During a lengthy Nov. 19 hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, lawmakers from both parties agreed that the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) planning system under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) is failing to keep pace with modern demands.
Chairman Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) opened the hearing with a sharp critique of BLM’s current planning practices, arguing that the system operating under FLPMA no longer reflects what Congress envisioned in 1976. Lee said the BLM’s land-use planning process has become “rigid, slow and often detached” from FLPMA’s guiding principles of multiple use and sustained yield.
He contrasted the law’s original intent with how Resource Management Plans (RMPs) function today. Lee said RMPs were supposed to be adaptive tools that shifted with conditions on the ground. Instead, Lee told the committee that RMPs have evolved into “enormous, static documents” that can take many years to complete or update. As a result, he said, projects become stranded when outdated plans no longer align with current realities, even when applicants meet every federal requirement.
Lee also expressed concerns about the rapid growth of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). He pointed out that over 20 million acres are now designated as ACECs, and that the multiple overlapping restrictions have “sweeping implications for communities that rely on public land.” He said that designations originally meant for specific, limited protections are now being applied much more broadly.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) echoed Lee’s concerns, saying that Wyoming communities have experienced how the federal process has become “rigid, slow and often detached.” Barrasso contended that recent RMPs in his state depend too much on large-scale ACEC designations that limit land far more than Congress intended.
Barrasso then turned to Micah Christensen, natural resource counsel for the Wyoming County Commissioners Association and a hearing witness, to describe how this trend played out in the Rock Springs RMP. Christensen testified that ACEC acreage increased by 85% in that plan, and that the expansion was neither transparent nor tied clearly to specific resource needs.
Christensen also described the economic consequences. Because federal, state and private lands are tightly interwoven in Wyoming, broad federal restrictions often spill over onto nonfederal property. In Rock Springs, he said county governments projected “roughly $14 million a year in losses,” affecting everything from schools to emergency services.
Other senators raised similar concerns about local involvement. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) criticized the Miles City RMP Amendment, arguing that the BLM ignored county officials and rejected the Montana governor’s recommendations during the consistency review process. Daines said federal planners must be required to meaningfully incorporate state and county input, not treat it as a procedural box to check.
Utah Attorney General Derek Brown, another witness, reinforced this point by describing the fiscal strain on local governments in counties dominated by federal ownership. In places like Garfield County, where more than 90% of the land is federally controlled, Brown said counties struggle to fund essential services because only 3-4% of the land generates property tax revenue. He urged Congress to provide states and counties with “meaningful involvement” in federal planning so decisions reflect the realities faced by local communities.
Democrats urge modernization
Democratic senators focused on different impacts but pointed to many of the same structural shortcomings.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), the committee’s ranking member, emphasized that outdated plans are one of the significant barriers to renewable energy deployment. He noted that recreation on BLM lands contributes more than $12 billion annually to the economy and supports more than 76,000 jobs. Yet, many planning documents were drafted before agencies even tracked recreation statistics.
He also questioned the recent use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn RMPs, warning that if agencies are prohibited from issuing substantially similar plans afterward, future permitting decisions could be tied up in litigation. Heinrich argued that the CRA introduces more instability rather than encouraging better planning.
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) said she is deeply concerned about staffing shortages inside the BLM. With 134 out of 164 RMPs outdated, she argued, federal planners simply cannot keep up.
“How much more is that going to set us back,” she asked witness Jim Kenna, retired state director for BLM, “in trying to address the issues we are talking about today?”
Kenna responded that field offices are losing essential expertise.
“You have got to have a wildlife biologist. You have got to have an archaeologist,” he said.
When vacancies arise, he explained, offices must “cast around with your neighbor offices to see if you can find the right expertise,” slowing every stage of planning and permitting.
Sen. Angus King (I-ME) pressed Greg Sheehan, CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation, on whether Congress must impose statutory deadlines or clearer criteria.
“Are there any limits on this process?” King asked. “Because if the time available is unlimited, it is going to be a long process.”
King said Congress may have unintentionally ceded too much discretion to agencies, resulting in “executive overreach” and sharp changes from administration to administration. Sheehan agreed, noting that FLPMA’s Section 202 offers only a few pages of guidance for managing nearly a quarter billion acres.
“Everything beyond that has been crafted through rules,” he said.
The hearing concluded without specific legislative proposals, but senators from both parties indicated that reform is likely to be a priority. Broad frustration with unpredictability, outdated plans and planning delays revealed a shared desire to modernize the FLPMA process so it can meet the energy, conservation and recreation needs of today.
Heinrich summed up the challenge: “We need to make the planning process more efficient, more responsive to changes in how we use our public lands, while making sure that our public lands continue to serve the public.” — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
1 Comment