Originally published in and reprinted with permission of The Daily Sentinel.
Public lands belong to all of us — we should all have a say in how they’re managed. Yet, a proposed rule from the Bureau of Land Management threatens to strip the public out of public land decisions, prioritizing business considerations over the health of western rangelands. The public comment period closes on July 13 — please consider adding your voice!
The BLM manages 245 million acres of public land, primarily in western states, with 8.3 million acres in Colorado. Grand Junction is home to BLM’s Western Headquarters. The BLM has approximately $1.4 billion to implement its mission of “sustain(ing) the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.”
There’s a long history of public land management grounded in preservation. In 1934, to “stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration,” Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act. Years later, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act established that the BLM should manage public lands “on the basis of multiple use and sustained (resource) yield.”
On May 12, 2026, BLM published a proposed rule revising its grazing regulations, “Revision of Regulations for Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska.” It’s been issued under a process that allows BLM to bypass the usual requirements to conduct an environmental assessment or impact statement. Out of concern, a native seed coalition, a group of organizations including botanic gardens, nurseries, environmental organizations, and seed collectors that care about the health and biodiversity of public lands, is submitting a comment urging BLM to more strongly consider the grazing rule’s impacts on native seeds and plants.
The Administrative Procedure Act requires federal agencies, like BLM, to accept and review public feedback to a proposed rule. While the BLM can choose not to incorporate the feedback, it must “consider and respond to significant comments” made during the comment period. If a “significant comment” is overlooked, the rule can be challenged, and BLM can be brought to court.
BLM states that its amendments will modernize grazing regulations and make the permit system more flexible and “efficient” to support the business needs of grazing permittees. In practice, this means many permit renewals will be rubber-stamped without opportunity for public comment or renewed environmental analysis. This is concerning because there’s an established correlation between land health failure and inadequate permit review.
Under this rule, restoration will no longer be a grazing management objective. Instead, it will become a general BLM objective. Yet, grazing significantly contributes to land degradation. Around 50% of BLM-managed lands that have been assessed fail to meet BLM’s own health standards. Livestock overgrazing contributes to 33% of these failures.
Native seeds and plants are critical for healthy ecology and land health. Native plant materials help maintain resilient ecosystems, mitigate climate change, protect water quality, preserve biodiversity, and support natural wildlife habitats. Native plant materials can also be a restoration tool for degraded landscapes. In 2023, a National Academy of Sciences report found that restoration projects involving native seeds and plants can lead to better land health recovery outcomes.
BLM-managed lands are home to more than 800 rare plant species that need protection. Livestock grazing impacts a third of endangered plant species, including native plants. For restoration projects, the proposed rule will allow the use of non-native plant species where native plants are unavailable in “sufficient quantities.” Non-native plants can outcompete native species, disturb ecosystem balance, and reduce biodiversity. The seed coalition’s comment requests a specific definition of “sufficient quantities” to ensure native seeds are being prioritized.
The increased use of native seeds and plants would help the BLM further its own goals. BLM’s Seeds of Success Native Seed Collection Program, for instance, is a nationwide program promoting the use of native seeds for ecological restoration and “support(ing) the native plant materials development process.” The funding is already available.
Critically, the proposed rule will reduce public participation in decision-making. The rule seeks to change the definition of “interested public” to only include individuals with an “articulable interest” in a specific grazing allotment. Further, BLM seeks to remove public “consultation, cooperation, and coordination” in provisions on allotment management, changes to permitted use, range improvement decisions, and permit modifications. The BLM states that public consultation is “inefficient and prevent[s] timely management.” Yet, in forming its public land management plans and programs, BLM is required to provide opportunities for public participation. The public should have a say in decisions impacting public lands. Public lands are for all of us.
Many concerned members of the public have already weighed in — as of July 1, more than 100,000 people have commented — but we need many more to be impactful. Please take the time to voice your support for consideration of native seeds and plants and oppose the removal of the interested public from decision-making. Submit comments directly to Regulations.gov before July 13, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. EST.
PEER has generated template language for comment letters here. Use PEER’s template language or write your own.
Lilley Gallagher is a rising 2L at Washington University School of Law and a legal intern at PEER.