Federal rule prioritizing 'conservation' in federal land use revoked

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) revoked a 2024 rule requiring it to elevate conservation to an equal status as elements like grazing, recreation, or timber in land-use decisions.

The repeal reduces the role of “conservation” in BLM’s land use decisions and reverts the agency’s decision making to the “multiple use and sustained yield” land use strategy outlined in the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act. 

BLM announced it would consider repealing the rule in Sept. 2025, sparking controversy and debates between lawmakers, conservationists, ranchers, tribal groups and others.

The rule, titled the “Conservation and Landscape Health Rule,” was originally passed on May 9, 2024 and asserted that “Conservation is a use of public lands on equal footing with other uses and is necessary for the protection and restoration of important resources.”

The rule defined “conservation” as “the management of natural resources to promote protection and restoration.” 

A public comment period gathered 147,649 comments, according to its official page on the Federal Register. A statistical analysis  by the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation advocacy organization, found that 92% of public comments were in support of keeping the rule.

However, the rule also received pushback from lawmakers like Montana Governor Greg Gianforte, who wrote BLM a letter of strong support of rescinding the rule.

More from this section

House with glass floor hits market for nearly $1 million

Study shows Bozeman airport impact at over $2 billion

Taxpayers got this much from this year’s refund

The Interior Department cancelled the rule on May 11, 2026.

Washington congressman Dan Newhouse spoke out in support of BLM’s decision, saying that the 2024 rule “threatened to restrict productive use of public lands.”

“By including conservation as a multiple use under FLPMA, contrary to Congressional intent, unelected bureaucrats threatened to lock up millions of acres across the West. Conservation is an implicit benefit of other multiple uses, it is not in and of itself a use,” Newhouse said.

The Sierra Club, a conservation advocacy organization, spoke out against the decision alongside several other organizations and policy directors. Several comments included in its petition said BLM’s decision would “weaken public land protection while prioritizing extractive industries.”

“This action follows a broader pattern of efforts aiming to accelerate drilling and mining, weaken federal land management capacity, and advance proposals to sell off or privatize public lands. Together, these moves represent a clear rejection of the public’s demand for responsible, balanced stewardship of our public lands,” the Sierra Club wrote.

BLM’s decision about the land rule came days after another decision to repeal bison grazing permits on federal public lands in north-central Montana. 

BLM oversees about 10% of land in the U.S., according to the Associated Press.