Coalition Submits Comments on Proposed Rescission of BLM Conservation and Landscape Health Rule – The Coalition To Protect America's National Parks

ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION – NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW

Submitted on-line via: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/BLM-2025-0001-0001

October 8, 2025

U.S. Department of the Interior
Director, Bureau of Land Management
1849 C St. NW, Room 5646
Washington, DC 20240
Attention: 1004-AF03

Subject: Proposed Rescission of BLM Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, RIN 1004-AF03

To whom it may concern:

I am writing on behalf of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Coalition), which represents over 4,700 current, former, and retired employees and volunteers of the National Park Service. Collectively, our membership represents over 50,000 years of national park management and stewardship experience. Our members include former National Park Service directors, deputy directors, regional directors, and park superintendents, as well as a variety of program specialists and field staff. Recognized as the Voices of Experience, the Coalition educates, speaks, and acts for the preservation and protection of the National Park System, and mission-related programs of the National Park Service (NPS). We offer the following comments on the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) proposed rescission¹ of its 2024 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule².

I. INTRODUCTION

As summarized in the Federal Register Notice³ dated May 9, 2024, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) promulgated the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule (Public Lands Rule), pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and other relevant authorities, for the following reasons:

To advance the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield mission by prioritizing the health and resilience of ecosystems across public lands.
To support ecosystem health and resilience, the rule provides that the BLM will protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat, and make informed management decisions based on science and data.
To support these activities, the rule applies land health standards to all BLM-managed public lands and uses, codifies conservation tools to be used within FLPMA’s multiple-use framework, and revises existing regulations to better meet FLPMA’s requirement that the BLM prioritize designating and protecting areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs).
The rule also provides an overarching framework for multiple BLM programs to facilitate ecosystem resilience on public lands.

Now, as summarized in the Federal Register Notice⁴ dated September 11, 2025, the BLM is proposing to rescind its 2024 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. As described, in part, in the preamble to the proposed rescission:

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…the [2024 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.

This significant reversal in the BLM’s position regarding the relative benefits of the Public Lands Rule is obviously due to partisan political views resulting from a change in Administration. Changing important policies back and forth based on changes in Administration leads to inconsistent management of public lands over time. Instead, the BLM should put politics aside and focus on developing regulations and policies that provide guidance consistent with FLPMA’s directive that the Bureau manage public lands “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield…[and] in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition.” 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701(a)(7-8).

II. THE FEDERAL LANDS POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 (FLPMA)

1. Overview– The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA or the Act), codified at 43 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.⁵, provides the statutory guidance governing the BLM’s management of public lands. As a result, FLPMA is often referred as the BLM’s “organic act.” Under FLPMA, the BLM must manage public lands “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law.” 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(7) In conjunction with that mandate, FLPMA also directs the BLM to manage public lands “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resources, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.” Id. § 1701(a)(8) (Emphasis added) In addition, FLPMA provides that “[t]he Secretary shall manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield, in accordance with the land use plans developed by [the Secretary] under section 202 of this Act when they are available, except that where a tract of such public land has been dedicated to specific uses according to any other provisions of law it shall be managed in accordance with such law.” Id. § 1732(a) And “in managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands .” Id . § 1732(b)

“Multiple use” obligates the agency to make the “most judicious use” of public lands and their resources to “best meet the present and future needs of the American people.” Id. § 1702(c). This requires taking “into account the long-term needs of future generations,” ensuring “harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment.” Id. Sustained yield mandates “achiev[ing] and maint[aining] in perpetuity . . . a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.” (Emphasis added) Id. § 1702(h). The BLM must “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the lands.” Id. § 1732(b). “It is past doubt that the principle of multiple use does not require BLM to prioritize development over other uses… Development is a possible use, which BLM must weigh against other possible uses including conservation to protect environmental values. . . .” New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683, 710 (10^thCir. 2009) (emphasis added)

In other words, FLPMA provides a dual mandate directing the BLM to manage public lands “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield” and “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resources, and archeological values.”

2. What are the BLM’s mission priorities under FLPMA? At the crux of many BLM land use decisions is the question of which mandate takes priority if/when there is a conflict between multiple use and resource protection/conservation. Unfortunately, FLPMA does not clearly identify whether “multiple use and sustained yield” or “resource protection” is the priority if/when there is a conflict between the two mandates. For example, whereas FLMPA defines “multiple use” (Id. § 1702(c)) and “sustained yield” (Id. § 1702(h)), the Act does NOT define “protect,” “preserve and protect,” or “unnecessary and undue degradation,” leaving open to interpretation what those terms mean and how they relate to management of public lands “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield.” The 2024 Public Lands Rule defined the latter three terms and included other provisions regarding the importance of “conserving” renewable and non-renewable resources located on public lands. In essence, the Public Lands Rule provided much needed clarification that resource protection (i.e., “conservation”) is a mandate on a par with multiple use (or resource utilization) under the BLM’s interpretation of its mission(s) under FLPMA

While FLPMA does not provide clear guidance with regards to which mandate would take priority if/when there is a conflict, a review of BLM policies and mission statements offers little clarification either. Over the years the BLM has issued literally dozens of policy manuals⁶, handbooks⁷, instruction memoranda⁸, and information bulletins⁹ on almost every aspect of BLM management practices. However, if these documents even mention “multiple use” or “sustained yield” or “resource protection” or “conservation” at all, it is typically as abstract principle(s) rather than providing meaningful explanation(s) or practical guidance about implementation. A review of BLM’s mission statements posted on the BLM website¹⁰ provides little clarification either, as the website describes two different, apparently unintegrated missions, which are:

Our Mission – The Bureau of Land Management’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

A Multiple-Use and Sustained Yield Mission – Congress tasked the BLM with a mandate of managing public lands for a variety of uses such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting while ensuring natural, cultural, and historic resources are maintained for present and future use. To do this, we manage public lands to maximize opportunities for commercial, recreational, and conservation activities. This promotes healthy and productive public lands that create jobs in local communities while supporting traditional land uses such as responsible energy development, timber harvesting, grazing, and recreation, including hunting and fishing.

