The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sidestepped the National Environmental Policy Act in issuing its new “conservation rule,” a “sea change” in federal land management that threatens wildlife, landscape health and economies reliant on some 245 million acres of BLM-managed lands across the nation, a lawsuit filed this week by Wyoming and Utah alleges.
The two western states, which, combined, are home to more than 41 million BLM acres, filed the 34-page lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Utah. They’re asking the court to vacate the Conservation and Landscape Health rule, which was finalized in April.
“Ever since this abomination of a rule raised its ugly head, demonstrating the Biden administration’s disregard for the law, I have fought it tooth and nail,” Gov. Mark Gordon said in a prepared statement Wednesday. “This legal challenge ensures that this administration is called out for sidestepping the bedrock federal statutes which guide public land management by attempting to eliminate multiple use through a corrupted definition of conservation, and for doing so with impunity.”
The complaint is the latest in Gordon’s mounting legal battles against the Biden administration over land use and climate policies. The administration has issued a suite of new policy measures in recent months that violate Wyoming’s primacy over wildlife management and many state-led programs to implement federal environmental rules covering things like emissions from coal, oil and natural gas, according to the governor. Gordon has said the administration appears intent on destroying the state’s fossil fuel industries while ignoring his own initiative to “decarbonize” those industries as a means to address climate change.
Freedom Caucus members in the Wyoming Legislature, however, have alleged a “lethargic” response from Gordon regarding recent federal rules.
Gordon has scheduled a town hall event from 1-3 p.m. Tuesday in Gillette to highlight his administration’s response to the barrage of new federal policies, which include the Environmental Protection Agency’s coal pollution rules, the BLM’s sage grouse management amendments, its “methane rule” and a proposal to end federal coal leasing in the Powder River Basin.
Conservation rule
The BLM unveiled its proposed conservation rule last year, citing the need to adapt federal land management strategies in recognition of mounting pressures from climate change, such as intense drought, wildfires and invasive plant species.
The rule “promotes conservation and defines that term to include both protection and restoration activities,” according to the BLM. The rule also “clarifies that conservation is a use on par with other uses of the public lands” under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
“It seems that Utah and Wyoming are employing all these strategies to try to drag all of us down into the legal weeds to distract everyone from the larger picture, which is that the public wants to see more balanced management of these resources and values.”
Rachael Hamby, Center for Western Priorities
Conservation groups, including the Lander-based Wyoming Outdoor Council, have hailed the conservation rule as a victory for landscape health that also supports rural economies by ensuring healthy wildlife habitats and outdoor recreation.
The rule, “does not prevent oil and gas drilling, mining, or grazing on public lands,” the council states on its website. “But it does enshrine protection and restoration as necessary components of responsible management. In doing so, our wildlife habitat, areas of cultural importance, water quality, and landscape intactness all stand to benefit.”
In a webinar hosted by the council last year, the group’s Wildlife Program Manager Meghan Riley said the BLM’s conservation rule is a much-needed correction to what has been an over-emphasis on industrial development.
”Some of these money-generating uses have gotten a little bit more attention in management decisions, and some of these conservation values may have fallen by the wayside,” Riley said. “So the intent of this rule that’s been put forward is to put conservation on equal footing with some of these other uses on BLM lands and bring better balance to management decisions.”
U.S. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, introduced a bill last year to block the rule. Nine senators, including U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming) joined as sponsors. The bill has not advanced.
Barrasso also said he would use the Congressional Review Act to block the rule. But that hasn’t happened.
“It seems that Utah and Wyoming are employing all these strategies to try to drag all of us down into the legal weeds to distract everyone from the larger picture, which is that the public wants to see more balanced management of these resources and values,” Center for Western Priorities Policy Director Rachael Hamby told WyoFile on Wednesday.
Hamby pointed to a Center for Western Priorities analysis of public comments submitted to the BLM regarding the rule. The group found that 92% of the comments were either in support of the rule as proposed or in favor of making it stronger in terms of conservation.
“So in terms of American taxpayers, whose lands these belong to, are in overwhelming support for this rule,” Hamby said.
“The BLM is supposed to have been managing for multiple uses this entire time,” she continued. “What we have seen is that the extractive industry has been getting priority a lot of the time, and they have gotten used to that. So now we see this rule that says, ‘We’re gonna get back to a true multiple use management framework,’ and now they’re going to be one of many uses that are on equal footing in terms of how the BLM manages its public lands.”
This is a bunch of crap, the weather is in its normal cycle, man is clearing farm land faster than ever, causing drought conditions, no trees, no humidity for the spring rain to get the crop going or the winter rain or snow going!!!!
There is truth, my boy. But the doctrine you desire, absolute, perfect dogma that alone provides wisdom, does not exist. Nor should you long for a perfect doctrine, my friend. Rather, you should long for the perfection of yourself. The deity is within you, not in ideas and books. Truth is lived, not taught.
