[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 174 (Thursday, September 11, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43990-43994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-17537]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Parts 1600 and 6100
[PO #4820000251; Order #02412-014-004-047181.0]
RIN 1004-AF03
Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rule
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to rescind
the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, issued as a final rule on
May 9, 2024. We solicit comment on all aspects of this rule.
DATES: Comments must be received by November 10, 2025. The BLM is not
obligated to consider any comments received after this date in making
its decision on the final rule.
ADDRESSES:
Mail, Personal, or Messenger Delivery: U.S. Department of the
Interior, Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C St. NW,
Room 5646, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: 1004-AF03.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the
Searchbox, enter ``BLM-2025-0001'' and click the ``Search'' button.
Follow the instructions at this website.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle Moorman, Chief, Division of
Regulatory Affairs and Directives, telephone: 202-527-2433, email:
[email protected] with a subject line of ``RIN 1004-AF03.'' 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.
For a summary of the proposed rule, please see the proposed rule
summary document in docket BLM-2025-0001 on www.regulations.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM is proposing to rescind the
Conservation and Landscape Health Rule adopted on May 9, 2024, via 89
FR 40308, with an effective date of June 10, 2024, and codified in
amendments to 43 CFR part 1600 and the newly created 43 CFR part 6100
(2024 Rule). The 2024 Rule established a ``policy for the BLM to build
and maintain the resilience of ecosystems on public lands in three
primary ways: (1) protecting the most intact, functioning landscapes;
(2) restoring degraded habitat and
[[Page 43991]]
ecosystems; and (3) using science and data as the foundation for
management decisions across all plans and programs.'' (89 FR 40308).)
The BLM has determined, based on a review of the Conservation and
Landscape Health Rule, that the 2024 Rule is unnecessary and violates
existing statutory requirements. Among other things, the 2024 Rule is
unnecessary to facilitate, and even undermines, the BLM's management of
the public lands under applicable law, including the direction in the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to manage public land
under principles of multiple use and sustained yield, except where the
land has been dedicated to a specific use by other provisions of law.
The 2024 Rule constrains agency flexibility necessary to manage under
such principles. Accordingly, we propose to rescind the 2024 Rule in
full and seek comment on that proposal.
The 2024 Rule's leasing provisions threaten to upset the
appropriate balance that the BLM must strike when managing public land
under principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The BLM is
charged by statute to regulate the ``use, occupancy, and development''
of public lands in accordance with the principles of ``multiple use''
and ``sustained yield.'' 43 U.S.C. 1732.\1\ But the Conservation and
Landscape Health Rule identifies conservation--a non-use--as a
productive use for leases and permits. This is contrary to the BLM's
mandate and statutory authority. Conservation is not a ``use'' under
the statute. Under a more appropriate implementation of FLPMA's
mandate, the BLM works to conserve resources, as appropriate, to ensure
balanced resource use while also achieving and maintaining appropriate
output of those resources, in all cases consistent with the principles
of multiple use and sustained yield. It does so through its own
affirmative land management work and in partnership with other
entities, including other government agencies, but it does not follow
that FLPMA's leasing authority may be used to that end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FLPMA defines both terms. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As many commenters pointed out during the public comment process on
the 2024 Rule, the restoration and mitigation leases for which the Rule
provides may preclude other uses of the public lands, running contrary
to the notion of multiple use. The Rule ultimately vests too much
discretion in individual authorizing officers to preclude other,
productive uses, such as grazing, mining, and energy development, as
incompatible with the goals of the restoration or mitigation under the
lease, potentially over large tracts of public land. In reviewing the
need for the 2024 Rule, the BLM has determined that it has sufficient
tools to manage the public lands without inviting third parties to seek
land use authorizations for those types of activities traditionally
performed by the Bureau. For example, Interior may withdraw land under
43 U.S.C. 1714, but only after following certain procedural
requirements. The 2024 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, to the
contrary, permits the BLM to take effectively the same action under a
different guise without following the statutorily required procedures.
For these reasons, the BLM has determined it is appropriate to repeal
the leasing provisions at 43 CFR 6102.4 and 6102.4.1.
Congress often permits agencies to set aside land and to prevent
development for preservation purposes, such as when Congress designates
a Wilderness Area or National Park. But when Congress does take such
action, it says so explicitly. The Conservation and Landscape Health
Rule, therefore, makes no sense in statutory context and is not
supported by clear statutory authority. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S.