The first statement indicates landscape health and resource protection is the BLM’s priority. The second statement indicates that maximizing opportunities for “use” is the priority. Obviously, multiple use and resource conservation are not necessarily mutually exclusive goals; however, in some instances both goals cannot be fully achieved if/when there is a conflict between the two. Because the 2024 Rule provided much needed clarification regarding the relative priority and interrelationship of the BLM’s multiple use and resource protection/conservation mandates, we oppose rescinding the Rule in its entirety and suggest it would be more appropriate for the BLM to generally retain the Rule but revise certain sections that may of concern to the Administration.

3. Absent clear guidance, BLM’s interpretation of its multiple use and sustained yield goals must be inferred from its decisions on a case-by-case basis– Without a clear policy statement, or related guidance such as the Public Lands Rule, regarding the integration of multiple use and resource protection/conservation, including which takes priority when there is a conflict, it will continue to remain unclear what the BLM’s management priorities actually are over the long run. This lack of clarity is described by the Congressional Research Service in a 2023 Legal Sidebar¹¹: The Supreme Court has described “multiple use management” as “a deceptively simple term that describes the enormously complicated task of striking a balance among the many competing uses to which land can be put.” Because FLPMA includes more than 200 million acres in its definition of public lands, many parties have significant interests in the interpretation and application of this short phrase multiple use and sustained yield. (Emphasis added)

Understanding the meaning of that phrase starts with FLPMA itself. The statute envisions management that balances the use of the resources of public lands with the preservation of those resources for future generations. It defines “sustained yield” as “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.” FLMPA offers a more detailed definition of “multiple use” that obliges BLM to manage the lands under its purview “so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people,” allowing for periodic adjustments “to conform to changing needs and conditions” and taking 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.” It also requires “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.” (Emphasis added)

To date, BLM has not made a comprehensive attempt to explain how it interprets its authority and obligations under FLPMA’s multiple use and sustained yield principles. The phrases multiple use and sustained yield barely appear in BLM’s FLPMA promulgated regulations, although BLM’s forest management regulations include a framework for “sustained-yield forest units” in certain regions in accordance with FLMPA and other statutory obligations. Instead, BLM’s interpretation of its multiple use and sustained yield goals must be inferred from its decisions on a case-by-case basis. BLM has promulgated a variety of manuals, handbooks, and memoranda to guide staff and stakeholders in particular decisions, but those sources often refer to multiple use and sustained yield principles in the abstract rather than providing details about implementation. For example, BLM’s handbook on “Land Use Planning” provides that agency plans should be crafted “under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.” (Emphasis added)

Also, as mentioned in the CRS Report cited above, in the absence of clear policy guidance on this concern, one must infer what theBLM’s interpretation is of its multiple use and sustained yield and resource protection goals based on BLM’s past actions and decisions. One such inference is summarized in a 2024 Pace University Law Review article¹², which states, in part:

Over the last fifty years, BLM’s practice prioritized extractive uses, often to the detriment of other land values listed in FLPMA. As of 2016, a staggering 90* percent of the 245 million acres managed by the BLM was open to oil and gas leasing¹³Sandra B. Zellmer, Conservation as Multiple Use, 66 ARIZ. L. REV. 467, 472 & n.24 (2024). Roughly 62 percent is available for livestock grazing.¹⁴Carol Hardy Vincent, Cong. Research Serv., R44932, Statistic on Livestock Grazing on Federal Lands: FY2002 to FY2016 (2017). And, as of 2018, 1.3 million acres were devoted to mining.¹⁵ These management priorities have degraded many of the other natural resources on public lands, like watersheds, wildlife habitat, riparian zones, streams and fish habitat, archeological resources, scenic vistas, recreation opportunities, healthy rangelands, and forests¹⁶ In addition to the legacy of past management practices, public lands are facing additional stresses brought on by climate change and biodiversity loss. Because of these changing circumstances, the BLM’s historic prioritization of extractive uses no longer meets the “long-term needs of future generations.” (Emphasis added) *Regarding the percentage of BLM lands open to oil and gas leasing (i.e., 90%) as cited in the article above, a more recent assessment is provided in a report¹⁷ prepared by the Wilderness Society, which found that “as of January 2025, more than 81% of all BLM-administered lands in the Western United States (western US + Alaska) remain open to oil and gas leasing. This means that only 19% of BLM-administered lands are off limits to oil and gas development.” (Emphasis added) Regardless of whether it is actually 81% or 90% of BLM lands that are currently open to oil and gas leasing, it is too much. Such overwhelming allocation of public lands for non-renewable energy extraction is far out of proportion with the BLM’s obligation under FLPMA § 1701(a)(8) to “

protect the quality” of various resources and values and to “preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition”; and the requirement under § 1732(b) to “ take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.” As a result, it is readily apparent from the BLM’s actions over many decades that it regards FLMPA’s multiple use mandate to be a higher priority than its resource protection/conservation mandate.

