The BLM “Conservation & Landscape Health” Rule—and Why We’re Urging a Middle Path

Quick Take: In May 2024, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) finalized the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, commonly known as the "Public Lands Rule", to clarify conservation as part of “multiple use,” standardize a land-health framework, and create new restoration/mitigation leasing tools. On September 11, 2025, BLM proposed to rescind the rule in full, arguing it is unnecessary, constrains agency flexibility, redefines “use,” and could increase litigation and delay. While we understand some of these concerns, IOGA sees value in many of the provisions and principles of the rule, and suggests modifying—rather than scrapping—the rule to retain practical tools while avoiding the policy whiplash that hurts businesses. 

What the 2024 Rule Did (and why outfitters should care)

Put conservation as a “multiple use” squarely into regulation. The rule anchored itself in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s (FLMPA) multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate (43 U.S.C. 1701–1702, 1732) which requires the BLM to manage public lands for a wide variety of values, including to conserve and protect fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. BLM codified “Principles for Ecosystem Resilience” at § 6101.5, including prevention of unnecessary or undue degradation (UUD). Idaho could benefit from a stronger federal focus on conservation – data suggests that almost 6 million acres, or about 54%, of BLM-managed lands in Idaho are failing to meet land health standards. For outfitters, the emphasis on keeping landscapes healthy and productive over time supports recreation-based businesses that depend on functioning habitat and intact scenic settings. 

Helped ensure that recreation – Idaho’s top economic driver on BLM lands – remains sustainable into the future. In Idaho, recreation is the primary driver of economic activity on BLM lands. Recreation creates more revenue annually than grazing, mineral/oil, gas, and BLM expenditures. This robust recreation economy, for both the outfitted and non-outfitted public,  is based on the availability of healthy ecosystems with robust populations of fish, game, birds, and other wildlife. We believe it is in the interest of IOGA members  for conservation to be a priority on BLM lands. However, we also recognize the outdoor recreation economy relies on reliable access and we are wary of any policy change that could potentially restrict access. This is why, after our review of the 2024 Rule we believe access would generally not be negatively affected by the rule as it explicitly states that conservation and associated tools are not prioritized over other uses, and that the restoration leases will not be used where existing rights/authorized uses would be in conflict. We understand the 2024 Rule not as a radical departure from the BLM’s mandate, but rather as a way of ensuring the land management decisions are consistent with the statutory requirements for multiple use under FLPMA, in particular as stated in Section 102 (43 U.S.C. 1701). 

Clarified land-health mechanics and responses. The rule added definitions that make decisions and expectations more transparent across programs, including “significant causal factor” (which triggers BLM action to correct the problem) and “significant progress” toward land-health standards. This consistency can reduce uncertainty across districts—and for permittees who need to plan seasons ahead. 

Added a practical Assessment Vocabulary. “Watershed condition assessment” was defined and aligned with existing BLM assessment practice to improve clarity and efficiency—useful when permits rely on common data and tiered analyses. 

Created restoration & mitigation leasing. The rule created new “conservation leases”, which were split into “restoration leases” and “mitigation leases,” expressly designed to coexist with other uses (including active grazing). The BLM’s leasing authority is well established in FLPMA, but it has not been used for conservation-specific projects in the past. While some were concerned that these leases could be used to restrict access, the rule stated clearly that the conservation leases did not preclude compatible uses such as grazing and recreation. Additionally, the rule specified that these leases could not be used when they would conflict with existing rights or other authorized uses, and specified a preference for locally driven, collaborative projects.  For outfitters, the conservation leases could allow for on-the-ground projects (e.g., riparian repair, trail stabilization, habitat improvements) that enhance the client experience without displacing recreation or requiring federal funds. As of 2025, conservation leases have not been used or implemented in Idaho. 

Improved direction and temporary management for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Consistent with FLPMA §§ 201–202, the rule reiterated giving priority to Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and allowed temporary management for potential ACECs pending plan decisions—intended to protect values while planning catches up. Outfitters benefit when important settings (wildlife corridors, scenic rivers) are managed coherently and consistently. 

Kept the Unnecessary and Undue Degradation guardrail clear. The preamble clarified the distinct elements of “unnecessary” vs. “undue” degradation in Part 6100 without changing the separate mining UUD definition at 43 CFR 3809.5. That helps all users understand the line between acceptable impacts and damage that must be prevented. 

Instituted new direction for managing large intact landscapes. The 2024 Rule required the BLM to “identify large intact landscapes and consider management decisions that maintain their ecological integrity, [...] habitat connectivity, ecosystem resilience, and the capacity to provide for multiple uses and ecosystem services over time”. Accounting for large intact landscapes could have significant effects for outfitters, hunters, and anglers. The policy could help sustain big game habitat by protecting migration corridors and seasonal ranges from fragmentation. For fisheries, maintaining intact watersheds and riparian systems could benefit water quality, spawning grounds, and stream resilience. Intact landscapes could also stabilize forage availability for both wildlife and permitted grazing, reducing conflicts and supporting multiple-use balance. 

At the same time, some outfitters may worry that landscape-scale conservation could be interpreted in ways that restrict public access—for example, limiting road building or new recreation infrastructure in sensitive areas. The overall effect would depend on how BLM implemented the requirement: whether it is used to sustain the multiple-use balance, or whether it inadvertently prioritizes conservation to the exclusion of access. As of 2025, the intact landscape provision has not been implemented in a meaningful way in Idaho.

