Final Rule results in changes to the mix of
industries comprising their local tax bases. Small Environmental
Organizations with the goal of conducting conservation on BLM-managed
land my face less certainty regarding funding and their ability to
conduct conservation on BLM-managed land after removal of the
restoration and mitigation leasing provisions.
Further, the BLM solicited comments from potentially affected small
entities, and received 164 comments that discussed impacts to small
entities, including small governments (70 comments) and small
businesses (94 comments). These comments did not provide any additional
information indicating impacts would exceed these thresholds. As such,
the BLM is not required to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis with this Final Rule. Further description of the number of
small entities potentially impacted by this deregulatory action and the
size of any impact is provided in the document titled, ``Economic
Analysis for Final Rule: Rescinding Conservation and Landscape Health
Rule,'' which is part of the eRulemaking docket.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521)
generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not
withstanding any other provision of law a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The
information collection requirements contained in Part 6100 are approved
by OMB under OMB Control Number 1004-0218.
The final rule would eliminate all the information collection
requirements that were previously approved under that OMB Control
Number. The eliminated information collection requirements are listed
below, along with the resulting information collection burden
reductions:
<bullet> Restoration and Mitigation Leasing/Restoration or
Mitigation Development Plan--43 CFR 6102.4(a)(6) and (7);
<bullet> Restoration and Mitigation Leasing/Additional Information
43 CFR 6102.4(a)(8);
<bullet> Restoration and Mitigation Leasing/Monitoring Plan--43 CFR
6102.4(a)(9);
<bullet> Restoration and Mitigation Leasing/Annual Report--43 CFR
6102.4(a)(9);
<bullet> Termination and Suspension of Restoration and Mitigation
Leases/written request to resume or suspended activity--43 CFR
6102.4.1(d)(3);
<bullet> Bonding for Restoration and Mitigation Leases--43 CFR
6102.4.2(a);
<bullet> Mitigation/Approval third parties as mitigation fund
holders--43 CFR 6102.5.1(e); and
<bullet> Mitigation/Approval third parties as mitigation fund
holders/Annual Fiscal Reports--43 CFR 6102.5.1(e).
The BLM submitted a request to OMB to discontinue OMB Control
Number 1004-0218. The rescission of these regulations, along with the
information collection requirements contained therein and the
discontinuance of OMB Control Number 1004-0218 reduces public
information collection burdens by 63 annual responses and 1,459 annual
burden hours.
National Environmental Policy Act
The rescission rule, like the 2024 Rule, is within the category of
actions described in the categorical exclusion that appears in the
Department of the Interior's (Department's) NEPA regulations at 43 CFR
46.210(i). The rule is legal, procedural, and administrative in nature
in that it defines the procedures (here, by removing them) that the
Bureau will follow in the course of conducting its land management
activities. As such, the rule has no direct environmental effects. Any
indirect environmental effects that the rule may have are ``too broad,
speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis
and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or
case-by-case.'' 43 CFR 46.210(i). Therefore, the categorical exclusion
applies to this rulemaking. A copy of the final CE is available at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/BLM-2025-0001">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/BLM-2025-0001</a>.
Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. This regulatory action is a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was submitted to OIRA for review under E.O.
12866.
The BLM is required to conduct an economic analysis in accordance
with section 6(a)(3)(B) of E.O. 12866. More can be found in the
document titled, ``Economic Analysis for Final Rule: Rescinding
Conservation and Landscape Health Rule,'' which is part of the
eRulemaking docket.
Review Under Executive Orders 14154 and 14192
The BLM has examined this final rulemaking and has determined that
it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O.
14154, Unleashing American Energy, and E.O. 14192, Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation. This final rule is an E.O. 14192
deregulatory action.
Review Under Executive Order 13175
The BLM has determined that it is not obliged by Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, or
Department or Bureau policy to conduct tribal consultation in advance
of promulgating this final rule.