4. Insights from FLPMA’s Legislative History– If the Public Lands Rule is rescinded, as proposed, and the much needed clarification it provides no longer exists, we have to wonder what happens when there is a conflict between a proposed use and long-term resource protection in any particular situation. Which mandate – multiple use and sustained yield or resource protection/conservation – would be given priority by the BLM? An argument can be made that the plain language of FLPMA and the Act’s legislative history provide adequate guidance to answer this question. A review of the voluminous Legislative History of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976[mfn]https://dn720002.ca.archive.org/0/items/legislativehisto00unse/legislativehisto00unse.pdf. This document was prepared at the request of Senator Henry M. Jackson, Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, April 1978.[/mfn] finds numerous statements regarding the intended interrelationship between “multiple use and sustained yield” and” resource protection” (i.e., “conservation”) under FLPMA’s prescription for the management of public lands. For example:

a) March 6, 1975 identical letters¹⁸ from Assistant Secretary of the Interior Jack Horton to Senate President Nelson A. Rockefeller and to Speaker of the House Carl Albert transmitting a copy of the Administration’s legislative proposal states, in part:

Title I of the proposal, the “National Resource Lands Management Act”, declares a national policy that these lands be managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield in a manner which will, using all practicable means and measures, protect the quality of environment, including requiring appropriate land reclamation as a condition for use. (Emphasis added)

b) July 22, 1976 Congressional Record¹⁹ regarding S. 507, Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy, states, in part:

(b) The Congress hereby directs that the Secretary shall manage the national resource lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield in a manner which will, using all practicable means and measures: (i) assure the environmental quality of such lands for present and future generations; (Emphasis added)

c) December 18, 1975 Senate Report No. 94-583²⁰von S. 507 (same report cited above), Section-by-Section Analysis regarding Declaration of Policy, also states, in part:

Among the principal goals and objectives are retention of the national resource lands in Federal ownership and management of these lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield in a manner which will assure the quality of their environment for present and future generations.” (Emphasis added)

December 18, 1975 Senate Report No. 94-583 ²¹ on S. 507 (same report cited above), Section-by-Section Analysis regarding Declaration of Policy, also states, in part:

[Section 3 of the bill] directs the Secretary to manage the national resource lands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The lands must be managed to–

(1) assure the environmental quality of such lands for present and future generations.

(2) provide for but not necessarily be limited to, such uses as provision of food, habitat for wildlife, fish and domestic animals, minerals and materials production, supplying the products of trees and plants, human occupancy and use, and various .forms of outdoor recreation.

(3) include scientific, scenic, historical, archeological, natural ecological, air and atmospheric, water resource, and other public values.
(4) continue certain areas in their natural condition.
(5) balance various demands on those lands consistent with national goals.
(6) assure payment of fair market value by use of those lands.
(7) provide maximum opportunity for the public to participate in decision-making concerning those lands.

These seven management directives should not be considered as listed in any particular order of priorities; instead, they should be read as a whole and in conjunction with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. (Emphasis added)

In all instances cited above, the objectives of “multiple sue and sustained yield” and “assuring the quality of the environment for present and future generations” (i.e., “resource protection” or “conservation”) are presented with the same or similar level of importance – one mandate does NOT supersede the other. There are also many similar statements in the comprehensive legislative history related to various precursor bills that were introduced between 1971 and 1975 and that eventually led to the passage of FLPMA in 1976. Rather than recite many more examples of language used in the legislative history, suffice it to say that the legislative history supports the point of view that FLPMA’s resource protection-related directives (e.g., in § 1701(a)) were intended to be “read as a whole and in conjunction with the principles multiple use and sustained yield” as stated in Senate Report No. 94-583²² cited above. This strongly suggests that “multiple use and sustained” and “resource protection” (i.e., “conservation”) were intended to be viewed as one, integrated mandate under which the BLM must manage public lands, not as two separate mandates as described on the BLM website²³

With the above information as context, we offer the following comments about the proposed rescission of the 2024 Public Lands rule.

III. GENERAL COMMENTS AND CONCERNS

The 2024 Public Lands Rule provided much needed clarification and guidance regarding the interrelationship and relative priority of FLPMA’s “multiple use and sustained yield” mandate vis a vis its “resource protection” (or “conservation”) mandate. We therefore recommend that the BLM retain and/or revise-and-retain many portions of the Public Lands Rule, rather than rescind ALL of it. First, we agree with the proposed rule’s preamble that, under FLPMA, “conservation” is not a “principal or major use on a par with energy development, grazing, outdoor recreation, or timber production.” As defined in the Act at §1702(l), “the term principal or major uses includes, and is limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber production.” (Emphasis added)

Instead of “conservation” being a “use” as discussed in the Introduction section above, “resource protection” (or “conservation”) is more properly characterized as a management directive – a mandate under which the BLM must manage public lands – on a par with the “multiple use and sustained yield” mandate. Because of the ongoing lack of clarity regarding these two mandates, the BLM should properly characterize the relationship between these two mandates in both its current mission statement,²⁴ which is discussed in the Introduction section above; and also in the as yet unwritten preamble to the final rule whenever that is published.

Also described in the Introduction section above, FLPMA, as written, does NOT define key terms related to resource protection, which leaves open to question what the Act intended to be the interrelationship and relative priority of the “multiple use and sustained yield” mandate vis a vis the “resource protection” mandate if/when there is a conflict between the two mandates in any particular situation. As a result, rescinding the Rule in its entirety, as currently proposed, would be the rulemaking equivalent of “throwing out the baby with the bathwater,” as it would eliminate helpful clarification guidance and restore a troubling lack of clarity regarding the role of “resource protection” (or “conservation”) vis a vis “multiple sue and sustained yield” in the BLM’s management practices.

We therefore recommend that the BLM revise the Public Lands Rule, rather than rescind it. Instead of rescinding the Rule in its entirety, we strongly suggest you focus your efforts on revising or rescinding the section(s) of the rule that are of greatest concern to the Administration, which apparently includes the section on conservation leases. We will discuss in the comments below which sections of the 2024 Rule we think should be retained or revised, but not rescinded.

2. The complete rescission of the 2024 Rule, as proposed, would eliminate key definitions and other guidance that help clarify FLPMA’s intent and the BLM’s responsibilities with regard to “protecting” resources and values – FLPMA requires the BLM to manage public lands “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.” 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8). (Emphasis added) However, as described in the Introduction section above, FLPMA does NOT define the meaning of those terms as used in the Act, leaving them open to broad and sometimes inconsistent interpretation(s).