The 2025 Proposal: Why BLM Wants to Rescind

BLM now proposes to repeal Part 6100 entirely (including subparts on conservation use, land health, and leasing), with comments due November 10, 2025 (Docket BLM-2025-0001). 

Key stated reasons:

• Statutory theory: BLM argues the rule is “unnecessary,” conflicts with FLPMA’s multiple-use framework, and treats conservation as a “non-use” masquerading as a “use” for leasing—beyond FLPMA’s leasing authority (43 U.S.C. 1732). 

• Leasing risk to other uses: Restoration/mitigation leases could, in practice, preclude productive uses (e.g., grazing, minerals, energy) over large areas by deeming them incompatible with lease goals. 

• ACEC process concerns: Temporary ACEC management could short-circuit normal planning and limit public participation; BLM proposes to restore pre-2024 ACEC regs. 

• “Action-forcing” timelines: Land-health deadlines in subpart 6103 allegedly displace usual processes and can interfere with previously authorized uses; BLM proposes to repeal subpart 6103. 

• Process burden & litigation risk: Extra requirements to consider values like “intact landscapes” or provide heightened justifications could invite third-party challenges and slow permitting. 

• Economics & small entities: BLM is re-examining whether 2024 impacts were understated; repeal may shift burdens between restoration providers and extractive/reliant users. 

IOGA’s Position: Fix It—Don’t Swing the Pendulum

IOGA will urge BLM to modify the rule rather than rescind it outright. Two reasons:

1. There’s regulatory value worth keeping. FLPMA already requires multiple use, sustained yield, and prevention of Unnecessary and Undue Degradation (43 U.S.C. 1702(c), 1702(h), 1732(b)). A clear land-health framework, practical definitions, and non-exclusive restoration/mitigation tools can help BLM keep landscapes resilient for outfitting and other uses—if calibrated correctly. Putting the statutory mandate for conservation more clearly into rule will better balance decision making by the BLM, and in the long term will likely improve the quality of range, habitat, and watersheds.

2. End the whiplash. A full repeal invites the next administration to re-impose the rule—or go further—creating regulatory uncertainty that harms outdoor businesses that rely on multi-year planning and investments. A thoughtful middle path is more durable and less likely to trigger backlash.

Our suggested “middle of the road” improvements:

• Keep non-exclusive restoration/mitigation leasing but hard-wire compatibility with other authorized uses and clarify that leases cannot categorically displace permitted recreation or grazing. (Retains funding and mechanisms for on-the-ground improvements while honoring multiple uses.) 

• Replace rigid land-health clocks with performance-based milestones and adaptive management that respect existing permits while still preventing UUD (per FLPMA § 302(b)). 

• Explicitly recognize the importance of public access for conservation. Users of public lands are better stewards in the long run because they have a stake in the resource, and are more willing to protect or restore places they know personally. 

• Preserve local input in the planning process and participation in restoration by requiring the local BLM office to consult with state, county, and tribal governments, as well as local permittees, before designating intact landscapes or issuing conservation leases. Establish public participation thresholds (e.g., mandatory comment periods, local advisory board review) for conservation leases or intact landscape decisions. Preserve the preference for conservation leasing done in partnership with local users and stakeholders.

• Streamline with shared data. Keep the clarified definitions (e.g., watershed condition assessments) that let field offices tier to common assessments—cutting duplicative analyses without lowering standards. 

• Right-size ACEC procedures. Use temporary management sparingly, with clear sideboards and prompt plan follow-through to preserve public participation and planning discipline. 

• Recognize “conservation” as a tool, not a trump card. In rule text and preamble, reaffirm FLPMA’s balance: conservation supports sustained yield and recreation, but does not automatically displace other uses; BLM retains discretion to weigh uses case-by-case under 43 U.S.C. 1732(a)–(b). 

Update: Legal Questions Could Deepen Regulatory Uncertainty at BLM

Since publishing this post, new information has raised some legal concerns about the Bureau of Land Management’s process to rescind the 2024 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule.

As of this writing, the BLM still does not have a Senate-confirmed Director. The agency is being led by Acting Director Bill Groffy. Groffy was appointed from outside the agency and may not meet the legal requirements to legally perform the duties of a Senate-confirmed BLM Director.

Why this matters:

If the BLM finalizes the rescission under an acting official who is not lawfully eligible to serve, that action is exposed to legal challenge, and a court could rule that the withdrawal has no force or effect. This isn’t hypothetical—federal courts invalidated BLM decisions made under an unlawful acting director in 2020.

This leadership and legal uncertainty creates yet another layer of instability for those who rely on BLM decisions to plan long-term operations.  If the rescission is later struck down, stakeholders will be right back where they started—forced to operate under shifting directives and unclear legal ground.

In short, the legal footing of the withdrawal is shaky, and it risks sending BLM policy into another cycle of whiplash. That’s the opposite of what public-land users need: clear, consistent, and legally durable management decisions.

We’ll continue monitoring this as the rulemaking process moves forward.

Bottom line: IOGA favors durable rules that keep Idaho’s guide and outfitter economy competitive and predictable. By smoothing the 2024 Rule’s rough edges—rather than scrapping the entire framework—BLM can better meet FLPMA’s multiple-use mandate while sustaining the landscapes our clients come to experience.