12 Days of Legal Updates: Our Fight to Withdraw the Public Lands Rule

Earlier this year, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) began the process of rescinding the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule (CLHR)—a sweeping regulation many have called the “Public Lands Rule”, which puts a nice spin on it. BlueRibbon Coalition submitted formal comments urging the agency to withdraw the rule in its entirety, because the rule fundamentally restructured how 245 million acres of public land would be managed—without congressional authorization, without meaningful public participation, and at the expense of the public’s access.

Since the rule was first introduced in 2023 and then finalized in 2024, members of Congress have introduced multiple bills to overturn it. Western governors, county commissions, recreation organizations, grazing permittees, mining interests, and energy producers have expressed deep concern about the rule’s effects. And most importantly, everyday Americans who depend on access to public lands for recreation, hunting, grazing, energy development, and economic opportunity recognized the rule for what it was—a de facto public-lands shutdown disguised as “conservation.”

BRC has repeatedly warned that the Public Lands Rule amounts to a public-lands sell-off—placing control of vast landscapes in the hands of private, often unaccountable interests, through mechanisms like conservation leases.

1. The Rule Exceeded BLM’s Legal Authority—Especially After Loper Bright

The Conservation and Landscape Health Rule attempted to elevate “conservation” to a formal land-use category on equal footing with grazing, recreation, mineral development, and timber. But nowhere in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) does Congress define conservation as a “use,” nor does the statute authorize BLM to create a new category of leases that override other uses.

• FLPMA lists specific major uses—grazing, recreation, energy, minerals, rights-of-way—not conservation leases.
• No statute authorizes conservation leases, passive restoration areas, or third-party nominations for new de facto protected land designations.
• The Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision eliminated Chevron deference, meaning agencies no longer get judicial “benefit of the doubt” when stretching statutory language. This rule likely wouldn’t survive under the new standard.

In short, BLM tried to create wilderness-like restrictions without congressional approval—a clear violation of the Property Clause and the limits Congress placed on the agency.

2. The Rule Would Have Created a Shadow Wilderness System Through Conservations Leases

The rule introduced a brand-new concept: conservation leasing, allowing private entities—including potentially foreign-funded organizations—to obtain long-term control of public lands and block other uses they deem “inconsistent.”

• Conservation leases could exclude grazing, motorized recreation, mineral development, and even non-motorized activities that require vehicle access.
• Leases designed to “offset impacts” from developments like solar or wind could last perpetually, functionally locking up land forever.
• BLM would have no clear mechanisms for enforcing compliance or preventing abuse.

This is why BRC and others have called the rule a public-lands sell-off: it gives unprecedented control of federal land to private interests, while reducing public oversight and eliminating transparency.

3. ACECs and “Intact Landscapes” Would Have Been Used to Justify Massive Land Closures

The rule dramatically expanded BLM’s authority to designate:

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)
• “Intact landscapes”—a new, undefined category not found in any statute

The rule:

• Allowed third parties to nominate new ACECs outside the normal planning process
• Required BLM to manage these areas as if they were already designated
• Eliminated the 60-day public comment period required under NEPA
• Used broad, subjective criteria—“resilience,” “landscape connectivity,” “intactness”—that have no statutory basis

This would have created widespread land restrictions with no meaningful public input and no congressional oversight. The ink hadn’t even dried on this rule before the Bureau of Land Management in Wyoming designated 1 million acres as ACECs in the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan. Because Wyoming is exempt from the Antiquities Act, the ACEC designation became the tool for locking up millions of acres of land in Wyoming.

4. The Rule Threatened Recreation Access—Especially Motorized Access

BLM claimed that “casual use” recreation would continue under conservation leases. But the agency has long held that motorized recreation does not qualify as casual use—a position affirmed in Center for Biological Diversity v. BLM (2007).

This means:

• OHV routes, snowmobile areas, e-bike access, and vehicle-based dispersed camping could be restricted or eliminated
• Permitted recreation events (races, organized rides, guided tours, filming, etc.) could be prohibited entirely
• Even non-motorized users who rely on vehicle access to reach trailheads would lose opportunities

At a moment when outdoor recreation is booming—and motorized recreation is one of the strongest economic drivers—the rule would have slammed the door on millions of users.

5. The Rule Ignored the Enormous Economic Importance of Multiple-Use Lands

BLM’s own data shows that multiple-use activities on BLM lands generated:

• $201 billion in economic output
• 783,000 jobs

But BLM’s regulatory analysis for the Rule astonishingly claimed it would not have an economic impact of $100 million or more, dismissing impacts to energy development, grazing, mining, recreation, and rural communities.

The numbers do not add up.

6. Congress Is Taking Action to Overturn the Rule

Because the rule exceeds statutory authority and undermines FLPMA’s multiple-use mandate, members of Congress have introduced bills to rescind it. A coalition of U.S. Senators—both during and after the rule’s development—have expressed strong opposition.

These efforts reflect growing recognition that the rule:

• Violates the Congressional Review Act
• Recreates elements of the previously disapproved 2016 BLM Planning Rule
• Interferes with multiple-use management
• Poses national-security risks by enabling foreign-influenced conservation entities to control access to American land

Rescission is the only lawful and sensible path forward.

Conclusion: Rescission Protects Access, Multiple Use, and Public Lands for All Americans

BlueRibbon Coalition supports the full rescission of the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule because it:

• Undermines FLPMA’s multiple-use mandate
• Creates unauthorized land-use designations
• Jeopardizes recreation access, especially motorized access
• Threatens rural economies
• Opens the door to foreign or private control of federal land through conservation leases
• Fails to comply with NEPA, economic review requirements, or statutory limitations
• Cannot withstand judicial scrutiny after Loper Bright

BRC remains committed to defending public-land access for all Americans—motorized and non-motorized—rooted in a balanced, shared-use approach that reflects the true intent of multiple-use management.

We will continue to monitor congressional action, engage with BLM, and work with our partners to ensure this rule is rescinded and replaced with a framework that respects the law, supports rural communities, and keeps public lands open.