Policy Corner: The Public Lands Rule: The Significance of Conservation

Bryan Pride • June 5, 2025

Since April 2024, America's public lands had something they'd never had before: a rule that treated conservation as equal to all other land uses. The Public Lands Rule, introduced by the Biden Administration, formally recognized conservation as a legitimate practice of multiple use, putting conservation on equal footing with recreation, grazing, and resource extraction. Built on decades of management experience and guided by science, data, and Indigenous knowledge, it gives land managers tools to maintain healthy ecosystems while supporting all the diverse ways we depend on public lands. It acknowledges a simple truth: conservation must be valued equally to all other land uses. 


Now there is growing pressure to rescind it.


Why This Matters


The environment around us is free-flowing, it's not confined to state borders or county lines. When mining operations contaminate watersheds in Northern California, it impacts the local businesses who depend on healthy rivers downstream, the agricultural communities that rely on clean water, and the families who've been camping along those waterways for generations. The Public Lands Rule recognized this interconnected reality and gave land managers agency to address problems before they spread across California's diverse landscapes, protecting the long-term viability of grazing allotments, recreation areas, and rural livelihoods that all depend on healthy public lands.


This interconnected reality is exactly why the Public Lands Rule matters. The Rule is designed to ensure that the places we depend on, whether for weekend camping trips, or cattle grazing, stay healthy enough to support these uses long-term. When an area becomes overgrazed and doesn't recover, access to those grazing allotments is permanently lost, reducing ranchers' ability to maintain their livelihoods and harming local food production. Poor use or overuse of our public lands creates ripples of negative impact that hurt all communities. 


The Rule's main objective is simple but revolutionary: make sure our public lands stay productive for everyone who depends on them, rather than degrade them. The Rule created practical tools that built in accountability and prioritized future generations' access to healthy public lands. 


Restoration Leases: 10-year agreements allowing a variety of entities such as, conservation groups, tribes, and nonprofits to restore damaged landscapes—fires restoration, restoring wildlife habitats and cleaning up abandoned mining sites that currently scar some of our most beautiful public lands.


Mitigation Leases: A tool that allows land users or other entities to offset impacts from their activities over specified time periods, creating partnerships between different land users and conservation groups to address environmental impacts on public lands. 


Strengthened Protection for Critical Areas: Clearer guidelines for protecting Areas of Critical Environmental Concern—the most special and fragile places that often provide the best wildlife viewing, the cleanest water sources, the most pristine camping experiences and the richest biodiversity.


The False Dichotomy: Multiple Use vs. Conservation 


The main argument being used to encourage the rollback of the Public Lands Rule is "multiple use", the legal principle requiring Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands to serve many different purposes. The current Administration claims the Public Lands Rule hinders multiple uses of public lands. Why? The Rule calls for restoring degraded areas and making science based decisions. Contrary to their actual meaning, the current Administration interprets "restoring" and "science based decisions" as "locking up land". Land locking, where access gets completely cut off, is a real concern in some areas—it prevents both recreation and grazing. However, land locking is not what the Public Lands Rule promotes. In reality, it is promoting land healing. 


Take grazing for example. The Rule empowers BLM to use restoration leases in conjunction with existing grazing permittees to restore degraded rangeland. Monitoring who is grazing where and the number of permits issued for specific areas is a means to ensure sustainable grazing and prevent overuse. Many ranchers and land managers supported the Rule because they understand that healthy land is productive land. Overgrazing and environmental damage hurt their livelihoods too. 


The same principle applies to fire recovery. When public lands are damaged by sweeping wildfires, there is a need for active restoration: replanting native vegetation, stabilizing soils, removing hazardous debris. Restoration has to take place before safe recreation, grazing and other uses can resume. At times, restoration requires temporarily limiting access to burned areas as they recover. The goal is to allow for our lands to recover and heal before we start depending on them again with our multiple uses. Land restoration is not just limited to grazing or extraction; it is essential for recovering from wildfires. 


