Conservation Organizations Request Meaningful Public Engagement Regarding Rescission of the Public Lands Rule

October 2, 2025

Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum

Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20240

Re: Request for Meaningful Public Engagement Regarding Rescission of the Public Lands Rule

Dear Secretary Burgum,

On September 10, 2025, the Department of the Interior (DOI) announced its intent to fully rescind the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) 2024 Public Lands Rule (formally known as the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule). This decision carries significant consequences for how America’s public lands are managed—and, notably, it is being made without any of the meaningful public engagement opportunities that accompanied the original rulemaking.

Now more than ever, with the federal government shutdown, additional time and process are essential. A shutdown curtails staff capacity, slows communications, and limits the public’s ability to access basic information and engage with agencies. These disruptions will make it even harder for communities, Tribes, scientists, and stakeholders to analyze the proposed rescission and prepare substantive comments. To move forward under these conditions without providing adequate opportunity for engagement would be to deliberately exclude the public from decisions about their public lands. At a minimum, DOI and BLM should recognize these constraints and provide extra time and public process to ensure transparency, fairness, and informed participation.

When the Public Lands Rule was proposed, the BLM went to great lengths to ensure transparency and accountability. The agency extended the comment period to 90 days, hosted multiple in-person (Denver, Albuquerque, and Reno) and two virtual meetings so stakeholders could ask questions and provide informed input. The agency also participated in dozens of meetings to discuss the content of the proposed rule, including congressional briefings; meetings with states and stakeholder interest groups and associations; and presentations at conferences and events. The agency provided FAQs, guides, infographics, and even Spanish-language slide decks—because the goal was clear: ensure the public could understand and comment on what was at stake.

Contrast that with today: a sweeping rescission, no in-person or virtual meetings, no reviewer guides, no fact sheets, no FAQs, no outreach. 

We have numerous questions that a meeting could help clarify—questions that would directly inform our comments. Every organization signing this letter participated in meetings—whether in-person, virtual, or other outreach sessions—that provided direct opportunities to ask questions and gain clarity on the draft Public Lands Rule.

Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully requests that once the government re-opens, the DOI/BLM host official meetings—virtual or in-person—to provide the public with the same basic opportunity for information, clarity, and accountability that was afforded during the initial rulemaking process. We also note that, during the draft rule process, BLM extended the comment period to 90 days in response to public requests. At minimum, we ask for the same—no less than 90 days—to fully assess and meaningfully respond to this proposed rescission.

We look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

Kara Matsumoto

Public Lands Policy Director

Conservation Lands Foundation

Alison Flint

Senior Legal Director

The Wilderness Society

Linda Castro

Assistant Policy Director

CalWild

Maddy Munson

Senior Policy and Planning Specialist

Defenders of Wildlife

Jackie Feinberg

National Lands Conservation Campaign Manager

Sierra Club

Michael J. Painter

Coordinator

Californians for Western Wilderness

Shaaron Netherton

Executive Director

Friends of Nevada Wilderness

Bryan Pride 

Policy Director 

Tuleyome

Peter Hart

Legal Director

Wilderness Workshop 

Sally Paez

Staff Attorney

New Mexico Wild

CC:

Bill Groffy

Kyle Moorman