U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–117 PDF 2016

LOCAL AND STATE PERSPECTIVES 

ON BLM’S DRAFT PLANNING 2.0 

RULE 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, May 12, 2016 

Serial No. 114–42 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

LOUIE GOHMERT, TX, Chairman 

DEBBIE DINGELL, MI, Ranking Democratic Member 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, May 12, 2016 ............................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Dingell, Hon. Debbie, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan ........................................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas .............................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Cowan, Caren, Executive Director, New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico ................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Fisher, Corey, Senior Policy Director, Sportsmen’s Conservation Project, 

Trout Unlimited, Missoula, Montana .......................................................... 20 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

French, Jim, Commissioner, Humboldt County, Winnemucca, Nevada ...... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Obermueller, Pete, Executive Director, Wyoming County Commissioners 

Association, Cheyenne, Wyoming ................................................................ 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

American Motorcyclist Association, May 11, 2016 Letter to Chairman 

Gohmert and Ranking Member Dingell regarding the Hearing ............... 45 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 48 

Park County, Board of County Commissioners, May 12, 2016 Letter to 

Neil Kornze, Director, BLM regarding Planning 2.0 ................................. 35 

Utah State, Public Lands Policy Coordination Office, May 10, 2016 Letter 

to Neil Kornze, Director, BLM regarding Planning 2.0 ............................. 46 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON LOCAL AND STATE 

PERSPECTIVES ON BLM’S DRAFT PLANNING 

2.0 RULE 

Thursday, May 12, 2016 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:06 p.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Louie Gohmert 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gohmert, Labrador, Westerman, Hice, 

Radewagen, Dingell, Huffman, Polis, and Clay. 

Also Present: Representative Lummis. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to 

hear testimony on Local and State Perspectives on BLM’s Draft 

Planning 2.0 Rule. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements of the 

hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 

Member. Therefore I ask unanimous consent that all other 

Members’ opening statements be made part of the hearing record 

if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. today. 

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady from Wyoming, 

Mrs. Lummis, be allowed to sit with the subcommittee and participate in the hearing. Hearing no objection, that is so ordered. 

I also politely ask that everyone in the hearing room please 

silence your cell phones. This will allow for minimum distractions 

for both our Members and our guests to ensure that we all gain 

as much from this opportunity as possible. It is a little different 

from when I was a judge. If your cell phone went off, the bailiff 

took it and you had to do so much community service before you 

got it back. I do not have that authority at this point, but I would 

just ask that you turn those to vibrate at a minimum. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GOHMERT. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is meeting today to hear directly from witnesses who are a 

part of the throngs of people most affected by the Bureau of Land 

Management’s proposed resource management planning rule. This 

draft rule is part of BLM’s Planning 2.0 initiative, which would 

completely revamp the process by which BLM prepares and 

amends resource management plans for hundreds of millions of 

acres throughout the West. 

2 

When Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management 

Act, sometimes referred to as FLPMA, it made clear that BLM is 

required to coordinate with local governments on management 

plans. But BLM’s Planning 2.0 effort and this proposed rule seem 

not to take that responsibility seriously enough. 

BLM has said that its draft Planning 2.0 rule would not really 

change BLM’s practice. But, if that’s the case, it is counterproductive to go to the trouble of making another regulation. Words 

have meaning, and we are here today to take a look at what BLM’s 

regulation actually does. In fact, there are several changes in the 

proposed rule that are worth mentioning, and I am sure our witnesses will have additional matters they would like to address. 

First, instead of keeping most planning activity at the field office 

level, this proposed rule would transfer that authority to BLM 

headquarters here in Washington, DC. Doing so opens the door to 

political gamesmanship and to special interests in Washington, influencing decisions that affect Americans thousands of miles away. 

This proposed rule also introduces a lot of uncertainty. From 

simply changing ’’shall’’ to ‘‘will,’’ to renaming cooperating agencies, 

to giving BLM wide discretion to unilaterally and arbitrarily designate large planning areas, BLM’s draft rule makes it much more 

difficult for local individuals and officials to keep up with and participate in the planning process. In some instances, BLM even explicitly shifts the burden to local and state governments. 

For example, BLM would no longer have to familiarize itself with 

local land use plans and policies to determine whether or not there 

are any inconsistencies. Instead, BLM will only consider inconsistencies that states or counties raise in writing. 

How can BLM say it is cooperating with state and local governments when the Agency is trying to shirk its responsibility to 

understand the plans and policies that local and state officials have 

already developed? A truly collaborative process is a two-way 

street, and making state and local governments entirely responsible for this part of the process is unwarranted. 

BLM says Planning 2.0 is all about being more nimble and working collaboratively with local governments. Yet, BLM has refused 

to grant requests to extend the public comment period. That would 

make it appear that they wish to nimbly avoid receiving grant requests. The average request was for an extension of about 108 

days, but BLM only extended the comment period for 30 days. 

They apparently want to nimbly avoid receiving comments. This 

was not the best way to kick off a rule that is supposed to make 

coordination better and easier. 

On the other hand, the Administration is trying to churn out as 

many new, heavy-handed rules, regulations, and policies as possible before the President leaves office, such as changes in critical 

habitat designation, venting and flaring rules, restrictive resource 

management plans, a new take on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

designation of new national monuments, coal lease suspensions, 

offshore exclusions, and conservation mitigation requirements. 

Planning 2.0 is just one more thing creating havoc for Americans 

already unfairly burdened by over-regulation. 

It is worth repeating that management decisions must be made 

at the local level, in concert with the people whose lives are most 

3 

affected by those decisions, not by bureaucrats in Washington. That 

is why today we are hearing from individuals from across the West 

who understand the implications of Planning 2.0 and can express 

those concerns and critiques that BLM should heed. 

I would like to thank each of the witnesses for joining us today. 

I know you are not here because of the pay; you are here because 

you care about the country. We look forward to hearing your 

testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gohmert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is meeting today to hear 

directly from witnesses who are a part of the throngs of people most affected by the 

Bureau of Land Management’s proposed resource management planning rule. 

This draft rule is part of BLM’s ‘‘Planning 2.0’’ initiative, which would completely 

revamp the process by which BLM prepares and amends resource management 

plans for hundreds of millions of acres throughout the West. 

When Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 

it made clear that BLM is required to coordinate with local governments on management plans. But BLM’s Planning 2.0 effort and this proposed rule seem not to 

take that responsibility seriously. 

BLM has said that its draft Planning 2.0 rule would not really change BLM’s 

‘‘practice.’’ But if that’s the case, it is counterproductive to go to the trouble of making another regulation. Words have meaning, and we’re here today to take a look 

at what BLM’s regulation actually does. 

In fact, there are several changes in the proposed rule that are worth mentioning, 

and I’m sure our witnesses will have additional matters they would like to address. 

First, instead of keeping most planning activity at the field office level, this 

proposed rule would transfer that authority to BLM headquarters in Washington, 

DC. Doing so opens the door to political gamesmanship and to special interests in 

Washington influencing decisions that affect Americans thousands of miles away. 

This proposed rule also introduces a lot of uncertainty. From simply changing 

‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘will,’’ to renaming ‘‘cooperating agencies,’’ to giving BLM wide discretion 

to unilaterally and arbitrarily designate large planning areas, BLM’s draft rule 

makes it that much more difficult for locals to keep up with and participate in the 

planning process. 

In some instances, BLM even explicitly shifts the burden to local and state 

governments. For example, BLM would no longer have to familiarize itself with local 

land use plans and policies to determine whether there are any inconsistencies. Instead, BLM will only consider inconsistencies that states or counties raise in 

writing. 

How can BLM say it’s cooperating with state and local governments when the 

Agency is trying to shirk its responsibility to understand the plans and policies that 

locals have already developed? A truly collaborative process is a two-way street and 

making state and local governments entirely responsible for this part of the process 

is unwarranted. 

BLM says that Planning 2.0 is all about being more ‘‘nimble’’ and working collaboratively with local governments—yet BLM has refused to grant requests to extend 

the public comment period. The average request was for an extension of about 108 

days, but BLM only extended the comment period for 30 days. This was not the best 

way to kick off a rule that’s supposed to make coordination better and easier. 

On the other hand, this Administration is trying to churn out as many new heavyhanded rules, regulations, and policies as possible before the President leaves office, 

such as changes in critical habitat designation, venting and flaring rules, restrictive 

resource management plans, a new take on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, designation of new national monuments, coal lease suspensions, offshore exclusions, and 

conservation mitigation requirements. Planning 2.0 is just one more thing creating 

havoc for Americans already unfairly burdened by over-regulation. 

It’s worth repeating that management decisions must be made at the local level, 

in concert with the people whose lives are most affected by those decisions—not by 

bureaucrats in Washington. 

4 

That is why today we’re hearing from individuals from across the West who understand the implications of Planning 2.0 and can express concerns and critiques 

that BLM should heed. I’d like to thank each of them for joining us today, and look 

forward to hearing their testimony. 

Mr. GOHMERT. At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking 

Minority Member for 5 minutes, Mrs. Dingell. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have some of 

the same goals in agreement; we just might see things through different perspectives, so I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing is about an important issue, the management of 

our public lands. Our public lands hold a wealth of both natural 

and cultural resources. They are a hub for recreational activities, 

from fishing and bird watching, to white water rafting and mountain biking. 

