Hearings to examine how the BLM land use planning process under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) affects permitting for energy, mining, grazing, and infrastructure projects on public lands.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

2025-11-19

Summary

This meeting discusses the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) land use planning process under the Federal Land Management Policy Act (FLPMA), focusing on its impact on permitting for various uses such as energy, mining, grazing, and recreation [ 00:18:37-00:18:47 ] . The core objective is to examine how FLPMA's implementation has led to rigid, slow, and sometimes detached processes, and to explore ways to improve public land management [ 00:18:53-00:19:01 ] .

Themes

Outdated and Rigid Planning Processes FLPMA originally envisioned flexible land management plans that could adapt to changing circumstances and local needs, but current processes often result in enormous, static documents that take many years to complete or revise [ 00:26:27-00:26:53 ]

. This rigidity leads to project delays, affecting energy development, grazing renewals, and recreational access, as plans become outdated and fail to reflect new technologies or shifting conditions [ 00:27:00-00:27:13 ] . Many existing Resource Management Plans (RMPs) are decades old, some dating back to the 1980s, and thus do not align with modern wildlife science, recreation growth, or energy needs [ 01:53:19 ] . The prolonged 18-year timeline for the Transwest Express transmission line, even as a priority project, exemplifies the broken nature of the current process [ 00:59:48-00:59:56 ] . Updating these plans is crucial but is hindered by high costs and a lack of dedicated funding, leaving 134 out of 169 plans outdated .

Importance of Local and State Involvement The original intent of FLPMA was for states and counties to be integral partners in the planning process, ensuring decisions were responsive to on-the-ground conditions [ 00:26:08-00:26:11 ]

. However, the statutory requirement for coordination lacks legal enforcement, often relegating state and local input to a mere courtesy . This results in federal planners frequently overlooking current data and expertise held by local governments regarding wildlife, water, and infrastructure . Several instances, including the Rock Springs RMP and the Miles City RMPA, illustrate federal agencies ignoring or rejecting state-specific input and governor's recommendations [ 00:37:19-00:38:15 ] [ 00:28:51-00:29:12 ] . There is a strong call for a cultural shift to empower local land managers and ensure genuine partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments to create more durable and locally supported plans [ 00:49:48-00:50:01 ] .

Impact of Restrictive Designations The meeting highlighted concerns about the expanded use of restrictive designations, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), which often deviate from FLPMA's multiple-use intent [ 00:27:51-00:27:59 ]

. BLM has applied ACEC designations to millions of acres, layering restrictions that limit active management and access for uses Congress intended to support [ 00:28:13-00:28:35 ] . The Rock Springs RMP alone designated over a million acres with restrictive measures, contributing to over 20 million acres of BLM land under ACEC designation by 2021 [ 00:28:20-00:28:51 ] . These designations are criticized for providing minimal information, encompassing excessively large areas, and imposing general rather than specific restrictions [ 00:47:07-00:47:28 ] [ 00:48:37 ] . Such layering of designations can impede essential activities like habitat restoration, wildfire mitigation, and infrastructure maintenance . Additionally, WSAs, once designated by an agency, can only be released by an act of Congress, creating a "one-way ratchet" that effectively manages vast areas as de facto wilderness without direct congressional approval .

Funding and Staffing Challenges A significant obstacle to effective land management planning is the insufficient funding and staffing at the BLM [ 01:04:53 ]

. The lack of an adequate interdisciplinary staff, including specialists like wildlife biologists and archaeologists, hinders the timely completion of necessary consultations and detailed planning work [ 01:06:12-01:06:33 ] . This shortage contributes to a growing backlog in resource planning and forces field offices to search for external expertise [ 01:04:53-01:05:11 ] . Utilizing the resources and scientific data from state and county agencies could help address these staffing gaps and improve the overall effectiveness of the planning process [ 01:27:42-01:28:29 ] .

"Regulatory Whiplash" and Lack of Congressional Clarity The vagueness of FLPMA, which dedicates only two pages to land use planning for 245 million acres, allows administrations broad discretion, leading to "regulatory whiplash" with drastic policy shifts when power changes hands . This lack of clear congressional guidance results in significant uncertainty and unpredictability in land management. [ 00:38:45-00:39:34 ]

[ 01:09:26-01:09:40 ] There is a call for Congress to provide more specific and definitive criteria and timelines within FLPMA to enhance predictability and ensure more resilient policies [ 01:09:40-01:09:41 ] .

Economic Importance and Multiple Use Mandate The BLM's mandate is to balance diverse uses on public lands, including energy development, wilderness, grazing, wildlife, mining, fishing, forestry, recreation, and cultural preservation [ 00:29:37-00:29:43 ]

. Outdoor recreation has become a significant economic driver, generating $128 billion annually and supporting 76,000 jobs on BLM lands, but many plans predate this economic shift [ 00:52:26 ] . The "multiple use and sustained yield" principles recognize a wide range of legitimate uses, and planning should integrate decision-making across landscapes to ensure all uses are considered, without meaning "every use everywhere" . Clear and participatory plans foster certainty for investments in various public land uses [ 00:53:52-00:54:00 ] .

Congressional Review Act (CRA) Implications Recent use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn RMPs has raised concerns about undermining the stability of the planning process [ 01:07:02 ]

. Unlike the RMP development process, the CRA lacks any mechanism for public input, potentially discarding years of collaborative work [ 01:18:20 ] . A significant issue is the CRA's limitation preventing the BLM from issuing a "substantially similar" plan for areas where an RMP has been overturned . This could make it legally challenging to re-establish beneficial uses like oil and gas development, mining, grazing, or hunting if they were part of an overturned plan . Such actions are seen as increasing litigation risks, creating planning uncertainty, and leaving lands managed under outdated frameworks [ 01:22:36-01:22:39 ] .

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was largely concerned and critical regarding the current state of BLM land use planning, with multiple speakers describing the process as rigid, slow, and often detached from FLPMA's original intent [ 00:18:53-00:19:01 ] [ 00:19:48-00:19:54 ] . There was a strong bipartisan desire for improvement, with members of both parties acknowledging the need for a more efficient, responsive, and collaborative system, despite differing views on specific causes or past actions [ 00:38:55 ]

[ 00:39:12 ] . A recurring sentiment was the emphasis on local knowledge and partnership, with frustration expressed over top-down decisions and a shared call to empower local land managers and integrate state, local, and tribal input more meaningfully [ 00:49:48-00:50:01 ] . Overall, the discussion maintained a collaborative and respectful tone, focused on identifying challenges and seeking constructive solutions [ 00:35:17-00:35:28 ] .