Utah Public Lands Alliance (UPLA) is proud to celebrate a major victory for public land access and the future of multiple-use management across America. With the Bureau of Land Management’s final rescission of the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule — commonly referred to as the “Public Lands Rule” — the voices of public land users, local communities, and responsible recreation advocates were finally heard.

For more than a year, UPLA worked tirelessly to oppose the rule and educate the public about its far-reaching consequences. From the beginning, UPLA warned that the rule threatened to fundamentally alter the multiple-use mandate established by Congress under FLPMA by elevating “conservation” as a dominant use capable of restricting recreation, access, grazing, energy development, and other lawful public uses of BLM lands.

UPLA’s leadership, volunteers, and members engaged in one of the most extensive advocacy efforts in our organization’s history. We submitted detailed and substantive comments during both the original rulemaking process and the rescission process, outlining legal, procedural, economic, and public-access concerns. Our comments addressed issues including:

• Violations of Congressional intent and the multiple-use mandate
• Improper expansion of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)
• The dangerous precedent of conservation leasing and privatized control of public lands
• Regulatory overreach exceeding BLM’s statutory authority
• Economic impacts to rural communities and recreation economies
• Discrimination against disabled users and those dependent on motorized access
• The threat posed to public access, tourism, stewardship, and volunteerism

UPLA’s comments were not merely submitted — they mattered.

In the BLM’s final rescission rule, many of the very concerns raised by UPLA were specifically acknowledged and ultimately agreed with by the agency. The final rescission repeatedly recognized that the rule:

• Created unnecessary regulatory burdens
• Elevated conservation in a manner inconsistent with FLPMA
• Introduced excessive procedural complexity and litigation risk
• Threatened productive uses and access to public lands
• Expanded ACEC processes beyond Congressional intent
• Created uncertainty through restoration and mitigation leasing
• Imposed unnecessary restrictions and administrative burdens on land users

These concerns closely mirrored the arguments UPLA raised throughout our comment submissions and public outreach efforts.

UPLA also worked aggressively beyond the formal comment process. Our organization directly engaged with President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, urging the administration to fully rescind the rule and restore balance to public land management. We emphasized that America’s public lands belong to the people — not special interests — and that access, recreation, stewardship, and responsible use must remain central components of federal land management policy.

This victory did not happen by accident.

It happened because thousands of public land users spoke up. It happened because organizations like UPLA refused to stay silent. It happened because substantive comments, legal analysis, public pressure, and grassroots advocacy made a difference.

UPLA thanks every member, supporter, volunteer, donor, club, business partner, and public lands advocate who participated in this fight. Whether you submitted comments, attended meetings, shared information online, donated to the cause, or helped educate others, your efforts mattered. I am especially proud for the extensive legal research and supporting documentation in preparing of our comments by our Natural Resource Consultant, Rose Winn.

This rescission is proof that citizen involvement works.

But the fight for public land access is far from over.

UPLA will continue working to ensure that public lands remain open, accessible, and managed under the true principles of multiple use and sustained yield for future generations. We remain committed to defending responsible recreation, protecting access, promoting stewardship, and ensuring that America’s public lands stay in the hands of the American people.

We Fight. We Win. We Ride.

Loren Campbell

NEPA rules that were proposed last summer have now been finalized, and they are very disturbing. The new rules dramatically reduce the requirement for Agencies to allow comments from the public, both in reductions in the stages or actions, the open period for comments (as little as 10 days), and revision of the Review Conferences to be conducted by the same person that signed the Decision rather than an independent person. These are only a few of our concerns, and we forwarded these comments to both Forest Service and elected officials.

There’s nothing you need to do at this time, but just want you to be aware of this and our pursuits.

Significant progress has been made toward preserving access to BLM and SITLA lands in the Virgin area. We have held two productive meetings with the Town of Virgin, the Washington County Attorney, and the PLPCO Assistant Attorney General for Washington County to explore viable paths forward.

As a reminder, there are two separate access rights-of-way in this area: the historic RS 2477 route and a prescriptive easement crossing Lot 10 of the Zion’s Edge subdivision. While there are valid legal claims supporting both routes, all parties generally agree that maintaining reliable access through at least one of these corridors would be sufficient.

Having multiple options improves the likelihood of preserving access, but it also adds complexity, as each potential solution affects different property owners in different ways. To allow time to work toward a voluntary and mutually acceptable resolution, we have agreed with the Town of Virgin to temporarily delay our appeal hearing.

In the meantime, all “No Trespassing” signs have been removed, and access—both motorized and non-motorized—is currently open and allowed.

UPLA submitted comments on BLM’s plan to close all the free dispersed camping near the SR9, and supplement camping by building developed camping and improving some designated camping on the South Side of the Virgin River. Another part of their plan is to close some areas near Gooseberry Mesa for restoration, and build a developed campground there.