They provide critical habitat for endangered species and free ecosystem services like water filtration that we rely on every day. 

They support local economies and entrepreneurship. It is our duty 

to ensure that these lands and their diverse resources are maintained for many generations to come. 

The Bureau of Land Management has an especially critical role 

to play as the largest land holder among the Federal agencies. The 

Agency must have a process for managing lands and resources that 

is efficient, effective, and responsive to ever-changing needs. 

That is where Planning 2.0 comes into the picture. Planning 2.0 

is the BLM’s first major proposal for updating their resource management planning process in over 30 years; and although the new 

planning process is only in proposal form, it is clear that the 

Bureau is doing its due diligence in trying to make the process as 

transparent and accessible to the public as possible. 

Planning 2.0 proposes to involve the public earlier and more 

often in the planning process. By doing so, they will be better able 

to manage resources in a way that honors diverse needs, prevents 

expensive lawsuits down the road, and increases their own 

efficiency. 

Planning 2.0 also recognizes the importance of managing a land’s 

resources where they are, at that local level that you talk about, 

not where they think it should be. It simply does not make sense 

to manage resources according to political and jurisdictional boundaries. Rivers do not stop at county lines. The sage grouse does not 

turn around and strut the other way when it reaches the BLM field 

office boundary. We cannot manage resources in a way that pretends it is any different. 

With changes like these, Planning 2.0 is trying to bring the 

Bureau’s public land and resource management into the 21st 

century. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues seem to have a desire to want to maintain the status quo by holding onto the outdated process that is less efficient, less evidence-based, and less 

open to public input. We all want that public input that you talked 

about. What disappoints me even more is that there may very well 

be ways to improve the current Planning 2.0 proposal that both 

5 

sides can agree on, but we are not going to learn it here today. 

Rather than seizing this opportunity to engage BLM in a productive conversation about ways to improve the planning process, we 

did not invite the Agency to be at the table when we should have. 

It is like taking your car to the shop and telling the receptionist, 

the other customers, and passers-by about your squeaky brakes, 

and then leaving without talking to the mechanic. You might feel 

a little better after venting, but nothing gets diagnosed or fixed. 

This hearing is an even bigger missed opportunity for our 

witnesses who have come a long way at their own expense, and we 

thank you for that. I think they deserve better. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Dingell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing is about an important issue—the management of our public 

lands. Our public lands hold a wealth of both natural and cultural resources. They 

are a hub for recreational activities, from fishing and birdwatching to white water 

rafting and mountain biking. They provide critical habitat for endangered species 

and free ecosystem services like water filtration that we rely on every day. They 

support local economies and entrepreneurship. It is our duty to ensure that these 

lands and their diverse resources are maintained for many generations to come. 

The Bureau of Land Management has an especially critical role to play as the 

largest land holder among the Federal agencies. The Agency must have a process 

for managing their lands and resources that is efficient, effective, and responsive to 

our ever-changing needs. 

That’s where Planning 2.0 comes into the picture. Planning 2.0 is the BLM’s first 

major proposal for updating their resource management planning process in over 30 

years. And although the new planning process is only in proposal form, it is clear 

that the Bureau is doing its due diligence in trying to make the process as transparent and accessible to the public as possible. Planning 2.0 proposes to involve the 

public earlier and more often in the planning process. By doing so, they will be better able to manage resources in a way that honors diverse needs, prevents expensive 

lawsuits down the road, and increases their own efficiency. 

Planning 2.0 also recognizes the importance of managing a land’s resources where 

they are, not where we think they should be. It simply doesn’t make sense to manage resources according to political and jurisdictional boundaries. Rivers don’t stop 

running at county lines. The sage grouse doesn’t turn around and strut the other 

way when it reaches the BLM Field Office boundary. We can’t manage resources 

in a way that pretends any different. 

With changes like these, Planning 2.0 is trying to bring the Bureau’s public land 

and resource management into the 21st century. Unfortunately, my colleagues on 

the other side of the aisle seem to have a desire to maintain the status quo by holding onto an outdated process that is less efficient, less evidence-based, and less open 

to public input. 

But what disappoints me even more is that there may very well be ways to improve the current Planning 2.0 proposal that both sides can agree on, but we won’t 

learn them here today. Rather than seizing this opportunity to engage BLM in a 

productive conversation about ways to improve the planning process, my colleagues 

did not invite the Agency to be at the table. It’s like taking your car to the shop 

and telling the receptionist, other customers, and passers-by all about your squeaky 

brakes and then leaving without talking to the mechanic. You might feel a little better after venting but nothing gets diagnosed or fixed. 

This hearing is an even bigger missed opportunity for our witnesses who have 

come from afar at their own expense. I think they deserve better. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. I thank the gentlelady. 

6 

At this time, I will now introduce our witnesses from right to 

left. First, we have Mr. Jim French, County Commissioner from 

Humboldt County, Nevada. To his right, our left, Ms. Caren 

Cowan, Executive Director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ 

Association in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Next, we have Mr. Corey 

Fisher, Senior Policy Director for the Sportsmen’s Conservation 

Project at Trout Unlimited—I like the sound of that, Trout 

Unlimited—in Missoula, Montana. 

Now, I would like to invite the gentlelady, the quite honorable 

gentlelady, from Wyoming to introduce our final witness. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

allowing me to participate in this hearing today. 

It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Pete Obermueller, who is the 

Executive Director of the Wyoming County Commissioners 

Association. Some of you, who have been around for a while, might 

recognize Pete as a former legislative director for my office here in 

Washington. We did a lot of work together on this committee, and 

on the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. 

Pete was juggling a lot of hats when he was here working for me. 

I asked him one time what experience in his life best prepared him 

for the many, many tasks that he was carrying in our office. He 

said, ‘‘That is really easy. I was the manager of a Christian rock 

band.’’ I thought about that for a while, and, you know, it made a 

lot of sense, because you are doing scheduling, contract management, people management, and logistics; and you start thinking 

about what it takes to handle people on the road working that way 

with their different personalities. For heaven sakes, it made perfect 

sense that that was his most equatable experience to serve my 

office so well here in Washington. 

He is now serving the Wyoming County Commissioners 

Association very well. In fact, the Wyoming County Commissioners 

Association, under Pete’s capable leadership, considering that 

Wyoming has 17 million acres of BLM land, put out a publication 

of all the different Federal agencies the counties have to deal with, 

what their statutory duties are, and how county commissioners are 

expected or the law expects county commissioners to interact. 

So, Pete’s experience on behalf of county commissioners in the 

West in public land states, as well as here in Washington where 

he worked on the Western Caucus issues and this committee’s 

issues, make him an exceptional witness today. 

So welcome, Pete. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. The witness has a lot to live up to 

after that introduction. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GOHMERT. At this time, I need to remind the witnesses that 

under our Committee Rules, all oral statements must be limited to 

5 minutes. Your written statements have been submitted and will 

be part of the record. We have all had a chance to review those, 

and we appreciate them. When the light comes on, it will be green 

for 4 minutes. When it turns yellow, you have 1 minute remaining; 

and when it turns red, then it is my job to help you immediately 

finish. So, again, understand we have your written statements. 

The Chair will now recognize Mr. French for your testimony. You 

are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. French. 

7 

STATEMENT OF JIM FRENCH, COMMISSIONER, HUMBOLDT 

COUNTY, WINNEMUCCA, NEVADA 

Mr. FRENCH. Good afternoon, Chairman Gohmert, Ranking 

Member Dingell, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today to provide local and county perspective on BLM’s Planning 2.0 rule. 

My name is Commissioner Jim French, a member of the 

Humboldt County Nevada Board of Commissioners. Humboldt 

County has a population of 16,528 residents, and a land area of 

nearly 6.2 million acres. Of those acres, BLM manages over 4.3 

million acres, nearly the size of the state of New Jersey. All total, 

the Federal Government owns nearly 90 percent of my county. As 

a county commissioner and a biologist with the Nevada Department of Wildlife for more than 34 years, I know firsthand how 

important it is for Federal land managers to work with local communities. When land management decisions are handed down from 

Washington, DC, they impact more than just Federal lands. They 

impact our counties, economics, and way of life. 

After reviewing the proposed BLM Planning 2.0 rule, I am concerned that the BLM has not provided sufficient time for counties 

to fully analyze the rule. Local governments and locally generated 

information should play a significant role in guiding the planning 

process. Commonly, public lands counties lack the staffing and 

budgetary resources necessary to employ a full-time natural resources manager. County coordination and approval of outside 

contractor analysis will exceed the 90 days offered by the BLM for 

comment. For many more counties, the task will likely fall on 

county commissioners like me who will volunteer to sit down and 

sift through the Planning 2.0 and try to assess the impacts. 

Given the significant impact of Planning 2.0, the National 

Association of Counties and Local Governments from across the 

Nation has called for additional time to analyze the regulatory 

changes for the proposed 2.0. 

Second, I am concerned that BLM’s proposed changes will reduce 

Federal consistency with local master plans and policies. FLPMA 

makes it clear that local governments are not just another member 

of the public. Counties must have a seat at the table and an opportunity to shape management decisions and partnership with land 

managers. 

