Panel at 307 Wired debates BLM's new conservation and landscape health rule

At a public panel hosted by 307 Wired, federal, state and industry representatives debated the Bureau of Land Management's new conservation and landscape health rule, which the BLM implemented in June 2024 and which defines conservation as a valid use of public land alongside grazing, energy development and recreation.

The rule introduces two notable features: "conservation leasing" (leases for compensatory mitigation and for restoration) and a revised standard for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, or ACECs. Supporters said the changes create new tools for restoring and protecting public lands; opponents said the changes could restrict grazing and resource development and exceed the BLM's authority.

Tracy Manning, identified at the panel as BLM director, said: "The Bureau of Land Management, often known as the BLM, implemented a new conservation and landscape health rule in June of 20 24. The rule advances the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission by prioritizing health and resilience of public lands." Manning said the rule emphasizes protecting "clean water and wildlife habitat, the restoration of lands and waters, and the making of informed management decisions based on science, data, and indigenous knowledge."

Environmental lawyer Brian Mallory summarized how the new leases would work and why they are controversial: "The biggest concern leading to controversy is the new conservation leasing. These leases are for 2 purposes. 1 is compensatory mitigation. Leasing for compensatory mitigation helps project proponents offset the impact of development on public lands. The other is leasing for restoration, which allows third parties to work on public lands to restore them back to the health standard." Mallory said leases would be approved on a case-by-case basis and would not be allowed to override an existing authorization.

Industry and ranching representatives said the rule raises questions about long-standing uses of public land. Mary Eiseley, identified as president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said: "This rule threatens generations of family ranching operations in The US and undermines the balance of multiple use management." Eiseley added that the association believes the BLM lacks authority to create what it sees as a new land use without congressional action and cited the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 as an example of statutory recognition of grazing as a use.

Crystal Burgess, introduced as CEO of Burgett Mining, said two provisions are especially concerning: that energy production and mining may be deemed incompatible with a conservation lease and that the rule expands the scope and ease of designating ACECs, "resulting in less available land for other resources." Burgess said those changes could reduce land available for mining and other resource uses.

Janet Robeson, identified as a Native Americans lands and resource officer, described opportunities for tribal collaboration under the revised ACEC standard: "Tribes now have the ability to help declare critical areas and work collaboratively with the BLM to use traditional and modern knowledge to help restore our public lands." Robeson said the change could help protect culturally relevant sites and incorporate tribal stewardship in restoration planning.

Panelists also described the legal and political context. A Wyoming representative on the panel said states have challenged the rule in court; the discussion referenced a multistate legal challenge and said roughly a dozen states had filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Utah's suit. Audience members and legislators asked about the rule's legal footing: one question referenced the Supreme Court's Chevron decision and asked whether federal rules are binding like statutes. A panelist said enforcement and interpretation differ from statutes and that a rule is not the same as a law enacted by Congress.

The discussion included practical concerns about permitting and workload. Mary Eiseley and others said the rule would expand requirements for land-health reviews and intensity of review prior to authorizations, and they warned that the BLM already faces backlogs on grazing permit renewals. Panelists on both sides recommended more cross-sector dialogue; multiple participants suggested the BLM and stakeholders convene broader working groups to clarify standards, leasing procedures and timelines.

Panelists proposed several possible next steps rather than a single solution: (1) more inclusive rulemaking and stakeholder panels during rule development, (2) clearer guidance on the scope and duration of conservation leases, and (3) data-driven standards for ACEC designation. The panel noted that conservation groups have filed motions to intervene on the states' lawsuits in support of the BLM, while several states and industry groups have sued to block the rule.

The panel did not produce a policy decision. Instead, speakers urged additional stakeholder engagement and recommended that interested parties pursue technical meetings, local resource management plans and legal review. The debate over the rule's scope and effect remains active in courts and in public comment and outreach.