I keep seeing individuals who take one item out of context and do not even interpret that one item correctly when they are saying the BLM does not ahve authority. Here is smoe more information:
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) derives its authority to manage federal land primarily from the **Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)**. This act provides the BLM with a comprehensive framework for managing and conserving the public lands under its jurisdiction. FLPMA outlines a multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate, directing the BLM to balance various uses of the land, such as recreation, grazing, mining, and conservation.
In addition to FLPMA, the BLM’s authority is also derived from other federal laws and regulations, including:
* **The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934:** This act established the Grazing Service, a predecessor agency to the BLM, and gave the federal government authority to manage grazing on public lands.
* **The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920:** This act governs the leasing of federal lands for mineral development, including oil, gas, and coal.
* **The Wilderness Act of 1964:** This act established the National Wilderness Preservation System and gave the BLM authority to manage designated wilderness areas.
**Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution (Enclave Clause) and the Seat of Government Doctrine:**
The Enclave Clause grants Congress the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.” This clause is the basis for the federal government’s authority over Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital.
The Seat of Government Doctrine is a legal principle derived from the Enclave Clause. It holds that the federal government has inherent and exclusive jurisdiction over the seat of government, even in matters that would typically be under state control. This doctrine allows the federal government to exercise broad authority over federal lands within Washington, D.C., including the power to manage and regulate those lands.
**How the Enclave Clause and Seat of Government Doctrine Apply to BLM:**
While the BLM primarily manages lands outside of Washington, D.C., the Enclave Clause and Seat of Government Doctrine can still have implications for its authority. This is because the federal government retains certain exclusive powers over all federal lands, including those managed by the BLM.
For example, the federal government has the power to regulate activities on federal lands, even if those activities would typically be regulated by state or local governments. This power stems from the Property Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
In summary, while the BLM’s primary authority to manage federal land comes from FLPMA and other federal laws, the Enclave Clause and Seat of Government Doctrine provide a broader constitutional basis for the federal government’s power over federal lands, including those managed by the BLM.
Then you had better vote for Trump….
I find it ironic that NEPA is quoted as the gold standard of management when it has been skirted time and time again in favor of the extractive industry.
Leases have been sold for years before any NEPA study was done to determine suitability. The justification was that it would be done before development. Yet, when development was proposed, the lessees argued they had a property right because BLM had sold them a lease.
Every protection for our wildlife, air quality, water quality and so on, has been vehemently opposed by lessees unless laws forced users to the table. There they continue advocating for muliple using every inch of the public lands.
All lease holders of every strip and color believe they have a property right to public lands. This law suit is a clear example of that attitude. How dare the federal government try to protect public lands for conservation uses?
Our air shed has been undermined for years by Jim Bridger plant and other down stream sources. Finally a law suit required them to change. But, our state government has been helping them avoid that change ever since, including our present governor.
So with that prevalent attitude in state government, it was not surprising that oil and gas development was allowed to severely undermined air quality around Pinedale and to decimate the deer herds in area. Nor did you see the state protecting wildlife during the Atlantic Rim development. There are muliple examples, but the point is that we have rarely seen our state government demanding protection for our citizens air quality or our wildlife herds.
You have to ask. Who are the governors seeking to protect with this law suit?
The rampant over protection of wolf packs is what decimated the deer, elk and moose populations, NOT the exploration for oil and minerals!
Let’s be clear. This rule applies to Federal lands. It is a Federal rule to enhance conservation and environmental protection on Federal lands in the face of climate change and other grave challenges to the environment. The U.S. government has the right to manage their lands as they see fit, in every part of the country. Wyoming benefits in so many ways from Federal land and should perhaps consider getting on board instead of endlessly fighting. What a disgraceful waste of precious resources filing lawsuits instead of collaborating to solve climate challenges together, in a reasonable way.
Why not have some qualified group like professors at the U of Wyoming conduct a scientific survey of Wyoming voters to see whether they support or oppose raising conservation as a high priority for BLM lands. All of the surveys done of Western voters including those from Wyoming show that there is strong support for more conservation, contrary to the bellowing of the Wy politicos.
Why are we constantly fight with the Department of the Interior and BLM?
Why not fight to END the BLM?
Per Article 1
Section 8
Clause 17
Of the US Constitution, the BLM may only exercise authority over Lands the Federal government controls. Most of the land they say they control is not constitutional…READ IT!
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And”
Does it say open farm land?
NO!
Your understanding and comprehension is lacking. Take your sovereign citizen arguments over to truth social.
He’s right. How is that sovereign citizen nonsense? Evidently it’s your ignorance, not his. Take that lie back to MSLSD where you heard it.
Unfortunately, what both the state and conservationists don’t get is that the new regulations are theater. With very insignificant exceptions, they don’t mandate or restrict action, so they will have no legal effect on the status quo.
The regulations are aspirational and full of loopholes and cannot be enforced so they are worthless as regulations.