The proposed changes would revise consistency requirements so 

that the BLM would not be required to consider local implemented 

policies or programs or other local government actions. This change 

would significantly impact the ability of local government and the 

BLM to work together to address the evolving needs of a community and its landscapes. 

Additionally, the proposed rule seeks to distinguish between plan 

components whose revisions require public consultation and an implementation strategy which can be revised at any time without 

consultation with local government or cooperating agencies. This 

change fails to recognize that how a plan is implemented can have 

as significant an impact as the components of the plan itself. 

Engagement with local governments should not be discretionary. 

The BLM must be required to engage local governments at all 

stages of RMP development and implementation. 

8 

Finally, Planning 2.0 proposes a fundamental shift in the BLM’s 

RMP planning area. In this rule, BLM has proposed a change toward broad geographic planning boundaries, shifting the focus to 

a regional level which dilutes the voice of the resource management 

in those communities. For example, in my county, working with 

district managers has been successful in harmonizing local, state, 

and Federal plans to promote recovery in the wake of wildfire 

events. We have worked with our Federal partners to coordinate 

large fire reclamation teams, and have seen positive results in coordinating recovery plans to the existing local resource plans. 

In contrast, a regional approach will encourage a disconnect by 

defaulting to a directive not specific to the needs of the local communities or the natural resources. 

Although I understand the need for flexibility, scalability, and 

planning, establishing a default boundary that does not begin at 

the local level will only serve to reduce the local voice, lose valuable 

local knowledge and expertise, and drown out the voices to local 

stakeholders and cooperating agencies and a sea of form letters 

from national interest groups. 

Counties like mine continue to urge the BLM to work with us to 

implement a Planning 2.0 rule that benefits from significant local 

government input, guarantees consistency with local plans, and ensures robust local cooperation at all phases of the planning process. 

As a partner with the Federal land managers, counties want a 

practical Federal policy that works at a local level. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM FRENCH, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, NEVADA, 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Dingell and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today to provide a local county perspective 

on BLM’s Draft Planning 2.0 Rule. 

My name is Commissioner Jim French, member of the Humboldt County, Nevada, 

Board of Commissioners. I also serve as one of Nevada’s representatives on the 

Board of Directors of the National Association of Counties’ (NACo) Western 

Interstate Region. Humboldt County is located in northern Nevada, approximately 

170 miles northeast of Reno. We have a population of 16,528 residents and a land 

area of nearly 6.2 million acres. Of those 6.2 million acres, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) manages over 4.3 million acres. Additionally, over 660,000 

acres in our county are managed by either the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). All totaled, the Federal Government owns 

nearly 90 percent of my county and the BLM alone manages an area in Humboldt 

County nearly the size of the state of New Jersey. 

As a county commissioner in a public lands county and as the Winnemucca 

District biologist for the Nevada Department of Wildlife for almost 30 years, I know 

firsthand how important it is for Federal land managers to work with local communities. Our citizens travel on roads across Federal land to get to work every day and 

many families make their living working our region’s natural resources. Those that 

live, work and raise their families in my county know that our community is linked 

to the land. When land management decisions are handed down from Washington, 

DC, they impact more than just the Federal lands, they impact our community’s 

economy and way of life. 

After reviewing the proposed BLM Planning 2.0 rule, I am concerned that BLM: 

• Has not provided sufficient time for counties to fully digest and offer comment 

on the proposed rule change; 

• Has proposed changes that will reduce requirements to ensure Federal 

consistency with local policies; and 

9 

• Seeks to implement a multi-state landscape level of analysis that could 

diminish the ability of BLM to meaningfully assess the local impacts of management decisions. 

First, the BLM has not provided sufficient time for the counties to fully analyze 

and comment on the rule. The proposed rule will have a significant impact on how 

the BLM plans for and manages its 245 million acres of public lands and 

700 million acres of subsurface minerals for years to come. Each of the 477 counties 

across the Nation that contain BLM lands will be impacted by the proposed 

Planning 2.0 rule. As co-regulators and intergovernmental partners in the land 

management mission, counties have a significant interest in providing the most 

meaningful information and analysis possible to help develop BLM regulations. 

Local governments and locally generated information should play a significant role 

in guiding the planning process. 

Commonly, public lands counties like mine lack the staffing and budgetary 

resources necessary to employ a full-time natural resources coordinator or similar 

position dedicated to assessing the impacts of sweeping Federal land management 

actions like Planning 2.0 at the county level. For many public lands counties, obtaining the necessary expertise to fully assess Planning 2.0 and its impacts will require them to contract outside assistance to perform a comprehensive analysis of the 

proposed rule. Coordination, preparation and approval of outside contractor analysis 

will exceed the 90 days offered by the BLM for comment. For many more counties, 

their budgets do not allow them to obtain outside counsel to analyze Planning 2.0’s 

impact. In those cases, the task will likely fall to county commissioners like me who 

will volunteer to sift through the hundreds of pages that make up Planning 2.0 and 

try to assess its impact on their communities. 

Given the potentially significant impact of Planning 2.0, the volume of information involved, as well as the staffing and budgetary realities facing counties like 

mine, NACo, along with county governments from across the Nation, called on BLM 

to provide additional time for local governments to analyze the implications of the 

substantive regulatory changes presented in Planning 2.0. 

By allowing sufficient time for counties to offer input and suggest changes to the 

proposed regulation, local governments can help the BLM mitigate any unintended 

consequences or challenges posed by the proposed rule, some of which are foreseeable from a local government perspective. 

Second, I am concerned the BLM has proposed changes to current planning rules 

that will reduce local government’s ability to ensure Federal consistency with local 

master plans and policies. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

charges the BLM to ‘‘. . . provide for meaningful public involvement of state and 

local government officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of . . . 

land use regulations . . ..’’ Public lands counties provide essential law enforcement, 

search and rescue, public health, transportation infrastructure and many more services on Federal public lands. Rightfully so, FLPMA makes it clear that local governments are not just another member of the public. Local governments interact with 

our natural resources on a daily basis and hold a wealth of practical, on the ground 

knowledge that should be actively sought out by Federal agencies to inform Federal 

decisionmaking. As elected officials and intergovernmental partners with the 

Federal Government, counties must have a seat at the table and an opportunity to 

help shape management decisions in partnership with land managers. 

Integrated land management efforts across levels of government are key to successful land management planning. The Planning 2.0 regulations attempt to change 

the way the BLM interacts with state, local and tribal governments for land management planning. For example, proposed changes would revise consistency requirements so that resource management plans (RMPs) must only be consistent with 

officially adopted local land use plans. BLM would not be required to consider locally implemented policies, programs or other local government actions, nor would 

BLM have to consider local land use plans that are in the process of being crafted 

or revised. This change could significantly impact the ability of local governments 

and BLM to work together to address the evolving needs of a community or the local 

landscape. 

Presently, the BLM planning protocol recognizes county planning documents including additions, changes and updates. It is widely recognized that as conditions 

change, management direction must adjust in parallel. FLPMA requires ‘‘consistency with local master plans and policies.’’ However, changes offered in the proposed 

Planning 2.0 rule attempt to revise consistency requirements to allow BLM to recognize only plans that have been fully adopted before the planning process begins. 

When the original ‘‘RMP Winnemucca district’’ was adopted in 1982–83 Humboldt 

County had approximately 20 percent fewer residences and most of our natural 

10 

resource related jobs had not yet been created. Over the course of the 30 years that 

the RMP was in place Humboldt County completely revised its master plan three 

times, created a water and natural resource plan, a regional transportation plan and 

implemented countless other planning efforts to meet the challenges of our changing 

community. As these new local plans were implemented, we were able to work with 

BLM to ensure consistency between local and Federal plans. Under Planning 2.0 the 

addition of new local plans and revisions to existing documents may not be officially 

recognized by the BLM. 

Additionally, the proposed rule seeks to distinguish between ‘‘plan components,’’ 

which can only be changed by amending or revising an RMP, and an ‘‘implementation strategy,’’ which guides future actions the BLM may take on the land but can 

be revised at any time without triggering a requirement for consultation with local 

counties and cooperating agencies. This change fails to recognize that how a plan 

is implemented can have as significant an impact as the components of the plan 

itself. By failing to consult and cooperate with local governments on implementation 

strategies, the BLM would not benefit from valuable local insights. This could result 

in implementation strategies with significant negative impacts on local communities. Engagement with local government should not be discretionary. The BLM 

must be required to engage local governments at all stages of RMP development and 

implementation. 

Finally, Planning 2.0 proposes a fundamental shift in the BLM’s default RMP 

planning area. Rather than continuing the policy of utilizing local BLM Field Office 

boundaries as the default planning area, the BLM has instead proposed a shift toward broader geographic planning boundaries that cross regional districts and, in 

some cases, even state lines. Shifting the BLM’s focus to a regional ‘‘30,000 foot 

level,’’ rather than focusing on discrete local landscapes, dilutes the local voice in 

resource management planning, empowering regional line managers’ decisions far 

removed from the land. 