To provide clarity regarding the terms used in the Act and regarding the intended integration and interrelationship of FLPMA’s multiple use and sustained yield mandate with its resource protection/ conservation mandate, it is particularly important that the BLM retain the following definitions in 43 CFR § 6101.4:

§ 6101.4(b) which states: Conservation means the management of natural resources to promote protection and restoration. Conservation actions are effective at building resilient lands and are designed to reach desired future conditions through protection, restoration, and other types of planning, permitting, and program decision-making.
§ 6101.4(t) which states: Protection means the act or process of conservation by maintaining the existence of resources while preventing degradation, damage, or destruction. Protection is not synonymous with preservation and allows for active management or other uses consistent with multiple use and sustained yield principles.”
§ 6101.4(aa) which states: Unnecessary or undue degradation means harm to resources or values that is not necessary to accomplish a use’s stated goals or is excessive or disproportionate to the proposed action or an existing disturbance. Unnecessary or undue degradation includes two distinct elements: “Unnecessary degradation” means harm to land resources or values that is not needed to accomplish a use’s stated goals. For example, approving a proposed access road causing damage to critical habitat for a plant listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act that could be located without any such impacts and still provide the needed access may result in unnecessary degradation. “Undue degradation” means harm to land resources or values that is excessive or disproportionate to the proposed action or an existing disturbance. For example, approving a proposed access road causing damage to the only remaining critical habitat for a plant listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, even if there is not another location for the road, may result in undue degradation. The statutory obligation to prevent “unnecessary or undue degradation” applies when either unnecessary degradation or undue degradation, and not necessarily both, is implicated.

In addition to retaining the above three definitions, we find that the following definitions in § 6101.4 of the 2024 Rule also provide helpful clarification and recommend that they too be retained in the upcoming final rule: (c) Disturbance; (d) Ecosystem resilience; (e) Effects; (g) Important, scarce, or sensitive resources; (j) Intact landscape; (l) Land health; (m) Landscape; (n) Mitigation; (r) Monitoring; (u) Public lands; v) Reclamation; (x) Significant causal factor.

3. We are very concerned that the BLM continues to approve a variety of non-renewable and renewable energy development proposals (e.g., oil and gas leasing, wind farm development, etc.) based on outdated resources management plans (RMPs) that may provide little, if any, effective guidance for identifying appropriate versus inappropriate locations for energy-related development activities, such as oil and gas leasing, renewable energy, transmission lines, and mining – FLPMA creates a framework governing the BLM’s management of public lands.²⁵ It provides for managing public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield.²⁶ Land use plans or Resource Management Plans (RMPs) project both the present and future use of the land. The BLM uses RMPs to identify which areas will be open to oil and gas leasing and development.²⁷ RMPs establish, among other things, “[l]and areas for limited, restricted or exclusive use,” “[a]llowable resource uses . . . and related levels of production or use to be maintained,” “[r]esource condition goals and objectives to be attained,” and “[p]rogram constraints and general management practices.²⁸Id.; see 43 U.S.C. § 1712(a). FLPMA prohibits the BLM from taking actions inconsistent with the provisions of RMPs. See 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a) (“All future resource management authorizations and actions . . . shall conform to the approved plan.”).” (Emphasis added) RMPs may grant the BLM authority to lease in certain areas²⁹ Before issuing leases, however, the agency must confirm that the applicable RMP is up to date and that the underlying environmental analysis will support a contemporary leasing decision. If an RMP is more than five years old, the BLM must reevaluate and confirm that the analysis and any underlying assumptions remain valid.³⁰ An RMP would no longer support a new leasing decision if important new data, policies, or changed circumstances exist that were not considered when it was approved.³¹ If an RMP is too old or stale to support a new leasing decision, the BLM must revise the RMP or undertake a new, thorough environmental analysis, such as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to support new leasing.

Regrettably, the BLM relying on old or stale RMPs during its planning processes is an all too common occurrence. A cursory review of BLM’s Interactive Land Use Planning Area Map application³² (an interactive bureau-wide map database identifying Approved RMPs and RMPs Under Revision or Development) reveals scores of RMPs across the Nation’s public lands that are 20 or more years old. Since 2015, the Coalition has actively commented on numerous BLM oil and gas leasing proposals and several renewable energy project proposals that were based on patently outdated RMPs along with inadequate bureau-wide (i.e., programmatic) guidance regarding the siting, review, and approval of oil and gas drilling proposals. By “outdated,” we mean plans that are 20 or more years old and did not provide effective zoning or screening criteria to identify “appropriate” or “preferred” locations for oil and gas leasing that have high potential for energy development and low potential for conflict(s) with other uses or resources. Similarly, these RMPs generally did not identify “exclusion areas” where leasing would not be allowed due to such conflicts. In addition, these older RMPs typically did not consider the impacts of fracking, which is now a much more common practice than when the plans were prepared decades ago; and did not consider the impacts of climate change. The plans also typically failed to identify, much less analyze, the potential adverse impacts of oil and gas drilling or renewable energy development on public lands immediately adjacent to special conservation areas, such as units of the National Park System. In some instances, such as with proposed solar energy development, programmatic or bureau-wide guidance (e.g., the Western Solar Plan) has compensated for inadequacies in an outdated RMP by providing effective project siting criteria, including preferred use zones and exclusion zones; however, such guidance apparently does not exist for non-renewable energy development such as mining and oil and gas leasing.

As a national parks advocacy group, we are particularly concerned that a recurring shortcoming in many older RMPS is that the BLM did NOT consider potential conflicts with or provide meaningful measures to avoid or minimize impacts of energy development projects on adjacent protected areas such as units of the National Park System or Native American cultural sites. For example, the cumulative effects of BLM Field Offices determinedly moving forward with oil and gas leasing based on outdated and inadequate guidance are painfully obvious. As described in a 2022 report co-authored by Archeology Southwest and the Coalition, BLM’s oil and gas leasing practices have been particularly damaging to Native American sacred sites and cultural landscapes within our national parks and national monuments. A case in point is the BLM’s Farmington District in northwest New Mexico, which has leased to the oil and gas industry nearly 92 percent of the public land surrounding Chaco Culture National Historic Park and allowed them to drill over 37,000 wells. The national park protects approximately 4,000 prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, representing more than 12,000 years of human cultural history in Chaco Canyon; and is the centerpiece of the larger Chaco Culture World Heritage Site. Among the cumulative effects of all the drilling allowed by the BLM is the enormous amount of natural gas leakage from BLM-approved wells in this region, which a 2016 NASA study found to be a source of “hot spot in the U.S. Southwest [that] is responsible for producing the largest concentration of the greenhouse gas methane seen over the United States.”(Emphasis added) To state the obvious, the above example clearly prioritizes non-renewable energy development, an authorized “multiple use,” over important resource protection concerns, a FLPMA mandate. Such action is the antithesis of “environmentally responsible energy development.”

