Interior proposes rollback of Biden-era rule that treated conservation as a public land 'use'

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday proposed canceling a Biden-era public lands rule that placed conservation on equal footing with development, a move the department says will clear the way for more drilling, logging, mining and grazing on federally managed lands.

The rule, finalized in April 2024 by the Bureau of Land Management, established a dedicated mechanism to lease public property for restoration and conservation in the same manner the bureau leases land for energy and mineral development. The BLM manages roughly 10% of the nation’s land, much of it concentrated in Western states including Alaska, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

Burgum, who served as governor of North Dakota before joining the administration, said the rule had the potential to block access to "hundreds of thousands of acres of multiple-use land — preventing energy and mineral production, timber management, grazing and recreation across the West." He described the proposed rescission as a step to "protect our American way of life and give our communities a voice in the land that they depend on."

Industry and agricultural groups that opposed the Biden rule praised Burgum's announcement. Rich Nolan, CEO of the National Mining Association, said the proposal would help ensure natural resources are available to meet rising energy demands and supply minerals the economy needs. Supporters argue the change restores the BLM’s statutory duty under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to balance multiple uses on federal lands.

Environmental groups and some conservation advocates had largely embraced the rule, saying it corrected a long-standing imbalance that favored extractive uses. Alison Flint, senior legal director at The Wilderness Society, said the administration cannot "simply overthrow that statutory authority because they would prefer to let drilling and mining companies call the shots." Environmental supporters noted the rule also encouraged the designation of more "areas of critical environmental concern," special statuses that can limit development to protect wildlife, historic sites or other sensitive resources.

Critics of the Biden rule had argued it elevated "non-use" — restoration leases and other conservation actions — to a position that undermined the BLM’s multiple-use mandate. States, including North Dakota, filed suit seeking to block the measure. Interior officials said the rule had sidelined people who rely on public lands for livelihoods and imposed unnecessary regulatory constraints.

The BLM’s responsibilities go beyond surface management. The agency regulates publicly owned underground mineral reserves across more than 1 million square miles, overseeing resources such as coal and lithium that are central to energy markets and to renewable energy supply chains.

The department’s publication of the rescission proposal will begin a 60-day public comment period. The move follows a series of actions by the administration intended to expand energy production and resource extraction on federal lands. Last week, House Republicans approved repeals of land management plans issued in the closing days of the previous administration that restricted development across large areas in Alaska, Montana and North Dakota.

Interior officials separately proposed policies aimed at increasing mining and drilling in Western states that host populations of the greater sage-grouse, a bird species whose range and habitat have led to development limits in past management plans. The Biden administration had proposed restrictions and prohibitions on some mining activities to help protect the grouse.

The proposal to rescind the conservation-use rule sets up a renewed legal and political fight over how the nation’s publicly owned lands should be managed. Proponents of the rescission characterize it as a restoration of balance among multiple uses; opponents say it would eliminate a tool intended to address long-neglected conservation needs on lands the federal government manages for the public.

Public comments received during the 60-day period will inform the department’s next step. Any final regulatory change could be subject to legal challenges from states, industry groups or environmental organizations that have already litigated aspects of the BLM’s management decisions in recent years.