In my county, by taking a local focus and working with local land managers we 

have been successful in harmonizing local, state and Federal plans to promote recovery in the wake of wildland fire. Following fire events, our response to these events 

has centered on locally focused planning efforts. We work with our Federal partners 

to coordinate large fire reclamation teams of managers, regulators, and local officials 

assembled to assess damage and prioritize response efforts on behalf of the citizens 

and the natural resources impacted by the fire. These efforts have been largely successful due to our team approach of collecting data and coordinating recovery plans 

to existing local resource plans, regional master plans and other regional strategic 

plans. 

In contrast, a regional approach based at the ‘‘basin’’ level, formulated by disconnected line managers who have no connection to the land, resources or the communities affected by the disaster would not benefit from the kind of on the ground 

knowledge local governments and stakeholders have been able to provide. I’m afraid 

a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach, based in regional directives will result in what is commonly referred to as ‘‘analysis paralysis’’ and a project disconnect. In the case of fire 

events in our area, when a regional approach has been applied to post-fire restoration the resulting disconnect and delays in action have resulted in a failure to reclaim damaged lands, large-scale infestation of noxious weeds and damage to critical 

infrastructure. As currently proposed, Planning 2.0 will encourage that disconnect 

by defaulting to a regional directive not specific to the realities and needs of the 

local communities or natural resources. 

Land management decisions must balance many ecological, economic, historical 

and cultural factors. In my experience as a county commissioner and a land manager, the management decisions that strike the best balance are those made in close 

coordination with the local community by individuals with a deep understanding of 

the landscape. This understanding can only be built over time by being ‘‘on the 

land’’ and in the community. Defaulting the planning focus to a broader regional 

scale divorces decisionmaking from the land itself. BLM’s focus should remain at the 

local level and impact decisions should be made, literally, on the ground. 

Although I understand the need for flexibility and scalability in planning, establishing a default boundary that does not begin at the local level will only serve to 

reduce the local voice, cause valuable local knowledge and experiences to be lost to 

an overly broad perspective, and drown out the voices of local stakeholders and cooperating agencies in a sea of form letters from national interest groups without a 

direct connection to the land itself. 

Local county governments can be invaluable allies to Federal land managers. The 

necessity for local government to be close to its land and its people makes us a significant resource. Local governments can provide a real-time, on the ground perspective that can help to avoid many of the pitfalls caused by distant land management 

11 

decisions made in far-off offices. We are at the forefront of protecting both our citizens and the environment. Counties like mine continue to urge the BLM to work 

with us to implement a Planning 2.0 rule that benefits from significant local government input, guarantees consistency with local plans and ensures robust local cooperation at all phases of the planning process. As a partner with Federal land 

managers in this pursuit, counties want a practical Federal policy that works at the 

local level. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much, Mr. French. 

At this time, Ms. Cowan, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CAREN COWAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW 

MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS’ ASSOCIATION, ALBUQUERQUE, 

NEW MEXICO 

Ms. COWAN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Dingell, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to come here 

today and speak to you about this issue that is so important to 

ranching families in New Mexico and throughout the West. 

My name is Caren Cowan, and I am the Executive Director of 

the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association and the New Mexico 

Wool Growers’ Association. In addition, I publish a monthly magazine and a monthly newspaper that covers 40 states from Maine to 

Hawaii on ranching and private property issues. 

The New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association has members in all 

33 of our state’s counties. The association also has members from 

19 other states. 

The use of Bureau of Land Management lands is critical to the 

ranching communities in New Mexico, as well as to NMCGA’s 

members in other states. Given the vast amounts of land managed 

by the Agency within the western states, the ability for local government to participate in Federal activities on lands that make up 

a large majority of counties is of critical importance. I was blessed 

to have known some of the men who crafted FLPMA. They were 

wise men, and I ask for their guidance often. 

The proposed Planning 2.0 regulations certainly do not reflect 

the concerns that led to the creation of FLPMA, nor do they reflect 

the spirit or the intent of the law. One of the beauties of FLPMA 

is the ability to make decisions on the ground with the involved 

public following the multiple use mandates of the Bureau of Land 

Management. This proposal will destroy that ability, favoring the 

command and control top-down driven decisions that we find so 

distasteful in other Federal land management agencies. 

Not only is the local government participation in the planning a 

huge concern, but the redefining of the term ‘‘landscape’’ to cover 

vast amounts of land without recognition of geopolitical boundaries 

is a not-very-well-veiled attempt at Federal control in the states. 

The proposed planning rule also eliminates the requirement that 

the areas of critical environmental concern, ACECs, must still be 

managed for multiple use by eliminating a sentence in the existing 

ACEC definition that states, ‘‘The identification of a potential 

ACEC shall not of itself change or prevent change of the management of use of public lands.’’ By eliminating that sentence, the 

BLM is granting the ability to eliminate multiple use on ACECs. 

Although the BLM describes ACEC designation as the BLM’s 

12 

attempt to clearly communicate the BLM’s intent to prioritize those 

resources and their values, such prioritization will eliminate part 

of the use. These are but a few concerns contained within the 244- 

page proposal. I could go on for some time, and I did so with my 

written comments. 

The request that we bring to you today is that the process and 

development of this new planning proposal be slowed down, and 

backed up, to include all of those who utilize BLM lands. This process should include at least one meeting in each state, and better 

yet, within each district. To date, to my knowledge, there has been 

one public meeting in 2015 in California, and another one in 

Colorado in 2016. 

The Denver meeting was a Webinar on a weekday in the middle 

of the week. That certainly does not fit into the time frame that 

most working Americans can participate in. We have requested up 

to a 180-day extension on the comment period, but we were granted only a paltry 30 days. We hope that the BLM will reconsider 

the short extension and provide us one that is more meaningful 

and that allows for more participation. 

A lot of my members do not even have access to a computer. All 

of this is on the computer, so you have left out a huge group of 

people. 

I agree with Mrs. Dingell that there are things that probably do 

need to be changed; and I agree with her that we need to sit at 

the table and change them. We need to have time to do that. 

I want to thank you for the time today. I also want to thank the 

New Mexico Department of Agriculture and the Cattle Growers’ 

attorney, Karen Budd-Falen from Wyoming, for their help in 

preparing these comments. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cowan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAREN COWAN, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, ON BEHALF

OF THE NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS’ ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak 

to you today about this most important issue. My name is Caren Cowan; I am the 

Executive Director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association (NMCGA) and 

the New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc. (NMWGI). Additionally, I published the 

New Mexico Stockman magazine and the Livestock Market Digest monthly newspaper. The NMCGA has members in all 33 of New Mexico’s counties as well 19 

other states. The NMWGI is New Mexico’s oldest trade organization. The Stockman 

and Digest reach over 40 states in the Nation ranging from Maine to Hawaii. 

The use of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in critical to the ranching 

communities of New Mexico as well as to NMCGA’s members in numerous other 

states. Given the vast amounts of lands managed by the Agency within the western 

states, the ability for local governments to participate in Federal activities on lands 

that make up a large majority of many counties is of critical importance. 

I was blessed to have known some of the men who crafted the Federal Land 

Policy & Management Act (FLMPA). The proposed 2.0 planning regulations certainly don’t reflect the concerns that lead to the creation of FLMPA, nor does it reflect the letter and intent of the law. 

One of the beauties of FLMPA is the ability to make decisions on the ground with 

the involved publics following the multiple use mandates of the BLM. This proposal 

will destroy that ability, favoring the command and control, top driven down decisions that are so distasteful with other land management agencies. 

Not only is local government participation in planning a huge concern, but redefining the term ‘‘landscape’’ to cover vast amounts of land without the recognition 

of geopolitical boundaries is a not well-veiled attempt at Federal control over counties and states. 

13 

The proposed planning rule also eliminates the requirement that Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) must still be managed for ‘‘multiple use’’ by eliminating a sentence in the existing ACEC definition that states ‘‘the identification of 

a potential ACEC shall not, of itself, change or prevent change of the management 

or use of public lands.’’ 

By eliminating that sentence, the BLM is granting to itself the ability to eliminate 

multiple uses from ACECs. Although the BLM describes ACEC designation as the 

BLM’s attempt to ‘‘clearly communicate the BLM’s intention to prioritize these recourses values or uses,’’ such prioritization will lead to elimination of use. 

These are but a few concerns within the 244 page proposal. I could go on for some 

time, and did in my written comments. 

The request we bring you today is that the process of the development of a new 

planning proposal be slowed downed and backed up to include all of those who utilize BLM lands. This process should include at least one meeting in each state, 

better yet with in district. 

To date there has been one public meeting in 2015 in California and another in 

Colorado in 2016. The Denver meeting was a ‘‘Webinar’’ on a weekday in the middle 

of the day. That certainly does fit into a time frame that most working Americans 

can participate in. 

We have requested up a 180-day extension on the comment period, but were 

granted only a paltry 30 days. We hope that the BLM will reconsider this short 

extension and provide one that is more meaningful. 

