Last week, the House Committee on Natural Resources marked up and passed H.R. 3397, which would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to withdraw its so-called conservation and landscape health rule that would have devastating impacts on communities across the West.

"America’s outdoor recreation providers are ready to engage in a conversation about conserving our public landscape. The Bureau of Land Management, instead, is purporting to launch a potentially vast and consequential conservation leasing program with little to no stakeholder input. By precluding other authorizations from conservation-leased lands, the Bureau of Land Management is cutting out thousands of would-be partners who operate on, and are regular stewards of, our public lands – America’s outfitters." - America Outdoors Association

“It’s impossible to understand how a brand-new conservation leasing program will work, especially with a new definition that places conservation on par with other uses for the first time in history. These are foundational changes not envisioned by Federal Land Policy and Management Act and they warrant Congressional review and input.”- Motorcycle Industry Council, Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association, and Specialty Vehicle Institute of America

"Over the last several generations, ranchers have been at the front of the line helping the BLM conserve wildlife habitat, reduce wildfire risk, support balanced multiple use, and reduce on-range conflicts. We urge the BLM not to compromise that relationship by forging ahead with a rule that will undoubtedly result in ranchers and other multiple use groups being forced from the landscape over time. We appreciate Congress reminding the BLM that grazing is an essential use of our public lands and ranchers are an essential partner in achieving lasting conservation outcomes." - Kaitlynn Glover, executive director, Public Lands Council

"Advocacy is concerned, however, that BLM’s proposed rule may be contrary to the statutory land management principles laid out in the Federal Land Policy Management Act. Furthermore, BLM’s proposed rule does not adequately consider the impacts to small businesses as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act." - Major L. Clark, III, deputy chief counsel, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy

"Wyoming typically receives over $500 million in federal mineral royalties which pays for education as well as state services. The proposed rule at hand directly jeopardizes education funding in our state, both from state and federal lands." - The Honorable Megan M. Degenfelder, Wyoming Superintendent of Public Education

"The BLM’s Proposed Rule is illegal, unnecessary, and so fundamentally flawed that it must be withdrawn immediately. Our risky reliance on imported minerals is a direct result of five decades of ignoring Congress’ clear directives that minerals should be mined from public lands to help satisfy the Nation’s need for minerals... The Biden administration’s own goals of fighting climate change and reducing carbon emissions require more domestic mining – not less. The Proposed Rule fails to acknowledge any potential effects on our ability to develop minerals in the United States." - Mark Compton, American Exploration and Mining Association

"While we share BLM’s interest in protecting and conserving public lands, we believe that the framework outlined in the Proposed Public Lands Rule contravenes BLM's statutory authority and raises concerns about its potential impact on the effective and legally defensible management of public lands and mineral resources. BLM’s proposed rule ignores Congress’ multiple use mandate, established under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which states that federal lands, resources, and uses must be utilized in a balanced combination that will best meet the needs of the people." - Anne Bradbury, American Exploration and Production Council

"Stewardship is truly strengthened when farmers and ranchers have the flexibility we need to do right by the land. This proposal from BLM has red flags in both policy and process, and we continue to encourage them to go back to the drawing board." - Zippy Duval, president, American Farm Bureau Federation

"We and our members share the goal of sustaining healthy, working lands through science-based management under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). However, the proposed rule would substantially rewrite the goals and implementation of FLPMA without Congressional authorization, limit public input and transparency in land management decisions, restrict multi-use management and public access of federal lands, and create new confusing, arbitrary standards and regulations that impede efficient and effective implementation of land management plans." – Travis Joseph, president, American Forest Resource Council

"CAP has grave concerns about the rule and appreciates the House Resolution requiring it be withdrawn. The legality of the rule in general is very questionable as it is contrary to the explicit provisions of a number of Federal statutes, including the Federal Land Management and Policy Act." - Karen Matthias, executive director, The Council of Alaska Producers

"Aside for Congressional intent and agency overreach, the content of the proposed rule will have devastating impacts on the U.S. economy and hinder U.S. energy security by curtailing energy production on federal lands." - Dan Naatz, Independent Petroleum Producers of America

"Sixty-two percent of counties have federal land within their jurisdiction, meaning decisions from federal land management agencies directly impact county economies, revenue sources, quality of life and environmental stewardship. The proposed Public Lands Rule was written without formal input from states, counties and other impacted stakeholders. We urge BLM and all federal agencies to recognize counties as intergovernmental partners, and we look forward to engaging in the development and implementation of federal lands regulations." - Matthew Chase, executive director, National Association of Counties

"The Biden administration’s self-sabotage of domestic mineral supply chains through a consistent barrage of withdrawals and land-use restrictions, including the proposed rule, is completely out of step with the dramatic increase in minerals production that is needed to keep up with new technologies, infrastructure, manufacturing and national security needs, let alone the administration’s energy transition goals." - National Mining Association, et. al.

"Not only would the rule change the face of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, but it allows BLM to sidestep its statutory mandates under a wide array of federal laws governing energy exploration. Therefore, if finalized, the rule would in general make it more difficult to develop energy-rich basins across the West, decrease investment in energy-related projects, prevent job creation, and reduce revenue for federal and state programs." - Permian Basin Petroleum Association

"The Biden Admin's proposed Conservation and Landscape Rule could put virtually all 244 million acres of federal land into permanent conservation status rendering those lands all but economically inactive. These 244 million acres provide over $200 billion in economic activity in 11 western states. Using billionaire donor dollars, the rule will spur the creation of a whole new cottage industry of Astroturf funded NGOs which will magically spring up to nominate vast areas for conservation any time an existing lease is up for renewal or new areas are nominated for multiple use. The news is not all bad - it will create jobs for attorneys and activists who will be working diligently to end multiple use of the public lands." - Tim Stewart, U.S. Oil and Gas Association

"BLM’s proposed conservation rule would impose unduly restrictive measures that violate the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate by closing or restricting unnecessarily large amounts of land to productive uses. These productive activities are important not only to supply Americans with the basics of modern life, but also to sustain rural communities across the West." - Kathleen Sgamma, president, Western Energy Alliance

"The Proposed Rule will be harmful to our country. It will lead to greater dependency on foreign minerals at a time when the President and Congress have established policies to increase domestic mineral production in order to reduce our reliance on mineral imports – especially from China.... As the [Department of Defense] recently noted, 'Contrary to a common belief, this risk [relying on foreign minerals] is more than a military vulnerability; it impacts the entire U.S. economy and our values.'" - Emily Hendrickson and Debra Struhsacker, Women's Mining Coalition