More recently, the BLM accepted, fully considered, and in 2024 approved a proposal from Mountain Valley Energy to construct the Lava Ridge Wind Project (Project) in central Idaho in close proximity to Minidoka National Historic Site (NHS) based on the outdated 1986 Monument RMP³³. As stated in the Introduction section of the RMP, “[t]he Monument RMP is a land use plan to guide resource management in the Monument Planning Area for the next 15 to 20 years.³⁴ Much has changed since 1986, yet the 1986 RMP remains in effect. For example, although Minidoka was formally listed in the National Register of Historic Places on August 18, 1979, it was not designated as a unit of the national park system until 2001.³⁵ And while the history of the 33,000-acre Minidoka War Relocation Center was well known when the 1986 RMP was being prepared, the RMP included no analysis of potential impacts and no measures to avoid or minimize impacts to the historic area. And since the 1986 RMP pre-dated the establishment of Minidoka NHS by 15 years, the RMP included no provisions to protect the landscape surrounding the national park site from the impacts of future development.

Based in large part on the 1986 Monument RMP, in 2021 (35 years after the RMP was prepared) the BLM accepted a project proposal³⁶ from Mountain Valley Energy for the Lava Ridge Wind Project that, as originally proposed, would involve the construction of up to 400 wind turbines up to 740-feet tall within 0.5 mile of the boundary of Minidoka NHS. The open, expansive landscape surrounding Minidoka is identified as a Fundamental Resource and Value in the park’s 2016 Foundation Document because the internment camp’s stark landscape setting conveys the sense of isolation experienced by Japanese-Americans who were unjustly incarcerated at the Minidoka “relocation center” after the attack on Pearl Harbor. A massive wind farm constructed so close to the internment camp site would forever change the feeling of remoteness and isolation that is fundamental to park visitors understanding the experience of Minidoka incarcerees.

A proper and reasonably up-to-date RMP and/or an effective programmatic wind energy project screening process and project siting criteria that included appropriate “exclusion zones” around special places like Minidoka would have readily identified the obvious major conflict between the proposed massive wind farm and protection of the scenic and cultural values surrounding Minidoka NHS. If such guidance had been in place, it should have resulted in the BLM expeditiously denying and/or redirecting the project proposal to a more appropriate location.

However, in the absence of a reasonably current RMP with effective zoning provisions to avoid such conflicts, the BLM allowed an inherently problematic wind farm proposal to proceed through a lengthy and costly 4+ year planning process that resulted in the issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) approving the project in late 2024 under the Biden Administration. Fortunately, the Department under the Trump Administration reversed course and cancelled the approval of the Lava Ridge Wind Project in August 2025. While we greatly appreciate the Department’s last minute decision to cancel the project, the point we are making here is that a reasonably current and effective RMP that incorporates basic land management principles, such as zoning to designate locations that are open or closed to certain impactful uses, would have already identified the potential conflicts between a massive wind farm and the cultural, historic, scenic values of Minidoka NHS. A reasonably current and effective RMP should have precluded such a project from receiving further consideration at that location in the first place.

While the 2024 Public Lands Rule did not fully compensate for the plethora of outdated BLM RMPs, the Rule at least provided some level of clarity regarding the appropriate integration of resource protection into BLM decision-making. Absent such guidance we are very concerned that the BLM will continue to allow inappropriate, highly impactful land use development activities in close proximity to national park boundaries without giving due consideration to avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts.

4. Related to the above concerns, the Department of the Interior has recently affirmed that the BLM does, in fact, have a duty to consider the impacts caused by the proposed uses of public lands to adjacent lands such as units of the National Park System– In past comment letters regarding various BLM energy-related project proposals near national parks, the Coalition has routinely commented that the BLM has an affirmative responsibility under applicable laws to consider potential impacts of proposed uses of public lands on adjacent special conservation areas, such as units of the National Park System. Our ongoing concern is that BLM project-level NEPA reviews often fail to acknowledge, much less conduct a meaningful analysis of, such potential impacts. However, on August 5, 2025, Deputy Secretary of the Interior Katharine Sinclair MacGregor issued a Decision Document³⁷ to cancel the BLM’s previous approval of the Lava Ridge Wind Project located near Minidoka National Historic Site³⁸

The BLM has a duty to consider the impacts caused by the proposed uses of public lands, which would include impacts to adjacent lands such as Minidoka NHS. This duty is part of the application process required by Title V of FLPMA, including an obligation to prevent an unnecessary or undue degradation to the public lands, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1732(b), 1764(a)(4), and to adequately analyze the environmental impacts as required by NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. Though the Project would not be located in any portion of Minidoka NHS, the Department and the BLM are nonetheless legally obligated to consider impacts to lands managed by NPS.³⁸Footnote from Decision Document: Even though the NPS has no decision to make regarding the Project, it is nevertheless incumbent on the BLM (and ultimately the Department) to correctly determine whether the Project would impair Minidoka NHS. Consistent with Title V of FLPMA, the BLM has discretion to approve or deny uses of public lands even if such uses impact NPS units. The National Park Service Organic Act mandates that the Secretary “promote and regulate the use of the National Park System by means and measures that conform to the fundamental purpose of the System units… by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” 54 U.S.C. § 100101(a). Further, Congress reaffirmed the mandate in id. § 100101(a) by requiring that all activities “shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which the System units have been established, except as directly and specifically provided by Congress.” Id. § 100101(b)(2). NPS’s Management Policies interprets these two statutory obligations as creating one standard – “impairment” and “derogation.” NPS Management Policies § 1.4.2. (Emphasis added)