Thank you for your time today. 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Background 

February 11, 2016, the Bureau of Land Management (‘‘BLM’’) introduced new 

draft planning regulations (‘‘draft Planning 2.0’’) to ‘‘enable the BLM to more readily 

address landscape-scale issues . . . and to respond more effectively to environmental and social change.’’ The statutory authority for the BLM to adopt these new 

planning regulations is the (‘‘FLPMA’’). FLPMA was adopted in 1976; that Act (1) 

changed the BLM’s mission from the disposal of public land to retention of these 

lands, (2) required the BLM to prepare land and resource management plans 

(‘‘RMP’’) which govern all activities on the BLM-managed lands, and (3) required 

that BLM lands be managed for ‘‘multiple use and sustained yield.’’ 

FLPMA itself, as well as the current BLM regulations, mandate the involvement 

of state and local governments and Indian tribes (collectively ‘‘local governments’’) 

in the BLM’s decisionmaking process. However, although the BLM claims that the 

draft Planning 2.0 regulations do not change the BLM’s ‘‘practice’’ in developing 

RMPs, some areas in the draft rules are a significant departure or the language of 

the agency’s previous planning rules and in some cases a significant departure for 

the agency’s interpretation of FLPMA. In my view, these changes are detrimental 

and severely limit local governments’ involvement in the BLM planning process. The 

BLM’s rationale for these changes makes no sense. Words mean something; thus, 

if there is no change ‘‘in practice’’ as the BLM claims, why is there a change in the 

language being used to support that practice? 

A. General Comments: 

1. The draft Planning 2.0 regulations would eliminate the mandatory notification 

requirements from the BLM to impacted local governments and replace them 

with a requirement that the BLM only notify those local governments ‘‘that 

have requested to be notified or that the [BLM] responsible official has reason 

to believe would be interested in the resource management plan or plan 

amendment.’’ In other places, the new regulation replaces the required notification requirements with the requirement for notification to only those local 

governments the BLM believes would be ‘‘concerned with’’ or ‘‘interested in’’ 

the Federal land use plan. 

2. Throughout the draft Planning 2.0 regulations, the BLM proposes to replace 

the word ‘‘shall’’ and replace it with the word ‘‘will.’’ Although some courts 

have determined that the word ‘‘will’’ denotes a mandatory action, others have 

held that the word ‘‘will’’ must be read in context to determine its meaning. 

On the other hand, I found no court cases that held that the word ‘‘shall’’ can 

have any other meaning except a mandatory command. If this BLM change 

denotes ‘‘no change in practice,’’ it is hard to understand why this change is 

necessary. 

14 

3. FLPMA requires management of BLM lands for multiple use and sustained 

yield. Nowhere in FLPMA does Congress allow the management of BLM 

lands for ‘‘social changes.’’ However, according to BLM draft Planning 2.0; 

‘‘Goal 1’’ is to ‘‘improve the BLM’s ability to respond to social and environmental change in a timely manner.’’ 

4. It is not clear how the draft Planning 2.0 rules intersect with the requirements for environmental, economic and ‘‘custom and culture’’ analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. For example, the draft 

Planning 2.0 rules describe BLM’s planning as a two-step process with the 

first step being for the BLM and public to understand the current ‘‘baseline 

in regards to resource, environmental, ecological, social and economic conditions in the planning area.’’ NEPA also requires that baseline information be 

gathered and additionally, that the status quo management be the ‘‘no action 

alternative.’’ I believe it is critical to ensure that the ‘‘status quo’’ or ‘‘no action alternative’’ accurately reflect the current baseline and not be some departure from analysis that accurately describes exactly the conditions as they 

exist. 

5. The comment period for review of draft land use plans is shortened from 90 

days to 60 days and the comment period for review of land use plan amendments is shortened from 90 days to 45 days. 

B. Local Government Involvement in BLM Land Management Plan Decisions: 

The BLM draft Planning 2.0 regulations represent a significant departure in the 

way that local governments can become involved in the BLM decisionmaking process. Specifically the draft regulations provide less opportunity for local governments 

to have meaningful and significant input in violation of FLPMA. 

1. Consistency Review With Local Land Use Plans, Policies and Programs 

a. The draft Planning 2.0 regulations strictly limits the types of local 

government plans that the BLM will consider as part of its consistency 

review. Existing BLM regulations state that: 

The BLM is obligated to take all practical measures to resolve conflicts between 

Federal and local government land use plans. Additionally, the BLM must identify 

areas where the proposed [BLM] plan is inconsistent with local land use policies, 

plans or programs and provide reasons why inconsistencies exist and cannot be remedied. 

§ 1601.0-4 Responsibilities. 

The proposed regulations would shift responsibility for determining the deciding 

official and planning area from state directors to the BLM director. Westerners are 

concerned about this shift of responsibility farther away from the level at which 

plan components will be implemented. It is paramount that decisionmakers have 

first-hand knowledge of local resources, their uses, and benefits to communities. 

Additionally, designation of planning area boundaries from a national perspective 

to address landscape-scale priorities could lead to plan components that address 

national concerns while local concerns and impacts are obscured. 

§ 1601.0-5 Definitions. 

This section would modify, delete, and create new terms. Rather than addressing 

changes here, each will be addressed under their corresponding section of the 

proposed rule. 

§ 1601.0-8 Principles. (Emphasis added) 

The existing rule requires BLM to consider the impacts of RMPs on local economies and uses of adjacent or nearby non-Federal lands. The proposed rule would expand the consideration of impacts to include, ‘‘resource, environmental, ecological, 

social, and economic conditions at appropriate scales.’’ One could agree with the expanded array of impacts to consider; however, the analysis of impacts of a RMP 

must focus primarily on local impacts. 

Local communities, economies, customs, and culture are most impacted by 

changes in Federal land management. While impacts at the regional or national 

scale are important, they must not be the focus of an impacts analysis. Westerners 

are opposed to the proposed language that makes the scale of analysis a subjective 

determination which could lead to masking of local impacts. Assessing impacts at 

the local level is necessary, appropriate, and should be required. 

15 

§ 1610.1-1 Guidance and general requirements. (Emphasis added) 

The description of guidance in the proposed regulation is similar to existing regulation. However, existing regulations at § 1610.1(a)(3) require that state level guidance be developed, ‘‘. . . with necessary and appropriate governmental coordination 

. . .’’ This is a significant and unjustified change from current regulation. Coordination and consistency with state, local, and tribal plans and policies are paramount 

to successful planning efforts and required by FLPMA. Policies, analysis requirements, planning procedures, and other instructions have a major effect on the outcome of land management planning. The existing coordination and consistency 

requirements for guidance should be included in the proposed regulation. 

Existing § 1610.1(b) would be removed because proposed § 1601.0-4 provides the 

direction for determining future planning areas. As stated above, expansion of planning areas to achieve national objectives could lead to local impacts being ignored. 

One can understand the need to have flexibility in determining planning areas; however, matters of importance to local communities must not be disregarded. 

The proposed § 1610.1-1(c) would stipulate that BLM will use high quality 

information to inform land management planning. The definition of high quality 

information at proposed § 1601.0-5 contains no direction regarding the use of up-todate information. In situations where the best available scientific information is outdated, its use could lead to misinformed decisions. 

§ 1610.1-2 Plan components. (Emphasis added) 

The proposed § 1610.1-2(a) describes the required goals and objectives that would 

provide desired outcomes and resource conditions that all other plan components 

must support. Goals are described as desired outcomes that address resource, environmental, ecological, social, or economic characteristics toward which management 

should be directed, and objectives are desired resource conditions developed to guide 

progress toward goals. 

All other plan components must be designed to achieve the goals and objectives. 

This hierarchy creates a situation where all plan components are subordinate to 

goals. Section 102(a)(7) of FLPMA states, ‘‘goals and objectives be established by law 

as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis 

of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law.’’ To comply 

with FLPMA, the proposed regulation should require that RMPs include multiple 

use and sustained yield goals. 

The existing regulation at § 1601.0-5(n)(2) requires that RMPs include, ‘‘Allowable 

resource uses . . . and related levels of production or use to be maintained.’’ This, 

or similar, language should be carried forward as a required goal in the proposed 

planning rule. FLPMA, at Section 103(l), defines the principal or major uses of 

Federal land. These uses should have specific requirements as plan components in 

the proposed rule. 

§ 1610.1-3 Implementation Strategies. (Emphasis added) 

The proposed rule would make inclusion of implementation strategies in a RMP 

discretionary. Implementation strategies are described as management measures, 

monitoring procedures, or other strategies that assist in implementing future actions on Federal land. Implementation strategies would not be a plan component, 

and thus, changes to implementation strategies would not require a plan amendment or formal public involvement and interagency coordination. 

BLM’s need to be able to update implementation strategies in a timely manner 

as new information or techniques become available is understandable. However, this 

should not be done behind closed doors. Public input as well as the coordination and 

consistency requirements with state, local, and tribal governments should apply to 

development and update of implementation strategies. Local input is vital to 

ensuring the most suitable implementation strategies are used. State, local, and 

tribal governments have expertise germane to the development of implementation 

strategies and must be involved beyond the proposed 30 day review period prior to 

implementation. 

FLPMA at Section 202(c)(9) requires BLM to, ‘‘. . . coordinate the land use 

inventory, planning, and management activities . . .’’ with state and local governments. Implementation strategies are described in the proposed regulation and the 

preamble as management measures, practices, and actions BLM may take to implement an RMP. The proposed regulations violate FLPMA in stating that implementation strategies are not subject to coordination and consistency requirements with 

state, local, and tribal governments. 