Whether it's grazing, recreation, or extraction, the Public Lands Rule isn't about stopping these uses, it's about understanding that healthy ecosystems are prerequisites for multiple use, not obstacles to it. You can't have sustainable grazing on degraded rangeland, quality recreation in fire damaged landscapes, or responsible extraction without considering long-term impacts


We Are Public Stewards


The Public Lands Rule represents a historic shift in how we value conservation, its potential rollback is a setback. But the vision it represents, conservation as a form of legitimate multiple use, remains essential and is not gone. As stewards of these 245 million acres, we have the power to practice conservation in our own actions and advocacy. Every time we practice Leave No Trace, support local businesses that operate responsibly on public lands, and make our voices heard in land management decisions, we're building the foundation for balanced stewardship that benefits everyone. 


Our public lands belong to all of us, which means we each have the power, and responsibility, to be good stewards of the lands we love. 


-Bryan Pride (bpride@tuleyome.org)

Certified California Naturalist

Policy Director

RECENT ARTICLES

By Nate Lillge August 6, 2025
Bill Grabert is stepping down from his position as treasurer on Tuleyome’s volunteer Board of Directors – we thank him for his many years of service! Bill first joined Tuleyome as a staff member in 2016. His nature-based teaching influenced many youth over the years with school field trips throughout the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument region, from Redbud Trail to Conaway Ranch. As part of Tuleyome’s team of instructors for the California Certified Naturalist program, Bill inspired adults to care for the region. His love of the area began as soon as he graduated from college and began working as a geologist in Lake County. Bill has devoted his diverse knowledge and skillset to care for, steward, and enjoy California’s northern Inner Coast Range Mountains for many years. He will be missed on the Board but we look forward to seeing him on the trails! -Nate Lillge (Adventures and Engagement Director)  and Lyndsay Dawkins (Volunteer Tuleyome Board President)
By Bryan Pride August 6, 2025
Fifty-eight and a half million acres of America's wildest forests have been protected for nearly 25 years by the Roadless Rule, a conservation cornerstone that could soon disappear. Established in 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) , more commonly known as the Roadless Rule, designated "Inventoried Roadless Areas" (IRAs) across our nation's forests, prohibiting new roads from being built. Now, USDA Secretary Rollins wants to rescind it . From Alaska to California, the losses from this rollback would be massive. In Alaska, 92% of the Tongass National Forest could lose protection, threatening one of the world's most pristine ecosystems and the indigenous communities who call it home. California would lose protections across 4.4 million acres spanning 21 national forests , which has the potential to impact treasured places like Inyo, Shasta-Trinity, and the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument. Rule Born from Necessity, Not Ideology The Roadless Rule traces back to 1998, when U.S. Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck saw the agency's vast road system as a major environmental and fiscal problem . To put this in perspective: the Forest Service maintains eight times more miles of road than the Interstate Highway System. The agency had too many roads to properly maintain for safety and environmental purposes, with poorly maintained roads contributing to erosion and other harms across national forests. The road maintenance backlog had ballooned to $8.4 billion while the agency received only 20% of the funding needed to maintain roads to environmental and safety standards. Dombeck proposed a moratorium on road construction in undeveloped forest areas across most of the National Forest System. The agency adopted an 18-month moratorium in February 1999 pending completion of an overall road management plan. Later that year, the agency undertook a rule making process to provide long-term administrative protection for roadless areas. The Forest Service conducted an extensive public involvement process that produced 1.7 million comments , with the majority favoring a strong national policy protecting roadless areas. The resulting Roadless Rule was not and is still not a blanket ban: it makes exceptions to allow access to non-federal land inholdings and pre-existing mineral leases, and allows logging to reduce fire risk, improve habitat or aid in the recovery of endangered species. What began as a fiscally prudent solution to an unwieldy road network became a cornerstone of forest conservation, one that Americans overwhelmingly supported then and continue to support today. The Administration's Claims vs. Reality According to USDA Secretary Rollins , the rule is “overly restrictive”, hinders