We greatly appreciate the Deputy Secretary’s precedent setting decision. We cannot recall seeing any similar decision rationale issued by the BLM or by the Department at any time during the past ten years. We believe that the Deputy Secretary’s assessment of FLPMA, NEPA, and NPS Organic Act requirements is legally valid and ask that the BLM adopt this precedent in all future project reviews and land use decisions, if applicable such as when a proposed project would be located in close proximity to a unit of the National Park System or other specially protected conservation area. To the extent that it would be appropriate to incorporate this same precedent setting rationale into a revised Public Lands Rule, or at least to discuss this concern in the preamble and/or in the response to comments for the upcoming final rescission rule, we respectfully request that the BLM do so.

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION COMMENTS

1. Section 1610.7-2 ACECs – Included in FLPMA’s resource protection/conservation mandate, 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8) of FLPMA requires the BLM “ to preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition.” Section 1702 (a) states: “The term areas of critical environmental concern means areas within the public lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.” Areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) have become one of the most important and effective land protection designations in the BLM’s land use management program.

A longstanding concern has been that under past BLM policy guidance ACECs could only be considered and designated during a formal land use planning process such as an RMP amendment, which rarely occurs and may only occur every 10-20 years. This extremely limited opportunity for ACEC consideration is highly problematic because, as described above, a number of RMPs are outdated (20-30 years or more old) and rarely get updated by the BLM. This section of the 2024 Rule provided a much needed mechanism for the BLM to determine and implement “temporary management” of proposed ACECs if/when such nominations occur outside of the rare RMP planning process. In effect, under the Rule the BLM could conduct a systematic evaluation of a proposed ACEC to determine if temporary management measures are warranted “to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important resources” until such time that the next RMP revision occurs.

If the BLM does decide to rescind this section of the 2024 Rule in its entirety, eliminating the only existing option for considering proposed ACECs outside of the rare RMP amendment, how does the BLM plan to comply with FLPMA § 1701(a)(8)’s requirement that the BLM “preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition?” If you do rescind this section of the rule, we strongly recommend that the Bureau establish some other sort of policy guidance (e.g., handbook, manual, or instruction memorandum) to provide a mechanism for ACEC evaluations to occur outside of the rare, full blown RMP plan amendment process. For example, perhaps future ACEC proposals could be considered under a streamlined RMP amendment process that focuses primarily on the issue of the ACEC nomination itself, rather than conducting a comprehensive review of the numerous land use issues and concerns that are typically covered in an RMP amendment. Limiting the focus of the review may justify the preparation of an environmental assessment (rather than a full blown EIS) under NEPA that could be tiered to the original EIS for the existing RMP. Absent some other option or policy provision for considering ACEC nominations more frequently than every 10-20 years or more when major RMP amendments may sometimes but rarely occur, we strongly recommend that subsection (c)(3) be revised and retained to provide some structure to the procedures for interim protection of proposed ACECs outside of the normal RMP review process. At a minimum, the rule could identify basic documentation and public notice procedures for the review and approval of “interim ACEC management” proposals.

2. Section 6101.2 Objectives a through f – The Coalition supports retaining the six objectives listed in this section of the 2024 Rule. We believe they provide for effective management of public lands in a manner consistent with the conservation requirements identified in §102(a)(8) of FLMPA. For example, § 6101.2(a) provides that the BLM maintain an inventory of landscape intactness as a resource value using watershed condition assessments; and 6101.2(b) provides that the BLM consider such information when updating an RMP. The inventory requirement identified above is consistent with FLMPA’s requirement in 43 U.S.C. § 1711(a) that the Secretary “prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resource and other values (including, but not limited to, outdoor recreation and scenic values), giving priority to areas of critical environmental concern. This inventory shall be kept current so as to reflect changes in conditions and to identify new and emerging resource and other values.” (Emphasis added) The Rule’s requirement that the BLM include “landscape intactness” as a part of the mandatory periodic inventory process required under FLPMA make sense and is similarly compliant with the Act’s directive of “giving priority to areas of critical environmental concern.”

3. Section 6101.4 Definitions – In addition to retaining the definitions discussed in General Comment # 2 above (i.e., “conservation,” “protection,” and “unnecessary or undue degradation”), we also recommend that the BLM provide definitions for the terms “resilient ecosystems” (or “ecosystem resilience”), “ecological functions,” “intact landscape,” “landscape,” “mitigation,” and “reclamation,” since these terms are applicable to the BLM’s resource protection mandate under FLPMA. The definitions would be helpful in explaining relatively complex concepts that are not generally well understood by the general public.

4. Section 6101.5 Principles for Ecosystem Resilience– We recommend that the BLM retain this section of the 2024 Rule, especially subsections (a) and (b), as it makes clear that “multiple use and sustained yield” and “resource protection” (or “conservation”) are integrated components BLM’s public lands management mandate.

5. Subpart 6102 Conservation ~~Use~~ to Achieve Ecosystem Resilience –
We suggest striking the word “Use” from the title of this subpart. As stated previously, “conservation” is NOT a “use” included in FLPMA’s definition of “principal or major use” in 43 U.S.C. §1702(l). Furthermore, “resource protection” (i.e., “conservation”) is more is more properly characterized as a management directive under FLPMA – a mandate under which the BLM must manage public lands – on a par with the “multiple use and sustained yield” mandate. In general, we recommend that this subpart be revised and retained because it does help clarify and reinforce the integrated relationship between “resource protection” (i.e., “conservation”) and “multiple use and sustained yield” as intended under FLPMA. That said, some of the sections within this subpart seem overly prescriptive and unnecessarily burdensome to implement. We suggest that some sections could be simplified and re-written in a “management by objectives” format.