16 

§ 1610.2 Public Involvement. 

The proposed rule distinguishes between opportunities for public review and 

formal comment. Public review, while providing a certain level of transparency, does 

not constitute meaningful involvement. 

Existing regulations require BLM to accept formal comment for proposed planning 

criteria, draft RMP and environmental impact statement (EIS), and significant 

changes made to a proposed plan prior to approval. The proposed regulations would 

only provide opportunity for formal comment for the draft RMP and EIS and any 

significant changes made to a proposed plan prior to approval. There are many new 

opportunities for public review, but this places no requirement on the BLM for considering outside input. 

The proposed § 1610.2-2 would reduce the minimum comment period of 90 days 

for RMPs and EIS level amendments to 60 and 45 days respectively. EISs are large 

and complex documents that must be analyzed in detail in order to provide substantive comments. By its very nature, any EIS level analysis represents a major 

Federal action with significant impacts. Westerners suggest that the minimum 90 

day comment period for any EIS level analysis be carried forward in the proposed 

regulations. 

§ 1610.3-1(d)(1), (2), (3) Coordination with other Federal agencies, state and 

local governments, and Indian tribes. (Emphasis added) 

In contrast, the draft Planning 2.0 regulations would eliminate any consistency 

review for local land use ‘‘policies, programs and processes’’ and only consider inconsistencies with ‘‘an officially adopted land use plan.’’ This change would require a 

local government to have a ‘‘land use plan,’’ and not just a land use policy or program for consistency review. This type of language will limit many local governments’ ability to take advantage of the consistency review requirements if they do 

not have an ‘‘officially approved or adopted land use plan.’’ 

Proposed § 1610.3-1(a) would prescribe that coordination be accomplished, ‘‘. . . to 

the extent consistent with Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, 

and the purposes, policies and programs of such laws and regulations.’’ Coordination 

should be conducted in manner consistent with Federal law; however, coordination 

is not subordinate to regulations, purposes, policies, and programs of such laws. In 

fact, these regulations, purposes, policies, and programs should be developed in coordination with state, local, and tribal governments to meet the intent of FLPMA. 

We support the expanded involvement of cooperating agencies under proposed 

§ 1610.3-1(b). Our experiences as a cooperating agency in the past have been somewhat disappointing due to the lack of meaningful involvement in the planning process. It is imperative that BLM provide cooperating agencies with ample opportunity 

to provide input and ensure that input is incorporated into planning efforts. 

The preamble requests comment regarding engagement of eligible governmental 

entities during the proposed assessment step which would be prior to formalizing 

a cooperating agency agreement. Coordination should be a continual dialogue between BLM and engaged state, local, and tribal governments. BLM should take 

steps to encourage this dialogue with all governmental entities with interests germane to the development of Federal land management plans. If coordination is occurring, involvement prior to a formal cooperating agency agreement should already 

be taking place. 

b. The draft Planning 2.0 regulations eliminates this entire section from the 

existing regulations: 

(d) In developing guidance to Field Manager, in compliance with section 

1611 of this title, the State Director shall: 

(1) Ensure that it is as consistent as possible with existing officially 

adopted and approved resource related plans, policies or programs 

of other Federal agencies, state agencies, Indian tribes and local 

governments that may be affected, as prescribed by § 1610.3-2 of 

this title; 

(2) Identify areas where the proposed guidance is inconsistent with 

such policies, plans or programs and provide reasons why the inconsistencies exist and cannot be remedied; and 

(3) Notify the other Federal agencies, state agencies, Indian tribes or 

local governments with whom consistency is not achieved and indicate any appropriate methods, procedures, actions and/or programs 

which the State Director believes may lead to resolution of such 

inconsistencies. 

17 

§ 1610.3-1(d). 

In other words, local government involvement would be limited to ONLY BLM 

land use plans and not the guidance provided from the BLM State Director to 

develop such land use plans. 

c. BLM is also proposing to weaken its consistency review requirements by 

adding that consistency with local land use plan will only be ‘‘to the maximum extent the BLM finds practical and consistent with the purposes of 

FLPMA and other Federal law and regulations applicable to public lands, 

and the purposes policies and programs of such laws and regulations.’’ 

In contrast, the existing regulations require that: 

(a) Guidance and resource management plans and amendments to management framework plans shall be consistent with officially approved 

or adopted resource related plans, and the policies and programs 

contained therein, of other Federal agencies, state and local governments and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance and resource management plans are also consistent with the purposes, policies and 

programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, 

including Federal and state pollution control laws as implemented by 

applicable Federal and state air, water, noise, and other pollution 

standards or implementation plans. 

(b) In the absence of officially approved or adopted resource-related 

plans of other Federal agencies, state and local governments and 

Indian tribes, guidance and resource management plans shall, to the 

maximum extent practical, be consistent with officially approved and 

adopted resource related policies and programs of other Federal 

agencies, state and local governments and Indian tribes. Such consistency will be accomplished so long as the guidance and resource 

management plans are consistent with the policies, programs and 

provisions of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, 

including, but not limited to, Federal and state pollution control laws 

as implemented by applicable Federal and state air, water, noise and 

other pollution standards or implementation plans. 

§ 1610.3-2(a), (b). 

In other words, under the existing regulations, so long as a local land use plan, 

policy or program was consistent with Federal statute, the local land use plan, policy or program would be included in the consistency review analysis by the BLM. 

Under draft Planning 2.0, the local land use plan is required to be (at least in the 

opinion of the BLM) consistent with Federal law, and ‘‘the purposes, policies and 

programs of such laws and regulations.’’ Requiring that local land use plans be consistent with BLM policies and programs significantly diminishes the ability of local 

governments to influence these same BLM policies and programs. For example, 

FLPMA mandates ‘‘multiple use and sustained yield.’’ Describing the policy for how 

such multiple use is to be achieved is exactly the type of information that can and 

should be included in a local land use plan. Under the draft Planning 2.0 regulations, however, the local government would be prohibited from including a policy to 

achieve multiple use in a local land use plan that is different from the BLM’s policy 

for achieving multiple use. This draft rule significantly limits the scope of what can 

be included in a local land use plan. 

d. There is also a shift in the burden of showing that an inconsistency exists 

from the BLM to the local governments. Specifically, under the draft 2.0 

Planning regulations, the BLM will only consider inconsistencies with a 

local land use plan if the BLM is specifically notified, in writing, about 

a specific inconsistency. 

e. The BLM is proposing to change the phrase ‘‘assist in resolving, to the 

extent practical and consistent with Federal law, inconsistencies between 

Federal and non-Federal Government plans.’’ (Emphasis added). The 

original word used on this section was ‘‘practicable’’ rather than ‘‘practical.’’ Although the BLM claims that the change in wording is simply for 

readability, these two words have different meanings. Practicable is a 

more narrowly defined term meaning ‘‘capable of being put into practice.’’ 

In contrast, ‘‘practical,’’ in this context, means capable of being put to 

use.’’ To understand the distinction, synonyms of ‘‘practicable’’ are possible, doable, and feasible; a synonym of ‘‘practical’’ is useful or sensible. 

In terms of the consistency review, the BLM then would propose to 

18 

change the meaning of the requirements from, the agency must assist in 

resolving inconsistencies to the extent possible (practicable) to resolving 

inconsistencies to the extent sensible or useful (practical). 

2. Local Governments as Cooperating Agencies 

a. Although the BLM claims it is only trying to be consistent with existing 

practices and current BLM terminology, the BLM is eliminating the term 

‘‘cooperating agency’’ as used in NEPA and replacing it with the term 

‘‘eligible governmental entity’’ as described in the Department of the 

Interior regulations at 43 C.F.R. § 46.225(a). According to the BLM regulations, an ‘‘eligible governmental entity’’ can be considered as a ‘‘cooperating agency.’’ Although it appears that the definition of an ‘‘eligible 

governmental entity’’ is similar to a ‘‘cooperating agency,’’ I think this 

change in language is going to cause great confusion and may certainly 

exclude some local government participation if the local government does 

not understand that an ‘‘eligible governmental entity’’ is the same as the 

more familiar ‘‘cooperating agency.’’ 

b. Of greater concern is the BLM’s addition of the term ‘‘as feasible and 

appropriate’’ given the eligible governmental entities’ ‘‘scope of their expertise.’’ Although BLM states that it intends no change from current 

practice or policy, this language could certainly be used by the BLM to 

strictly define a local government’s special expertise or to determine that 

local government participation is not ‘‘feasible or appropriate’’ if adopted 

by the draft Planning 2.0 regulations. 

c. Additionally, the BLM authorized officer would no longer be required to 

notify the BLM State Director if a request for ‘‘cooperating agency’’ is denied. Under the existing regulations, if a BLM authorized officer denies 

a request for cooperating agency, he shall notify the State Director who 

shall conduct an independent review to determine if the denial was appropriate. That State Director’s review would be eliminated under the draft 

planning 2.0 regulations. 

