Open for comment · closes January 11
Oppose BLM's rewrite of how it protects Critical Lands
Bureau of Land Management · BLM-managed public lands nationwide
- What
- BLM proposes to rewrite the rules for how it plans the use of about 245 million acres of public land, including how it designates, changes and removes Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.
- Where
- BLM-managed public lands nationwide
- How much
- The 1,120 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern on BLM's map, about 25 million acres, each designated because BLM found it holds relevant and important values that need special management.
- By when
- Comments to Bureau of Land Management by January 11, 2027.Date from Federal Register ↗, read November 10, 2026.
What to ask forAll 6 points →
Keep the Federal Register notice and 60-day comment period that today's rule requires for each proposed Area of Critical Environmental Concern (43 CFR 1610.7-2(b)).
Where these four lines come from
- WhatOur plain-English read of the Federal Register 2026-22860 ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
- WhereThe places and states the notice names, as PLAN read them.
- How muchThe first sentence of our What’s at risk read of the notice; the whole read is under Case.
- By whenJanuary 11, 2027, from Federal Register, the document’s comment close date (federalregister.gov) ↗. Read November 10, 2026.
- Read from PLAN’s record November 10, 2026.
Two ways to be heard on this, and both count. Comment for the legal record, then call the members who answer to you.
Comment nowThis rule changes how BLM protects special places on public land
BLM wants to rewrite the rules for planning how public land is used, including how it protects Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. You can see which of those places are near you and what BLM itself found about them.
- Find the protected areas near you
A map, and the areas near your ZIP code.
- Write your letter place by place
Pick the places you care about and the changes you want to speak to. The letter uses BLM’s own findings.
- Read the rule beside today’s rule
The new text next to the current text.
6 holes in the agency’s own analysis
Make these points, in your own words
Keep the Federal Register notice and 60-day comment period that today's rule requires for each proposed Area of Critical Environmental Concern (43 CFR 1610.7-2(b)).Read the point +
The proposed rule drops it and calls it redundant.
Don't write a "smallest area necessary" limit into how BLM draws these boundaries (proposed 1610.70(c)).Read the point +
A boundary should follow the values BLM found, including the country around them that keeps them whole.
- When BLM proposes to remove or shrink a designation (proposed 1610.70(d)), require its own finding that the values are gone or protected some other way, and give the public a comment period on that finding.
- Keep the 90-day minimum comment period on draft plans that come with an environmental impact statement (today's 43 CFR 1610.2(e)).
- Keep the requirement that BLM's plans be consistent with tribal plans and other federal agencies' plans, which the proposed rule would remove.
- Hold the new emergency procedure, which can shorten public participation or waive notice or protest, to real emergencies, with a public record of why it was used.
Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
PLAN's read: high threat
BLM proposes to rewrite the rules for how it plans the use of about 245 million acres of public land, including how it designates, changes and removes Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.
What’s at risk
If this goes through
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
In the agency’s own words
The BLM proposes to amend existing regulations that establish the procedures to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as amended (FLPMA). We solicit comment on all aspects of this proposed rule.
Federal Register 2026-22860 ↗Read the docket on regulations.gov ↗
Who signs it
The notice names no signer PLAN could read. PLAN names a decision-maker only when the document names one.
The ground
This fight isn’t bound to a map place in PLAN’s record yet. The notice names BLM-managed public lands nationwide; none is a unit on the threatened lands map, so there’s no place page to open or watch.
The photograph on this page: Pronghorn in sagebrush steppe. It’s the country this decision sits in, not the site itself. More Than Just Parks.
In court on this ground
This fight isn’t bound to a land unit in PLAN’s record yet, so there are no court cases to show for its ground.
Who holds the vote
PLAN’s record doesn’t tie a member of Congress to this fight yet. The scorecard grades the votes and bills that decide public lands; nothing joins a vote or a bill to this decision, so there’s no member to name here without guessing.
See how your members vote ↗Calling your two senators and your representative is the Call door on this page.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .
More fights that need you
Go deeper for free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.