The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has taken the first step toward repealing the Public Lands Rule, a landmark policy that ensures that conservation is considered alongside extraction and development when managing our nation’s public lands. The move comes despite overwhelming public opposition and threatens to weaken science-based safeguards for over 240 million of acres of wildlife habitat, watersheds, and cultural landscapes across the West—including treasured places like the Carrizo Plain and the Cuyama Valley foothills here on California’s Central Coast.
What the Public Lands Rule Does
The Public Lands Rule was adopted in May 2024 after years of public input. It provides the BLM with a modern framework to restore degraded lands, protect intact ecosystems, and use the best available science to guide decisions about grazing, mining, recreation, and other uses. The rule ensures that public lands are managed not only for short-term economic gain, but for long-term ecosystem resilience, clean water, wildlife habitat, and climate stability.
Key provisions of the rule:
- Protecting intact landscapes by prioritizing areas that remain ecologically healthy and unfragmented.
- Restoring degraded lands through voluntary restoration and mitigation leases that allow partners to repair damaged ecosystems.
- Using science and data in planning and permitting decisions to improve land health and reduce conflict between uses.
- Strengthening Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)—special designations that protect sensitive habitats, cultural sites, and watersheds from unnecessary harm.
In our region, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern include places like the Cuyama Valley Foothills ACEC, which protects rare desert grasslands and habitat for tule elk and pronghorn; the Carrizo Plain ACEC, home to endangered species like the San Joaquin kit fox and giant kangaroo rat; and the Bitter Creek ACEC, which safeguards nesting habitat for California condors and other raptors.
What’s Happening Now
In September 2025, the Trump Administration proposed to eliminate the Public Lands Rule in full. The administration claims that the rule could limit extractive industries such as grazing, mining, and energy development despite the fact that the rule simply ensures that conservation is given equal footing, not dominance, in land management decisions.
If the rescission is finalized, it would eliminate key safeguards that protect land health, remove opportunities for science-based restoration partnerships, and weaken public participation in how local landscapes are managed.
Broad Opposition from Experts and Elected Officials
Opposition to the proposed rescission has been swift and widespread. Members of Congress from across the West—including California Senators Padilla and Schiff, and California Representatives Salud Carbajal, Julia Brownley, and Judy Chu—joined more than 60 lawmakers in signing a letter urging the Administration to withdraw the proposal urging the Administration to withdraw the proposal
The letter, led by Rep. Jared Huffman and Sen. John Hickenlooper, emphasized that the Public Lands Rule provides modern, science-based tools to protect wildlife, watersheds, and cultural resources, while ensuring that grazing, recreation, and responsible energy development can coexist on public lands.
Additionally, 26 retired BLM managers and senior executives, with centuries of combined experience overseeing public lands under multiple administrations, submitted their own detailed statement urging the agency to retain the rule in full. These former officials, including several who served as BLM State Directors and program leaders in California, described the proposed repeal as “legally unsupportable” and warned that rescinding the rule would undo decades of progress toward implementing congressional mandates.
Notably, Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, also co-led a multistate coalition that submitted a comment letter asserting that the proposed rescission is legally indefensible and that it would expose millions more acres of public land to degradation and habitat loss.
ForestWatch’s Advocacy and Public Response
In response to the proposal, Los Padres ForestWatch launched an action campaign that generated over 400 letters to the BLM from community members across the Central Coast. Nationally, public opposition has been overwhelming. A new analysis by the Center for Western Priorities found that 98 percent of more than 61,000 public comments submitted nationwide opposed the Trump Administration’s proposal to rescind the rule—reflecting widespread support for keeping conservation as a central pillar of public land management (Western Priorities, 2025).
What Happens Next
Now that the public comment period has closed, the BLM is required to review all submitted comments before issuing a final rule on the proposed rescission. This process could take several months, after which a final decision will be published in the Federal Register. No environmental review will be conducted. ForestWatch will continue tracking this process closely and will update the public when the final rule is released.
ForestWatch will continue standing with communities, scientists, and conservation partners across the West to defend this critical framework and ensure that our shared public lands remain protected for future generations.