3. Coordination 

FLPMA requires that the BLM ‘‘coordinate’’ its plans and programs with those 

of state and local governments, although the statute is silent on how such ‘‘coordination’’ is to occur. Under any definition however, ‘‘coordination’’ implies some measure 

of input and trying to work together. In contrast, under the draft Planning 2.0 regulations, ‘‘coordination’’ would only include the BLM providing to local governments 

‘‘the opportunity for review, advice and suggestions on issues and topics which may 

affect or influence other agency or governmental programs.’’ Additionally, while currently ‘‘coordination’’ is to occur ‘‘consistent with Federal laws,’’ the draft Planning 

2.0 regulations would also add that ‘‘Coordination’’ would occur consistent with ‘‘the 

purposes, policies and programs of use [Federal] laws and regulations.’’ The policies 

under the Federal statutes can change with the President, Secretary of the Interior 

and BLM Director in control at the time. That may limit the ability of local governments to coordinate in some circumstances. 

4. Governor’s Consistency Review 

The new draft Planning 2.0 rules place more work on the Governor during the 

‘‘Governor’s Consistency Review.’’ 

a. The Governor is required to identify inconsistencies between state and 

local government plans to bring to the attention of the Director of the 

BLM. The BLM will only consider ‘‘identified’’ inconsistencies between 

state and local plans and the proposed resource management plan if such 

inconsistencies are noted by the Governor. 

b. BLM will only accept the Governor’s recommendation if the BLM Director 

determines that the Governor’s recommendations ‘‘provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the state’s interest.’’ 

Proposed § 1610.4(a)(2) requires the responsible official to identify relevant national, regional, or local policies, guidance, strategies, or plans to inform the assessment. It is paramount that the deciding official coordinate with state, local, and 

tribal governments when making the relevance determination for their plans, policies, and programs. BLM is required by FLPMA to keep apprised of and seek consistency with state, local, and tribal plans. Westerners suggest that language from 

existing § 1610.4-4(e), ‘‘Specific requirements and constraints to achieve consistency 

with policies, plans, and programs . . .’’ of state, local, and tribal governments, be 

incorporated as a requirement for the assessment. Identification of potential issues 

19 

at the earliest possible stage of planning should make RMP development more 

efficient. 

Proposed § 1610.4(c)(5) list 10 separate types of areas of importance to be include 

in the assessment. Why are these 10 types of resources singled out from the inventory of all public lands and their resource and other values required by Section 201 

of FLPMA? Under what authority does BLM place a greater degree of importance 

on the listed resources over other resources on Federal land? 

This effectively creates new types of administrative special designations. The only 

administrative special designation authorized by FLPMA is an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC). ACECs must meet relevance and importance criteria in 

addition to requiring special management attention. The existing and proposed regulations include identification of potential ACECs. Are these areas of importance 

going to be subject to the requirements for ACEC designation? If not, where does 

BLM get the authority to create these new special designations? 

Proposed § 1610.4(c)(5) requires the assessment to consider, ‘‘The various goods 

and services, including ecological services, that people obtain from the planning area 

. . .’’ Why are ecological services singled out from the suite of goods and services 

that people obtain from Federal lands? Section 103(l) of FLPMA states, ‘‘The term 

‘‘principal or major uses’’ includes and is limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish 

and wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rightsof-way, outdoor recreation, and timber production.’’ Through FLPMA, it is clear that 

Congress intended that BLM planning place priority on the principle or major use. 

The proposed regulations should specifically require that sustained levels of the 

principal or major uses be addressed in the assessment and throughout the planning process. 

The assessment report provides the foundation from which a RMP is developed. 

Proposed § 1610.4(d) provides that the planning assessment report will be made 

available for public review. We request that BLM include a formal comment period 

with the release of the planning assessment report. 

§ 1610.5 Preparation of a resource management plan. 

Proposed § 1610.5-1(a) requires the preparation of a preliminary statement of purpose and need for the RMP. The preamble states that this statement informs the 

development of all subsequent steps in the preparation of a RMP. Given that this 

statement of purpose and need provides the foundation for development of a RMP, 

why is it only available for public review and not formal comment? This central part 

of the planning process must be subject to formal public comment as well as coordination and consistency requirements with state, local, and tribal governments. 

Proposed § 1610.5-2 describes how preliminary alternatives and the preliminary 

rationale for alternatives would be developed and made available for public review. 

This part includes that BLM may change the preliminary alternatives or rationale 

based on public suggestions or other information received. If BLM anticipates receiving unsolicited information that merits change to the alternatives, would it not 

be prudent to have a formal comment period for preliminary alternatives? 

The basis for analysis of alternatives is described at proposed § 1610.5-3. The estimated effects of alternatives provide justification for alternative selection, a record 

of decision, and RMP implementation. Procedures, assumptions, and indicators used 

to analyze alternatives must be valid, and formal involvement, beyond public review, is essential at this important step. 

The preamble for proposed § 1610.5-4 requests comment regarding whether BLM 

should have the option to select one, multiple, or no preferred alternatives in draft 

RMPs. Implementation of a RMP or amendment can take many years due to a variety of factors including litigation. Consistent access to resources on BLM lands is 

foundational to many economies. A single preferred alternative provides some measure of what to expect for businesses that rely on access to BLM lands for their operations. We request that BLM continue to select a preferred alternative for RMPs 

and amendments and provide a robust explanation of the reasoning behind selection 

of the alternative. 

Proposed § 1610.5-5 provides for preparation of the proposed RMP, final EIS, and 

implementation strategies. For reasons stated above, we are opposed to implementation strategies being developed without formal public input and the coordination 

and consistency requirements with plans, policies, and programs of state, local, and 

tribal governments. 

§ 1610.6 Resource management plan approval, implementation and 

modification. 

Proposed § 1610.6-2(a) describes who may protest a RMP and what issues may be 

protested. Existing regulations at § 1610.5-2(a) provide that issues submitted for the 

20 

record during the planning process may be protested. The proposed § 1610.6-2(a) 

limits protests to issues submitted for the record during preparation of the RMP or 

plan amendment. As stated in proposed § 1610.4, the BLM must complete a planning assessment before initiating the preparation of a RMP. Thus, issues associated 

with the assessment report are not subject to protest. As stated above, the assessment report is a foundational document for a RMP and should be open to official 

comment and protest. 

Proposed § 1610.6-2(a)(3) describes the content requirements for a protest. 

Protests would have to include a concise statement of why a plan component is inconsistent with Federal laws or regulations applicable to Federal lands, or the purposes, policies, and programs of such laws and regulations along with how the issue 

was raised during preparation of the RMP. Existing regulations at § 1610.5- 

2(a)(2)(v) allow for a protest to be based on, ‘‘A concise statement explaining why the 

. . . decision is believed to be wrong.’’ The proposed regulation may result in dismissal of valid protests. 

A significant amount of discretion is afforded to the responsible official in developing a RMP or amendment. This discretion applies to high quality information, assumptions, methodologies, interpretations, and procedures used in the analysis to 

justify decisions. A valid disagreement regarding any of these discretionary planning 

tools may not directly conflict with Federal law but should be considered a valid protest. The proposed regulations should be revised to ensure that protests of this 

nature are not dismissed. 

Existing regulations for monitoring and evaluation of RMPs at § 1610.4-9 include 

the requirement for BLM to determine, ‘‘. . . whether there has been significant 

change in the related plans of other Federal agencies, state or local governments, or 

Indian tribes . . .’’ to warrant amendment or revision of a plan. This is an important part of BLM’s responsibility to keep apprised of state, local, and tribal land use 

plans as mandated by Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA. The proposed § 1610.6-4 should 

include this important component of monitoring and evaluation. 

§ 1610.8-2 Designation of areas of critical environmental concern. 

ACEC designation is an important part of BLM planning. The special management attention required by designated ACECs can have a significant impact on 

resource use and management. Under existing and proposed regulations, both the 

relevance and importance criteria must be met in order for an ACEC to be designated. These criteria are entirely subjective. Existing § 1610.7-2 includes, ‘‘. . . requires qualities of more than local significance . . .’’ with the importance criteria. 

Proposed § 1610.8-2 would remove this requirement. While this is also a subjective 

term, it does construe that some level of importance beyond the local level is needed 

to designate an ACEC. The preamble states this is vague and unnecessary, and 

many examples exist where local significance has been determined to meet the importance criteria. These ACECs did not meet the current regulatory requirements 

of an ACEC and should not have been designated. 

Existing regulations recognize the importance of resource use limitations or special management attention that is required for ACECs. This is the reason for the 

required Federal Register notice specifically identifying proposed ACECs along with 

their use restrictions and the 60-day formal comment period. NMDA requests that 

his formal notice and comment period be retained in the proposed regulations. 

In summary, these draft Planning 2.0 regulations detrimentally deprive local 

governments of the ability to influence BLM land use plans. By placing such significant constraints on local governments, the entire premise behind the ‘‘governmentto-government’’ interaction is weakened. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much, Ms. Cowan. 

At this time, the Chair will recognize Mr. Fisher for 5 minutes. 

You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF COREY FISHER, SENIOR POLICY DIRECTOR, 

SPORTSMEN’S CONSERVATION PROJECT, TROUT 

UNLIMITED, MISSOULA, MONTANA 

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify on the proposed rule for the 

Bureau of Land Management’s Planning 2.0 initiative. 

