The Bureau of Land Management’s Conservation and Landscape Health Rule has been one of the most controversial proposals in recent years. Since 2023, BlueRibbon Coalition has consistently opposed this rule— alongside many other multi-use organizations. Our voices have been heard and now we need our members and supporters to get its full-withdrawal across the finish line.
The rule alleged to prioritize “conservation” on BLM land through a new scheme of selling “conservation leases.” This was a backdoor attempt to sell out our public land to the highest bidder to achieve the goals of the 30×30 Agenda to lock up our public lands. The highest bidder for these leases would likely be billionaires and well-funded environmental groups who would co-opt the leases to restrict all other uses – including any non-preferred forms of recreation.
The rule also defined a new process for creating highly restrictive Areas of Critical Environmental Concern on public land, which would have been used to lock up millions of acres of public land.
This rule creates unnecessary layers of regulation that undermine multiple-use management, restrict recreation, and put rural economies at risk. Here are four of the biggest problems with the rule:
1. FLPMA does not give authority for this rule.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) established a clear multiple-use mandate for BLM lands. It does not authorize BLM to create sweeping new regulatory programs like “conservation leases.” By stretching FLPMA beyond its scope, the agency is acting outside of its legal authority.
2. ACECs are already highly restrictive.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)— which were already in place before this Rule— have long functioned as de facto wilderness designations, even though they were not created by Congress. Expanding ACEC use through this rule gives BLM even more power to restrict public access and recreation while bypassing congressional oversight.
3. Conservation is already being prioritized above other uses.
The BLM’s current planning framework already places heavy emphasis on conservation. There are dozens of statutes that require the BLM to analyze environmental impacts of its actions and conserve important environmental resources. Adding yet another layer of priority tilts the balance even further, creating a huge imbalance against other lawful uses like recreation, grazing, mineral development, and forest health management.
4. Conservation leases are vague and problematic.
The rule creates a new concept of “conservation leases” without explaining who can buy them, how long they last, or how they will be managed. This lack of clarity creates uncertainty for all other users of public lands and risks shutting out the public in favor of opaque deals made behind closed doors. The rule creates a scheme where leaseholders will receive financial benefit from mitigation fees that would be broadly charged to the other public lands users. As a result, this program turns conservation into an extractive industry where all public land users will be forced to finance deep-pocketed anti-access groups in order to enjoy public lands.
BlueRibbon Coalition has opposed this rule from the start because it undermines the principle of multiple use that has guided the management of our public lands for decades. Rescinding this rule is an essential step to protect access, balance, and accountability on BLM lands.
We encourage all of our members to submit comments in support of rescission. Public lands belong to the American people, and they must be managed under the law with transparency, balance, and respect for all uses— not through vague, overreaching regulations. Comments are accepted through November 10, 2025.
For a deeper dive behind the mechanics of this unprecedented rule, read our article: The Public Lands Rule is a Public Lands Sell-off