fire prevention and responsible timber production, therefore the Rule poses “real harm to millions of acres of our national forests.” Rollins linked rescinding the Rule with Presidential Executive Order 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation .” The reality is different. Rollins' claim ignores what's actually at stake. Roadless areas are essential ecosystems that provide clean air and water while keeping wilderness intact. They also serve as critical refuges for wildlife; 57% of America's most vulnerable species depend on roadless areas for habitat. For the 156 million Americans who visit national forests annually, these areas offer irreplaceable backcountry recreation experiences. Most strikingly, the administration's fire prevention argument is backwards. Scientific research reveals that 88% of wildfires are human-caused , and 95% of these fires start within half a mile of a road. Areas closest to roads experience 53% more fires than would occur by random chance. Less than 3% of wildfires start in wilderness areas more than a mile from roads. This research indicates that more roads through our forests are more likely to increase fires and would outweigh the effects of improving fire containment. While the administration claims roads improve fire response, fire management teams consistently identify inadequate resources and personnel shortages, not roads , as the primary barriers to effective wildfire management . Rather than building roads that increase fire risk, fire management experts advocate for investing in cultural and prescribed burns, fire mitigation and forest restoration, proven approaches that are underfunded but key to preventing future fires and reducing fire magnitude. What's Next? Rescinding the Roadless Rule will require a public comment period that has yet to be announced. This is when we can all share our views. Tuleyome will be following this issue closely and will be commenting. For more information on the Roadless Rule and how to participate in the public comment process or other advocacy opportunities, contact B ryan Pr ide .
By Kristie Ehrhardt August 6, 2025
The short answer is honestly, pretty much anywhere! Because the 344,476 acre Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument (the Monument) is located in the rural areas of Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano and Yolo counties you will have a great view of the dark night sky, free from urban light pollution from virtually anywhere within its boundaries! The Monument is an easy drive from not only the metropolitan Sacramento area but also from the San Francisco Bay Area as well as the North Bay communities making it an easy day trip. If you’re here especially for the Perseid meteor shower though it might be a very long day since best viewing happens between the hours of midnight and early morning. If you’re adventurous and up for an all-nighter, be certain to pack plenty of water and snacks and be sure to pull over only where it is safe and you’re not blocking a road, especially when it’s dark. Also always keep safety in mind and look out for wildlife as the Monument is home to black bears, mountain lions, coyotes, tule elk and bobcats that may be traveling through the area as well. If you’d like to stay a night (or several), there are multiple developed campgrounds to choose from inside the Monument boundaries. If you’re up camping, check out The Blue Oaks Campground, Indian Valley Campground, Hunting Creek Campground, Deer Valley Campground, Lower Nye Campground, West Crocket Campground or Kowalski Camping area just to name a few of the sites available for overnight stays. Before you go though, please do check with the United States Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management websites for details on the particular camping area you’re interested in as well as current conditions, requirements and fire restrictions. The Monument also offers primitive camping in the three wilderness areas located within the Monument boundaries. Cache Creek Wilderness, Cedar Roughs Wilderness and Snow Mountain Wilderness present nearly unlimited opportunities for dispersed camping or backcountry camping (areas located outside of designated campgrounds). Although camping is allowed and encouraged, these areas have no amenities such as tables, toilets, available water or waste removal and require you to pack out all trash and waste. There are no motorized vehicles allowed within Wilderness areas and they provide places for deep solitude with nature. Camping in Wilderness areas or other dispersed camping areas require visitors to understand and follow the Leave No Trace principles of outdoor recreating as well as planning ahead and knowing the area and what to pack. That said, other than the trees potentially blocking some of the night sky, you’re sure to avoid urban light pollution and have an unobstructed view of the night sky from practically anywhere within the Monument! -Kristie Ehrhardt ( kehrhardt@tuleyome.org ) Tuleyome Land Conservation Program Manager