6. Section 6102.1 Protection of Landscape Intactness– This section properly places a priority on identifying and conserving and protecting intact landscapes. As a practical matter, prevention of landscape and resource damage would be far more effective and far less expensive than allowing unnecessary resource degradation, which is prohibited under 43 U.S.C. §1732(b) than having to do landscape restoration; plus there would no loss of ecological function while waiting for future restoration to occur. In general, the guidance in this section is consistent with FLPMA’s resource protection mandate in 43 U.S.C. §1701(a)(8) and should be retained as written.

7. Section 6102.2 Management to Protect Intact Landscapes– Managing to protect intact landscapes from resource damage is an appropriate management objective that is consistent with FLPMA’s resource protection/conservation mandate in 43 U.S.C. §1701(a)(8). For that reason, we recommend retaining the following subsections (or portions thereof) of the 2024 Rule: subsections (a), (b)(1-3), and (c); and rescinding some other provisions, which seem overly detailed and prescriptive and could reasonably be moved into a policy guidance document (e.g., handbook, manual, or instruction memorandum).

a. Section 6102.3 Restoration Planning – In general, we support retaining the 2024 Rule’s landscape restoration provisions. The “Restoration prioritization” guidance in § 6102.3-1 is especially well considered. Such “restoration” work is important if and where needed; however, it is far more important that the BLM proactively manage authorized uses of public lands in order to prevent the need for restoration by providing adequate resource protection provisions in its land use leases, grants, ROWs, etc.; and then holding permittees, operators, etc. accountable for complying with those provisions and/or holding them financially responsible for repairing damage caused to public lands. We strongly recommend that the initial few sentences of this section be revised to “emphasize” the importance of resource damage prevention (rather than “emphasizing restoration”) through the imposition of appropriate terms and conditions, including reclamation bonds if appropriate, in leases, permits, and ROW grants. That said, resource degradation caused by the kinds of industrial activities authorized under FLPMA (mining, oil and gas drilling, etc.) is seemingly unavoidable. As a result, there is a strong need for the BLM to have a more effective and systematic process or program to minimize resource damage from the industrial activities that the BLM routinely allows; and a reliable mechanism for conducting damage assessments and collecting restoration funds (e.g., reclamation bonds) from the responsible operators. If the BLM fully rescinds this section of the Rule, then it should provide similar guidance in some other policy format (e.g., handbook, manual, or instruction memorandum).

b. Section 6102.4 Conservation Leasing– We understand that the concept of conservation “leasing” is a concern for the current Administration. The Coalition disagreed with the Rule’s characterization of “conservation” as a “use” that could be managed by permits or leases. However, we supported the proposed use of conservation leases as simply being another “tool” in BLM’s “conservation toolbox” for addressing degraded resources or landscapes. This section of the Rule notably does NOT require the BLM to issue any conservation leases; it simply provides the option for field managers to consider and determine if a lease would be appropriate under the circumstances. Degraded resources and landscapes currently exist on public lands and will inevitably continue to occur. To comply with FLPMA’s resource protection mandate in 43 U.S.C. §1701(a)(8), the BLM needs a variety of processes and programs to effectively address restorations needs. If the BLM, rescinds this section the Rule, then we strongly recommend that the Bureau review, update, and reissue its 2008 Natural Resource Damage Assessment & Restoration Handbook³⁹ and/or revise/update its 2024 A Critical Call to Restore Our Public Lands⁴⁰, or develop new guidance that combines the two documents in order to provide comprehensive, bureau-wide guidance on the restoration of damaged or degraded public lands.

c. Section 6102.5 Management actions for ecosystem resilience– The Coalition strongly supports the provisions of this section, including identification of priority watersheds, landscapes, and ecosystems as well as annual land health assessment reports. We especially appreciated the BLM’s adoption of the mitigation hierarchy in §6102.5.1, which prioritizes 1) avoidance [over]; 2) mitigation [over]; 3) compensation for adverse impacts when authorizing uses of public lands. These priorities are consistent with FLPMA’s resource protection mandate in 43 U.S.C. §1701(a)(8); and following them would be very beneficial for the protection of resources on public lands and also in preventing adverse impacts of BLM actions on adjacent national park lands, when applicable.

8. Section 6103.1(a) and (b), Fundamentals of land health – The “fundamentals” listed in this section are virtually the same as BLM’s longstanding Fundamentals of Rangeland Health found at 43 CFR §4180.1; and should be retained as written. Under the 2024 Rule, these guidelines now apply to all BLM-managed lands and program areas, not just rangelands, which makes considerable sense since FLPMA’s resource protection mandate in 43 U.S.C. §1701(a)(8) applies to ALL resources on public lands, not just to rangelands.

9. Section 6103.1-1 Land health standards and guidelines – This section provides a useful and comprehensive list of land health standards and guidelines for authorized officers to implement to ensure ecosystem resilience. Managing public lands for long-term ecosystem sustainability is consistent with FLPMA’s resource protection/conservation mandate in 43 U.S.C. §1701(a)(8). If the rule is rescinded as proposed, we are not aware of any other existing BLM guidance (e.g., handbook, manual, or instruction memorandum) that would provide an adequate replacement for the land health standards and guidelines in this section of the Rule. We therefore recommend the retention of the standards and guidelines as written.

10. Section 6103.1-2 Land health assessments, evaluations, and determinations– This section provides practical guidance for authorized officers to conduct land health evaluations for BLM-managed lands based on watershed condition assessments on a periodic basis, at least every 10 years. This requirement is linked to § 6101.2 of the Rule, which includes the provision that the BLM maintain an inventory of landscape intactness as a resource value using watershed condition assessments. This inventory requirement is consistent with § 1711(a) of FLPMA, which already requires the Secretary to “prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resource and other values (including, but not limited to, outdoor recreation and scenic values), giving priority to areas of critical environmental concern.” In addition, § 6103.2 (a) of the Rule provides that watershed condition assessments must be completed at least once every 10 years and used to inform land use planning, protect intact landscapes (§ 6102.2), manage for ecosystem resilience (§ 6102.5), inform restoration actions (§ 6102.3), and inform land health evaluations and determinations (§ 6103.1.1).