697 (2022).
The 2024 Rule also unlawfully and unnecessarily expanded the scope
of the BLM's regulations governing the designation and management of
areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). ACEC designations (and
nominations) can create conflicts with the use of BLM-managed land for
recreation, grazing, development, and extractive uses. ACEC nominations
often target public land that is subject to pending project
applications, causing project delays even when the nominations are
clearly without merit. In order to manage the public lands under
principles of multiple use and sustained yield, the BLM must have the
flexibility to protect resources while also allowing for productive use
of the land, in all cases where appropriate. The 2024 Rule allows for
temporary management of ACECs with hardly any of the procedures usually
required to designate ACECs. This distorts the normal ACEC process.
These temporary management areas not yet designated as ACECs interfere
with productive use of the land without engaging in the planning
process. Thus, the 2024 Rule denies opportunities for public
participation to determine whether the ACEC designation is even
warranted. Moreover, the 2024 Rule's heightened standard for de-
designation of an existing ACEC puts an added and unnecessary burden on
any effort to revisit the continuing need for protection in those
places, including where a different use of the land would be both
appropriate and productive. For these reasons, the BLM proposes to
restore the ACEC regulations to the form they took prior to
promulgation of the 2024 Rule. The BLM is also inviting public comment
as to whether those legacy ACEC regulations should be restored
verbatim, as is proposed, or revised to allow for more efficient and
flexible management of ACECs as part of managing under principles of
multiple use and sustained yield. It is the policy of the Secretary
that ACEC regulations should be as flexible as possible to allow for
productive uses of land consistent with FLPMA.
The 2024 Rule's land health regulations, meanwhile, include
provisions that often require the BLM to act on a fixed or rapid
timetable, interfering with previously authorized use of the public
lands. These provisions hamstring the Bureau by displacing its usual
processes to meet a deadline. The 2024 Rule therefore interferes with
the Bureau's ability to reach the decision that best balances
management of the public lands for multiple use and sustained yield.
Because that action-forcing mechanism is the lynchpin of the land
health provisions, the BLM is proposing to repeal 43 CFR subpart 6103,
promulgated by the 2024 Rule.
The BLM has also determined that the balance of the regulations
promulgated by the 2024 Rule across 43 CFR part 6100 add unnecessary
burdens to BLM decision making and management of the public lands.
Although they tend not to compel specific BLM action, they affect
[[Page 43992]]
BLM processes by requiring that the BLM consider certain values (e.g.,
``intact landscapes'') in planning or document a justification for
implementation-level decisions that would have certain impacts. 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 the permitting and other implementation-level management
decisions that it makes. To provide by rule for an additional
requirement to do so, however, invites third-party challenge to BLM
planning and permitting decisions, including many fruitless challenges
designed to slow down the implementation of those decisions through
litigation. For that reason, among others, the BLM is proposing to
repeal those provisions.
Finally, the 2024 Rule and its economic analysis concluded that the
rule was not anticipated to have wide-reaching impacts. The agency
received 216,403 public comments, 152,673 of which the agency formally
considered at final. Many of these comments, including those submitted
by representatives of landowners, states, and municipalities, expressed
concern that the 2024 Rule would have wide-ranging economic impacts
that may have been materially underestimated in the analysis. In re-
evaluating the 2024 Rule, the agency is taking a closer look at those
public comments and believes that they may raise important questions
about whether the economic impacts of the 2024 Rule were materially
underestimated. The agency is therefore soliciting comment on the
economic effects associated with both the 2024 Rule and this proposal
to repeal that rule.
The BLM seeks comment on all of the above, as well as any other
reasons to keep or rescind the 2024 Conservation and Landscape Health
Rule. The BLM would appreciate comments on, among other things, the
statutory authority for the 2024 Rule, the costs and benefits of the
2024 Rule, and the effect of the 2024 Rule on productive uses of land.
Procedural Matters
Regulatory Flexibility Act
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.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Here, if adopted as proposed, this rule may have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule seeks comment on the rescission of the 2024
Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. When it promulgated the
Conservation and Landscape Health rule in 2024, the BLM certified that
it would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. That analysis
identified the size standards defining small businesses in the many
different industries that may be affected by the 2024 Rule, including
beef cattle ranching, natural resource extraction, energy production,
energy transmission, and environmental consulting and remediation
services. Based on these size standards, the BLM concluded that there
may be small businesses affected by the 2024 Rule. However, based on
the information available, the BLM did not find evidence suggesting
there would be a significant impact on these small businesses.
