The Public Lands Rule is a critical step toward protecting the places we love. It makes conservation a priority, not just drilling and mining, so wildlife habitat, cultural sites, and fragile ecosystems, like old growth forests, are protected. By putting long-term stewardship on equal footing with development, it helps secure a healthier future for these lands and for the national parks and communities that depend on them.
But the Bureau of Land Management intends to eliminate the Public Lands Rule, rolling back protections on millions of acres of public lands, including landscapes that border more than 80 national parks.
Tell the bureau: conservation cannot be sacrificed to development.
Bureau of Land Management --
I urge you to reverse your proposal to rescind the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, also known as the Public Lands Rule.
80 national park sites abut public lands managed by the BLM making the Public Lands Rule essential to providing long-term conservation and preservation outcomes for the National Park System. What happens beyond park boundaries impacts the experience and conservation within them.
National Parks preserve viewsheds, soundscapes, clean air and clean water, abundant and healthy wildlife habitat, visitation and recreation experiences, and cultural and sacred resources. A flexible framework for the BLM to increase land health, resilience, and productivity of its resources through active conservation and restoration is exactly what the BLM needs now as public lands and resources bear the brunt of climate change and biodiversity loss.
Conservation-minded stewardship serves neighboring national parks, alongside countless communities through the Public Lands Rule’s all-hands-on-deck approach to catalyzing long-term health and climate resilience of parks and public lands.
Please reverse your proposal and retain the Public Lands Rule.