It is critical that public land health status is not only regularly assessed but also consistently used as a required consideration in BLM planning processes and land management decisions, including RMP revisions, policy changes, and reviews of project proposals. To reinforce this point, we suggest that this section of the Rule be amended to require that “potential impacts to land health be formally considered as part of all BLM land management decisions.” In practical terms, this could be as straightforward as including “land health” as an impact topic, as appropriate, in any NEPA analyses prepared in support of BLM proposed actions.

V. CLOSING COMMENT

The 2024 Public Lands Rule provided much needed clarification of the interrelationship and relative priority of FLMPA’s “multiple use and sustained yield” mandate vis a vis its “resource protection” (i.e., “conservation”) mandate. There are many portions of the 2024 Rule that could and should be retained and/or revised instead of rescinded-in-full as proposed. In contrast, we believe the 2024 Rule improperly characterized “conservation” as a “use” of public lands. As a result, it is particularly important that, in both the BLM’s mission statement⁴¹ and in the preamble to the yet-to-be-written final rule, the BLM properly characterize “resource protection” (or “conservation”) as an overarching management directive – a mandate under FLPMA by which the BLM must manage public lands – on a par with the Act’s “multiple use and sustained yield” mandate.

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Phil Francis Signature

Philip A. Francis, Jr.
Chair of the Executive Council
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
2 Massachusetts Ave NE, Unit 77436, Washington, DC 20013

cc: William Groffy, Acting Director, Bureau of Land Management

Attachment 1: DOI Decision Document, August 5, 2025, ref. ROW grant for Mountain Valley Energy

1
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/11/2025-17537/rescission-of-conservation-and-landscape-health-rule
2
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/09/2024-08821/conservation-and-landscape-health
3
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/09/2024-08821/conservation-and-landscape-health
4
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/11/2025-17537/rescission-of-conservation-and-landscape-health-rule
5
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title43/chapter35&edition=prelim
6
https://www.blm.gov/policy/manuals
7
https://www.blm.gov/policy/handbooks
8
https://www.blm.gov/policy/instruction-memorandum
9
https://www.blm.gov/policy/information-bulletin
10
https://www.blm.gov/about/our-mission
11
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10982
12
Jamie Pleune, The BLM’s Public Lands Rule and “Periodic Adjustments in Use to Conform to Changing Needs and Conditions” under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 42 Pace Env’t L. Rev 101 (2024).
13
Sandra B. Zellmer, Conservation as Multiple Use, 66 ARIZ. L. REV. 467, 472 & n.24 (2024).
14
Carol Hardy Vincent, Cong. Research Serv., R44932, Statistic on Livestock Grazing on Federal Lands: FY2002 to FY2016 (2017).
15
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-20-461R, Mining on Federal Lands: More than 800 Operations Authorized and Total Mineral Production is Unknown (2020), at 5–6.
16
43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8) (establishing a policy that public lands “be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource and archeological values . . . that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use”).
17
https://www.wilderness.org/sites/default/files/media/file/Open%20for%20Drilling_TWS%20Report_0.pdf
18
Id., p. 465.
19
Id. p. 717
20
Id., p. 100.²⁰Id., p. 100.
21
22
22
Id., p. 104.
23
https://www.blm.gov/about/our-mission
24
Id.
25
See 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1772.
26
See id. § 1732(a).
27
See 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-5(n).
28
Id.; see 43 U.S.C. § 1712(a). FLPMA prohibits the BLM from taking actions inconsistent with the provisions of RMPs. See 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a) (“All future resource management authorizations and actions . . . shall conform to the approved plan.”).
29
See 30 U.S.C. § 226(b)(1)(A); 43 C.F.R. § 3120.1-2(a).
30
See 42 U.S.C. § 4336b.
31
See H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK, SECTION VII.C, DETERMINING WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO REVISE AN RMP; 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-6.
32
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/7a0ad0a300e14f8b9b00da7ebf49f4de/
33
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/36121/42518/45285/monumentRMP_ok.pdf
34
Id., p.1.
35
https://www.npshistory.com/publications/foundation-documents/miin-fd-overview.pdf
36
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20043818/250050009/Lava%20Ridge%20Wind%20Project%20POD_June%202021.pdf
37
DOI Decision Document, dated August 5, 2025, which is attached to these comments. See Section II.A. for the wording cited.
38
https://www.nps.gov/miin/index.htm[/mfn (NHS) in central Idaho. We and many other groups were very concerned about the BLM’s approval of the project despite the obvious adverse impacts it would cause to the landscape setting of Minidoka NHS. Fortunately, the Department overruled the BLM. As explained in Section II.A. of the Decision Document:

The BLM has a duty to consider the impacts caused by the proposed uses of public lands, which would include impacts to adjacent lands such as Minidoka NHS. This duty is part of the application process required by Title V of FLPMA, including an obligation to prevent an unnecessary or undue degradation to the public lands, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1732(b), 1764(a)(4), and to adequately analyze the environmental impacts as required by NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. Though the Project would not be located in any portion of Minidoka NHS, the Department and the BLM are nonetheless legally obligated to consider impacts to lands managed by NPS.³⁸Footnote from Decision Document: Even though the NPS has no decision to make regarding the Project, it is nevertheless incumbent on the BLM (and ultimately the Department) to correctly determine whether the Project would impair Minidoka NHS. Consistent with Title V of FLPMA, the BLM has discretion to approve or deny uses of public lands even if such uses impact NPS units.
39
https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/migrated/restoration/library/upload/BLM_Handbook.pdf
40
https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2024-11/Restoration%20Blueprint%20508_0.pdf
41
https://www.blm.gov/about/our-mission