Because this proposed rule would rescind that 2024 Rule, it is
expected that there may be impacts on small businesses but in the
reverse. The size of the potential impact on these businesses is
unknown at this time. Repeal of certain provisions of the 2024 Rule,
such as the provisions related to restoration or mitigation leases and
land health standards, may decrease restoration and mitigation activity
on public lands. This may negatively impact small entities working in
environmental consulting and remediation, or other land users.
Conversely, the proposed rule may benefit small entities in grazing or
extractive resource sectors if provisions of the 2024 Rule would have
reduced their opportunities to operate on public lands.
The reasons for this deregulatory action are set out above, along
with a succinct statement of the objectives and legal basis for the
proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(1)-(2). 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 Draft Rescission: Conservation and Landscape
Health Rule,'' which is part of the eRulemaking docket. As part of the
public comment process and for its final regulatory flexibility
analysis under 5 U.S.C. 604, if one is required, the BLM will undertake
that estimate process in consultation with the Office of Advocacy.
The BLM considered two alternatives to the proposed rule. First,
the BLM considered a partial repeal of the 2024 requirements that would
repeal all sections except those related to restoration and mitigation
leases (43 CFR 6102.4). Such a repeal was not selected because there
are serious questions concerning the BLM's authority to maintain those
provisions and because repeal of the leasing provisions is of
particular policy concern. Second, the BLM considered phasing in the
repeal of the 2024 Rule over time. This option was not selected because
it would unnecessarily delay any benefits from this Proposed Rule.
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 with a current expiration
date of January 31, 2028.
The proposed rule would eliminate the following information
collection requirements:
Restoration and Mitigation Leasing/Restoration or
Mitigation Development Plan--43 CFR 6102.4(a)(6) and (7);
Restoration and Mitigation Leasing/Additional Information
43 CFR 6102.4(a)(8);
Restoration and Mitigation Leasing/Monitoring Plan--43 CFR
6102.4(a)(9);
Restoration and Mitigation Leasing/Annual Report--43 CFR
6102.4(a)(9);
Termination and Suspension of Restoration and Mitigation
Leases/written request to resume or suspended activity--43 CFR
6102.4.1(d)(3);
Bonding for Restoration and Mitigation Leases--43 CFR
6102.4.2(a);
Mitigation/Approval third parties as mitigation fund
holders--43 CFR 6102.5.1(e); and
Mitigation/Approval third parties as mitigation fund
holders/Annual Fiscal Reports--43 CFR 6102.5.1(e).
Upon the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, as
applicable, the BLM will submit a request to OMB
[[Page 43993]]
to discontinue OMB Control Number 1004-0218. The proposed rescission of
these regulations, along with the information collection requirements
contained therein and the discontinuance of OMB Control Number 1004-
0218 would reduce public information collection burdens by 63 annual
responses and 1,459 annual burden hours.
If you want to comment on the proposed rescission of the
information-collection requirements that would result from this
proposed rule, please send your comments and suggestions on this
proposed action as previously described in the DATES and ADDRESSES
sections.
National Environmental Policy Act
The BLM intends to apply the Departmental Categorical Exclusion
(CX) at 43 CFR 46.210(i) to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). This CX covers policies, directives, regulations,
and guidelines that are of an administrative, financial, legal,
technical, or procedural nature or whose environmental effects 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. Further, the proposed rule does not
implicate any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR
46.215. The BLM plans to document the applicability of the CX
concurrently with development of the final rule.
Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes 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.
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 Draft Recission: Conservation and
Landscape Health Rule,'' which is part of the eRulemaking docket.
Review Under Executive Orders 14154 and 14192
DOI has examined this proposed rulemaking and has tentatively
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 proposed rule, if
finalized as proposed, is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory
action.
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
statement 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 proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, 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.
Adam G. Suess,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
List of Subjects
43 CFR Part 1610
Administrative practice and procedure, Coal, Environmental impact
statements, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations,
Public lands, Preservation and conservation.
43 CFR Part 6100
Ecosystem resilience, Conservation use, Land health, and
Restoration.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of Land
Management proposes to amend 43 CFR parts 1600 and 6100 as follows:
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.
[[Page 43994]]
PART 6100--[REMOVED]
0
3. Under the authority of 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., remove part 6100.
[FR Doc. 2025-17537 Filed 9-10-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-27-P