WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho) today wrote Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Tracy Stone Manning demanding the agency withdraw its proposed Public Lands Rule, given the agency’s failure to abide by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the negative impacts the rule will have on the thousands of small businesses who utilize BLM land.

“Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They deserve a seat at the table, especially when agencies unilaterally impose policy that will significantly impact their livelihood. By flouting the requirements established by the [Regulatory Flexibility Act], BLM is denying our constituents the right afforded to them by Congress to participate in the rulemaking process,” wrote the Senators. “ . . . Because the proposed rule would upend BLM’s multiple use mandate and local western economies, we implore the agency to permanently withdraw this disastrous proposal.

Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) joined Risch in sending the letter.

The process BLM underwent for instituting its Public Lands Rule violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires agencies to solicit feedback from affected entities and publish an analysis demonstrating the rule’s impact on these entities.

Senator Risch has previously urged BLM to withdraw the proposed Public Lands Rule and introduced legislation to block the rule.

Congress created a framework for the BLM to manage its 245 million of acres through the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Central to FLPMA is the “multiple use mandate.” The mandate directs that the many productive uses for America’s public lands must be utilized and balanced. These uses include: grazing, mining, energy development, timber harvest, and recreation.

The Biden administration’s proposed Public Lands Rule upends this nearly 50-year public land policy by adding a restrictive definition of conservation—functionally no use—as a multiple use. The proposed rule would also create obstructive “conservation leases” to take otherwise productive land completely out of production for ten or more years. While conservation is often a result of many multiple uses—like grazing and forest management—it has never been considered a use of its own merit and goes in complete conflict with the productive multiple use mandate.

The SBA Office of Advocacy has also raised concerns regarding BLM’s rule and the negative effects it will have on businesses.

# # #