Why Conservation Leasing Still Matters for America’s Public Lands
Implemented during the Biden administration, the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule was designed to help reduce conflict on federal lands and facilitate voluntary conservation. The rule identifies conservation as a valid “use” of federal land under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), puts conservation on an equal footing with other uses such as grazing and energy development, and—importantly—authorizes “conservation leases” as a tool to support voluntary, private investment in restoring and stewarding public lands.
While PERC does not support most aspects of the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, we believe its conservation leasing provisions are worth keeping. In comments submitted to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—and in a separate letter delivered to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum—we urge the agency to retain these provisions, which represent a free-market alternative to regulatory conflict and can enable much-needed voluntary stewardship across the West.
Why Rescinding Conservation Leasing Would Set Conservation Back
Conservation leasing is a powerful tool for enabling private investment in on-the-ground conservation—without requiring new mandates or litigation. Rescinding these provisions would set back conservation efforts and undercut the President’s own policy agenda.
In July, President Trump issued the Make America Beautiful Again executive order outlining his administration’s conservation priorities. The order directs the BLM to “encourage responsible, voluntary conservation efforts” and to “cut bureaucratic delays that hinder effective environmental management.”
Yet disallowing conservation leasing does the opposite.
Consider cheatgrass removal: A conservation lease allows a private entity to invest in restoring native grasslands while securing the ability to protect that investment from the rapid return of invasive cheatgrass. Such voluntary stewardship is exactly what the administration has said it wants to encourage. Instead, the BLM is now suggesting that these investments are unnecessary, favoring administrative withdrawals and additional regulations as the primary means of conserving public lands. These are the very bureaucratic delays the President has directed the agency to eliminate.
The BLM’s Rationale Doesn’t Hold Up
As outlined in PERC’s formal comment, the BLM’s reasons for rescinding the rule’s conservation leasing authority are specious. Conservation is plainly a lawful use of federal land under FLPMA. Conservation leasing is fully consistent with the agency’s “multiple use” mandate. And it is not, as some critics assert, an end-run around the withdrawal process.
For decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that conservation is not equivalent to preservation. Conservation is the active management of land to produce environmental benefits—and for that reason, it is a legitimate “use” of land under FLPMA.
Reform the Policy, Don’t Discard It
PERC recognizes that the BLM and some stakeholders have raised valid concerns about how conservation leases might be implemented. In our comment and letter, we offer several reforms to:
- Protect existing users’ rights
- Prevent conservation leases from being given away to favored groups
- Hold conservation lessees accountable for managing the land they’ve committed to steward
These are reasonable improvements. But to discard conservation leasing entirely would undermine the administration’s own stated policies while increasing wildfire risks, contributing to habitat degradation, and worsening rangeland health across the West.
At a time when our public lands need more voluntary investment, innovation, and collaboration—not less—retaining conservation leasing is the prudent path forward.
