The Bureau of Land Management is seeking public comments on its proposal to rescind the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, also known as the Public Lands Rule, a regulation adopted under the Biden Administration in 2024. The rule was designed to elevate conservation as a recognized use of federal lands, placing it on equal footing with traditional uses such as grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting. It also introduced new processes for land restoration, mitigation projects, and the designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.
The Conservation and Landscape Health Rule aimed to modernize how the BLM manages its 245 million acres nationwide, emphasizing ecological health, habitat restoration, and the use of science and Indigenous knowledge in planning decisions. Supporters of the rule have described it as an effort to ensure the long-term sustainability of public lands amid growing challenges such as wildfire risks, invasive species, and climate pressures. However, its implementation drew opposition from some state and local officials in the West, including timber industry representatives and rural county leaders, who warned that the new policy could restrict economic activities on public lands and diminish local control over forest management.
In Western Oregon, the issue carries particular weight because of the Bureau’s responsibility for managing more than two million acres of Oregon and California Railroad Revested Lands, known as O&C lands. These timberlands are governed by a unique federal law requiring sustained-yield timber production that provides both raw materials for the lumber industry and revenue for counties that host the lands. The counties depend on shared timber receipts to fund essential services such as schools, roads, libraries, and public safety operations. Critics of the Public Lands Rule have argued that it could disrupt that system by enabling environmental organizations or other private entities to lease land for conservation purposes, potentially limiting timber harvests and access for recreation or forest management.
Supporters of rescission claim that reversing the rule would maintain stability in Western Oregon’s forest economy and preserve the BLM’s ability to meet its sustained-yield obligations. They contend that removing the rule will help protect rural jobs and prevent the expansion of wilderness-like restrictions that could interfere with logging and community access. Others, however, see the effort to rescind the rule as a step backward that would undermine ongoing conservation efforts and disregard the environmental health of public lands that are already under stress from climate and fire-related impacts.
The BLM’s proposal has prompted a new round of public engagement, giving citizens, local governments, and advocacy groups an opportunity to share their views on how federal lands should be managed. The agency’s decision will influence the balance between conservation and resource use across millions of acres in the West, particularly in Oregon’s O&C forests where the economic and environmental stakes are high. Public comments will be accepted through November 10, after which the Bureau will review the submissions and determine whether to formally withdraw the rule or keep it in place. The outcome will shape the direction of federal land policy and the livelihoods of the communities that depend on these forests for years to come.