Perhaps clarifiyng was the wrong word, but it kinda seems to me that that is part of it. Putting conservation on par with other uses, which technically it has been, but that is not really what we have seen in the past.FLMA was passed in 1976. So it took 47 years to clarify it? Right now conservation leases don’t exist hence not a current “use” right now so it’s going to be controversial unquestionably if it gets added to the mix. It just seems like bipartisan legislation is a better route rather than the constant push of rules by one admin that then is rolled back when the admin changes. I’m all for conservation but it seems like conservation and historical use wouldn’t have to be mutually exclusive. Maybe that’s not the intention of this rule. I think that’s what has many up in arms over it however.