The rescission rule will not have ``tribal implications''; that is,
it will not ``have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes.'' E.O. 13175, Sec. Sec. 1(a), 5(b). That is because the rule
eliminates regulations that had set agency procedures but does not
dictate any outcome for future land management decisions. Rather, any
effects on tribes will occur, if at all, only as a result of separate
planning and implementation decisions. Though those decisions may
pertain to the subject matter of this final rule, the BLM's discretion
to make such future decisions will be guided by the scope of its
statutory authority, which is neither restricted nor expanded by the
rescission of the 2024 Rule.
It is true, as commenters pointed out in the public comment
process, that the wholesale rescission of the 2024 Rule includes
rescission of the provisions of that rule that related to engagement
with tribes and the rescission of the definition, for purposes of 43
CFR part 6100, of the term Indigenous Knowledge. But the rescission of
those elements merely reflects the fact that the regulations
establishing the processes to which those provisions attached are
themselves being rescinded. It does not imply any change to Bureau
policy or the BLM's commitment to consult with tribes and to consider
and include Indigenous Knowledge in the course of land management under
other law and policies that continue to apply, undisturbed by the
rescission of the 2024 Rule. Any future land management decisions that
are made once the 2024 Rule is no longer in place will be subject to
those policies, including to the extent that they call for consultation
with tribes.
Though no substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes
are
[[Page 25796]]
expected under this rule, pursuant to E.O. 13175 and Department policy,
Federally Recognized Indian Tribes have the ability to request
consultation on future planning and implementation decisions related to
the subject matter of this rule.
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
Under E.O. 13211, agencies are required to prepare and submit a
Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
for those matters identified as significant energy actions. This is to
include a detailed statement of ``any adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases,
and increased use of foreign supplies) should the proposal be
implemented'' and ``reasonable alternatives to the action with adverse
energy effects and the expected effects of such alternatives on energy
supply, distribution, and use.''
Section 4(b) of E.O. 13211 defines a ``significant energy action''
as ``any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal
Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation
of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance
notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking:
(1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or any
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by OIRA as a significant energy action.''
This final rule is expected to not have a significant effect on the
Nation's energy supply.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 7202; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.
This action is taken pursuant to an existing delegation of
authority.
List of Subjects
43 CFR Part 1600
Administrative practice and procedure, Coal, Environmental impact
statements, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations,
Preservation and conservation, Public lands.
43 CFR Part 6100
Conservation use, Ecosystem resilience, Land health, Restoration.
Lanny Erdos,
Director, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement,
Exercising the Authority of the Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of
Land Management amends 43 CFR parts 1600 and 6100 as set forth below:
PART 1600--PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING
0
1. The authority citation for part 1600 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1711-1712.
0
2. Revise Sec. 1610.7-2 to read as follows:
Sec. 1610.7-2 Designation of areas of critical environmental concern.
Areas having potential for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC) designation and protection management shall be identified and
considered throughout the resource management planning process (see
Sec. Sec. 1610.4-1 through 1610.4-9).
(a) The inventory data shall be analyzed to determine whether there
are areas containing resources, values, systems or processes or hazards
eligible for further consideration for designation as an ACEC. In order
to be a potential ACEC, both of the following criteria shall be met:
(1) Relevance. There shall be present a significant historic,
cultural, or scenic value; a fish or wildlife resource or other natural
system or process; or natural hazard.
(2) Importance. The above-described value, resource, system,
process, or hazard shall have substantial significance and values. This
generally requires qualities of more than local significance and
special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for
concern. A natural hazard can be important if it is a significant
threat to human life or property.
(b) The State Director, upon approval of a draft resource
management plan, plan revision, or plan amendment involving ACECs,
shall publish a notice in the Federal Register listing each ACEC
proposed and specifying the resource use limitations, if any, which
would occur if it were formally designated. The notice shall provide a
60-day period for public comment on the proposed ACEC designation. The
approval of a resource management plan, plan revision, or plan
amendment constitutes formal designation of any ACEC involved. The
approved plan shall include the general management practices and uses,
including mitigating measures, identified to protect designated ACEC.
PART 6100--[REMOVED]
0
3. Under the authority of 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., remove part 6100.
[FR Doc. 2026-09386 Filed 5-11-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-27-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 12, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.