UPLA looked at the plan, and is concerned about efforts that will end Free, dispersed camping in both area. You can read our comments here

Public comments close on December 24, so if this concerns you, please go to the BLM EPlanning website for details and to submit your comments.

UPLA submitted very detailed comments supporting the rescission of the BLM Land Conservation and Health Rule which are published below. UPLA has been working for the past 2 years to prevent this rule from being implemented, and fortunately, the current Administration and BLM have addressed our concerns by proposing rescission of the rule.

Once again, extreme conservation groups have been pretty successful at painting a false narrative that this rule is largely inconsequential, but the truth is that it could be a death blow to restricting all motorized travel on BLM land. Please don’t make your decisions based on the flood of social media content, our opposition can outspend us, but don’t let them outsmart us. It’s worth your time to read to understand the real consequences of this rule.

Protecting your access for motorized recreation is what we do. please consider joining or making a donation today at www.UtahPLA.com/help

Protect Our Public Lands: Why You Should Comment by November 10

If you recreate, explore, or ride on America’s public lands, the Bureau of Land Management’s Public Lands Rule permanently changes what “multiple use” means — and not for the better. This rule undermines the foundation of balanced management that has guided the BLM for nearly fifty years. That’s why it’s critical to submit comments by November 10 urging the Department of Interior to withdraw the rule.

What the Rule Actually Does

The BLM claimed the Public Lands Rule simply “elevated conservation” alongside recreation, grazing, mining, and energy development. But in practice, the rule redefines “conservation” as a stand-alone multiple-use mandate — something Congress never authorized under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

Under FLPMA, multiple use means managing lands for the balanced combination of various uses — recreation, grazing, timber, minerals, and wildlife habitat — without prioritizing one use over another. Conservation has always been a management goal, not a use category with legal standing equal to all others. By rewriting that definition through regulation, the BLM effectively tipped the scale toward preservation at the expense of access and productivity.

The new rules defining the evaluation and implementation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is another way to eliminate motorized access on the BLM lands. The establishment and reinforcement of Research Natural Areas as type of ACECs is another red flag to closing public lands for public use.

Even worse, the rule introduces a new mechanism — the “conservation lease.” These 10-year leases could be granted to private groups, corporations, or even foreign-funded entities, giving them effective control over large areas of BLM land. Lessees could dictate which activities occur — potentially excluding off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, overlanding, hunting, or grazing. There is no clear statutory authority for these leases, meaning the agency has invented a new land-management tool outside of congressional oversight.

Why It Threatens Access for Off-Roaders and Other Recreation Users

If you enjoy motorized or trail-based recreation, the danger is immediate:
– The rule repeatedly references “casual use recreation,” a term historically interpreted to mean non-motorized activity. Under conservation leases, that language could justify excluding OHV travel from huge areas of public land.
– By giving “conservation” equal status under multiple-use law, BLM can now justify closing routes or restricting vehicle access — not as temporary mitigation, but as a legally co-equal use priority.
– Conservation leases could overlap existing recreation areas, grazing allotments, or permitted events, effectively privatizing management decisions that have always been made through public planning.
– Because this new priority isn’t tied to Congress, it sets a precedent for future administrations to reshape land use without a single vote from elected officials.

Why Your Comment Matters

Public comments are the most direct way to tell the BLM that this rule violates both the spirit and the letter of FLPMA. Every individual comment builds the administrative record that courts, Congress, and policymakers will later review. If we fail to speak up, the record will suggest the public supports this dramatic reinterpretation of multiple use.

You can strengthen your comment by including these points:

1. Congress never defined “conservation” as a use under FLPMA; this rule unlawfully expands agency authority.
   2. Conservation leases privatize management of public lands and could exclude legitimate recreation activities.
   3. Motorized recreation is not “casual use,” and the rule’s terminology risks permanent closure of access routes.
   4. True multiple use means balance, not prioritization of one interest over others.
   5. The current rule has so many flaws and red flags that revising it should not be an option. Withdrawing or rescinding the rule completely is the only path to lawful, congressionally authorized management under FLPMA.

The Bottom Line

Our public lands belong to all of us — not to corporations, outside groups, or bureaucratic constructs that distort the meaning of multiple use. Defining “conservation” as a mandated use tilted public-lands policy toward exclusion and away from shared access. Combined with untested conservation leases, this rule could lock away millions of acres from the very citizens who fund, maintain, and steward them.

The current administration and the BLM have now recognized that the Public Lands Rule was a gross overstep in public lands management, and has proposed withdrawing the Rule established under the prior administration, but we need your comments supporting the withdrawal.

The deadline to make your voice heard is November 10. Submit your comment today and stand up for balanced management, open access, and the principle that public lands should remain public — for all responsible users.

2 Ways to Submit your Comments

1. Click on this link to submit your comments directly into Regulations.gov. You can also upload word or pdf documents directly on this page.

2. Go to BlueRibbon Coalition’s Comments page to learn more and submit comments there.