WY and UT should stop wasting tax payer money challenging in court window dressing
BLM must basically “zone” the Federal lands although it isn’t called that. The basic concept is that some lands are better suited for industrial development while other lands are best suited for recreation and conservation which allow for grazing as a compatible multi-use. Where push comes to shove is NSO – no surface occupancy which should preclude solar and wind development along with oil and gas, and mining while still allowing grazing which requires no structures or major improvements to the surface estate. Conservation as a multi-use is compatible with some other uses, but when combined with a NSO designation it precludes some other industrial uses and solar and wind – and in some areas – that land designation is appropriate. The BLM must decide in their RMPs which areas ( zones ) they will manage for.
Under what authority can the BLM do as you say?
Perhaps Wyoming and Utah politicians need to open their eyes and realize that the majority of the American public, which actually owns the BLM lands, has other priorities and interests than politicians in those states who are focused upon simply taking energy company handouts to their campaigns. This Conservation and Land Use Health Rule should have been a component of multiple use management for all BLM lands long, long ago.
Has anyone asked Rachael Hamby her perspective on the single use of green energy such as solar panels that cover 100s of acres of land that prohibit the multi use or even the wildlife habitat use of said acres. Or windmills that require huge cement bases that prohibit wildlife habitat. Conservation rule my Fanny it’s a one sided rule to stop the use of public land for agriculture or mining. Compare the aforementioned green energy vs agriculture and mining reclamation. Incomparable as green energy is a single use only. If they would consider agrivoltaics and the planting of native grasses with drip irrigation then it becomes more efficient and stays multi use as it provides habitat grazing and energy.
This change is necessary. Wyomingites are not the only people who love Wyoming. It is national and we all care. My argument is four fold, but all four are basically economic. (1) Exudations from drilling, fracking, leach mining, open pits and all other forms of resource extraction, in addition to the air pollution and particulate matter cause huge economic blowback from people who get sick. O&G doesn’t have to pay for this, so in spite of an enormous drag on the economy, they don’t care. (2) Present jobs that destroy the environment deprive many generations of future families, docents, students, tourists (especially foreign) and all others who would benefit economically from a beautiful, attractive place. They will never know that they have been deprived of jobs and essential recreation so O&G CEOs, CFOs, wildcatters, etc. can make sometimes millions and sometimes billions from exploiting underground resources. (3) The cost of waste (both pollution and radioactive contamination) from O&G is astronomical and must be paid in the future. This will be a huge expense that the industry is passing on to innocents who haven’t even been born yet. For the most important explanation of the cost of O&G please read “Petroleum 238” by Justin Nobel. (4) The Bevill exemption for coal and the Bentsen exemption for oil have put big subsidies from taxpayers in the already full pockets of O&G executives (not all of them, or course). To continue this pork-barrel at taxpayers expense (national taxpayers — not just Wyoming) should be stopped. The new BLM rules are a start on the changes we have to face in the future. (It won’t be fun, but we have to do it.)
I applaud the Biden Administration for taking this step as Wyoming is acting like they control the lands that all US citizens actually own and have a say in managing. Instead of thinking about the science that has informed the Biden administration and therefore the public’s, Wyoming decides to waste taxpayer money and heed the war cry of Randall Luthi “Litigate, Litigate, Litigate”.
While Wyoming begins to litigate against common sense, it is also waging a war on wildlife by allowing the head Wyoming Fish and Game to elevate political and social science on par with biological science. It strikes me that Brian Nesvik is not representing Wyoming taxpayers well as he single handedly decided to ignore the mission of his organization, which “… is dedicated to conserving, enhancing and protecting Wyoming’s exceptional fish and wildlife resources and the habitats that support them.” The US Government should sue the Wyoming Game and Fish for corrupting their primacy function.
I was shocked when I heard Brain Nesvik say the quiet part out loud and one would hope Wyoming scrutinizes the next Director to ensure they live up to their mandate instead of making up excuses to destroy biodiversity. Outgoing Director Nesvik was interviewed by Wyoming Public Radio’s Open Space’s Hannah Haberman.
https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/open-spaces/2024-05-24/mule-deer-decline-and-management-strategies-are-hot-topics-at-first-sportsperson-conservation-forum
Your statement is void of the truth.
per our constitution, only WY citizens may say what goes on in WY.
The nation does not own the land, WY citizens do.
Read:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And”
I am so tired of the extractive energy industries telling us that their one time non renewable use is more important than the multiple use and that renewable resources come in second to their profits. It is disgusting that oil other mineral uses run the agenda for Wyoming. The overwhelming support of the general public is for protection of our land. Shame on the governor and his energy partners for their exploitation.
Inviting, expansive photo by Katie Klingsporn- beautifully captures Wyoming’s elevated horizons.
I’m all for the BLM conservation rule. It’s time to put conservation first-at least on equal footing with livestock grazing and energy development.
My, my, listen to the plunderers howl…poor babies.