21 

My name is Corey Fisher, and I am the Senior Policy Director 

for Trout Unlimited’s Sportsmen’s Conservation Project. Trout 

Unlimited is a national nonprofit organization with a mission to 

conserve, protect, and restore America’s cold water fisheries and 

their watersheds. I am here to share the perspective of an important public land user group—that is hunters and anglers. 

I live in western Montana with ready access to lands managed 

by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. These 

are the places that I hunt and fish. It is from these lands that I 

feed my family with deer and elk that I hunt. And I am not alone. 

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, one out of every 

three hunters in America hunts on public lands. In Montana, the 

number is 80 percent. Public lands are central to America’s hunting and fishing heritage. For that to continue, our lands, and the 

fish and wildlife habitat they support, need to be well managed, 

and that starts with sound management plans. 

Through my work with Trout Unlimited, I have been involved in 

public land planning efforts throughout the West; and I have found 

that a plan is only as good as the process used to develop it. In my 

experience, a sound process includes four components: early-andoften stakeholder involvement, collaboration, a transparent process, 

and responsiveness to issues on the ground. 

At times, BLM planning efforts have resulted in disenfranchised 

stakeholders due to a lack of meaningful involvement. Resource 

management plans need to be a partnership, and a partnership 

means more than a handful of cursory comment periods. Changes 

proposed by Planning 2.0 will provide a continuum of engagement 

that I believe will result in more durable plans that meet the needs 

of fish and wildlife managers, sportsmen, local government, and 

stakeholders. A lot of people like to talk about collaboration, but for 

Trout Unlimited, this is not a buzz word. Our organization is built 

on partnerships, and we take collaboration seriously. We know that 

when people sit down and find shared values, solutions are not far 

behind. That does not mean that collaboration is easy; it is not, but 

the kind of early-and-often involvement envisioned by Planning 2.0 

will help foster collaboration and implement solutions built from 

the ground up. 

Transparency needs to be at the center of any effective planning 

process. Without transparency, there is no trust; and without trust, 

there is no collaboration. The proposed rule improves transparency 

in several ways, such as making preliminary alternatives available 

to the public and providing the rationale for these alternatives. 

Resource management planning needs to be more than a perfunctory exercise. It needs to craft real solutions to address challenges 

on the ground. The proposed assessment phase will engage stakeholders to help identify these issues from the very beginning of the 

planning process. 

Additionally, Planning 2.0 recognizes that land management 

issues do not follow administrative boundaries. Now, that does not 

mean that planning should encompass vast landscapes without 

cause; but if a big game migration corridor or a Blue Ribbon trout 

steam happens to extend across field office boundaries or state 

office boundaries, this is an on-the-ground issue that needs to be 

addressed holistically and with consistency. 

22 

Local government stakeholders have raised concerns with certain 

aspects of the proposed rule, and these concerns need to be meaningfully addressed. I believe that the proposed rule is a good start. 

Planning 2.0 will improve transparency, provide a continuum of 

public involvement, engage citizens early and often, better address 

on-the-ground issues, and make for a more nimble agency that is 

responsive to change. 

Our hunting and fishing traditions face many challenges; but one 

of them should not be a cumbersome, outdated, and ineffective 

planning process for America’s public lands. We can do better, and 

I believe that Planning 2.0 will provide a path forward. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COREY FISHER, SENIOR POLICY DIRECTOR, TROUT

UNLIMITED’S SPORTSMEN’S CONSERVATION PROJECT

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue before the House 

Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 

My name is Corey Fisher and I am the Senior Policy Director for Trout Unlimited, 

a national non-profit conservation organization with more than 150,000 members organized into about 400 chapters from Maine to Alaska. Our mission is to conserve, 

protect and restore North America’s coldwater fisheries and their watersheds. Trout 

Unlimited chapters invest thousands of volunteer hours on their local streams and 

rivers to restore habitat for trout and salmon fisheries, and they invest considerable 

time in conducting youth conservation and fly fishing camps, veterans service programs, community events and taking kids fishing. 

Trout Unlimited’s conservation work on public lands focuses on engaging with 

local, state and Federal partners to find solutions that balance multiple interests 

and uses. This work is multi-faceted, but whether promoting responsible energy development, engaging in travel management planning, cleaning up pollution from 

abandoned mines, or restoring trout streams, all of this work begins with sound resource management planning. 

My work with Trout Unlimited is to ensure that public land management in the 

West is guided by policies that conserve fish and wildlife habitat. This work is more 

than a vocation for me—America’s public lands are part of who I am. Dinner for 

my family usually features meat from deer and elk that were hunted on public 

lands. When I go hunting and fishing, more often than not, public lands are the 

places I go. Vacations don’t include resorts and spas, they feature backpacking and 

river trips in the backcountry. I am fortunate to live in the midst of both Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, and I cannot imagine life 

without well-managed public lands and the outdoor traditions that they sustain. 

The BLM manages about 247 million acres of America’s public land, much of it 

offering excellent hunting, fishing and recreational access. For many sportsmen in 

the West, when they talk about hunting and fishing, they are talking about BLM 

managed public lands. Some of my best memories in the outdoors have occurred on 

BLM lands, including canoeing and fishing the Missouri River Breaks, my first antelope hunt in Montana’s Centennial Valley, and elk hunting in a couple of spots 

that will remain nameless. 

So it is both a professional and a personal interest through which I approach 

resource management planning and the BLM’s Planning 2.0 initiative. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING CHALLENGES

Throughout the past decade I have been engaged with numerous land use planning efforts in Montana, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico and Colorado. While each of 

these planning processes and locations have had their own unique aspects, they all 

featured one commonality: the need for early, frequent and meaningful public engagement. Unfortunately, that hasn’t always happened. 

All too often, it seemed that the BLM would announce that they were going to 

develop a new resource management plan and take public scoping comments. Then 

they would disappear, often for years, only to release a draft plan that may or may 

not have dealt with the issues initially raised by the public. Following another public comment period, the Agency would disappear again, and after another wait 

23 

measured in years, a final plan would eventually be released, which may or may 

not have reflected the public comment received at the draft stage. Then an aggrieved group would sue the Agency, further bogging down the process. 

While this illustration may be a bit oversimplified, it is not far from the reality 

of how the BLM has typically developed resource management plans in past years. 

In addition to being an inefficient and ineffective process, it has led to 

disenfranchised public land stakeholders who at times view the BLM as an 

unresponsive, closed off agency. This is a problem that the BLM’s Planning 2.0 

initiative strives to fix. 

PLANNING 2.0 SEEKS TO IMPROVE THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS

Two years ago, the BLM announced that it was launching Planning 2.0. with a 

stated objective to improve ‘‘our land use planning process so that we can more 

effectively plan across landscapes at multiple scales and be more responsive to environmental and social change.’’ 

From the beginning of Planning 2.0, Trout Unlimited and other sportsmen groups 

participated in the BLM’s process, including providing the Agency with public comments and participating in public listening sessions. Trout Unlimited’s experience 

with resource management planning over the past decade has provided us with a 

perspective that we think will help result in a better end product for Planning 2.0, 

including what we hope will be a more transparent, inclusive process that provides 

meaningful collaboration among public land stakeholders. 

Now that a proposed rule has been released for public review and comment, I 

believe that Planning 2.0 is on the right track. 

As stated in the proposed rule, Planning 2.0 has three primary goals: 

1. Improve the BLM’s ability to respond to social and environmental change in 

a timely manner. 

2. Provide meaningful opportunities for other Federal agencies, state and local 

governments, Indian tribes, and the public to be involved in the development 

of BLM resource management plans. 

3. Improve the BLM’s ability to address landscape-scale resource issues and to 

apply landscape-scale management approaches. 

I will address each of these goals. 

Being more responsive to social and environmental change is critical to 

ensure healthy populations of fish and wildlife. 

Sound land management must adapt to the most current science and trends in 

fish and wildlife populations; a static resource management plan will quickly become obsolete. Current procedures for amending and updating resource management plans are time consuming and burdensome for both the agency and the public. 

Because of the difficulty of revising resource management plans, the documents 

often do not reflect changing conditions on the ground and fail to incorporate better 

data and science as they become available. 

For instance, throughout the West, the BLM is party to conservation agreements 

and MOUs with state agencies to recover sensitive native trout species, many of 

which have been reduced to a fraction of their historical range. While recent resource management plans have relied on the best available science to ensure that 

future opportunities to restore populations of native trout are not hindered by land 

use activities, older resource management plans either ignore the issue altogether, 

or allow development without necessary precautions to protect water quality in 

streams that are suitable for restoring trout populations. 

An example of responding to changing realities for fish and wildlife management 

comes from the BLM’s recently approved Tres Rios Resource Management Plan, in 

which the agency recognized the need to conserve not only streams currently occupied by Colorado River cutthroat trout, but also streams that have been identified 

as reintroduction sites for these sensitive native fish. The Tres Rios is one of only 

a handful of resource management plans to include this kind of foresight. Not only 

will this help the BLM fulfill commitments in the conservation agreement for 

Colorado River cutthroat trout, it will help to ensure a bright future for these trout 

and the anglers who like to fish for them. 

A more responsive and efficient resource management planning process will allow 

the BLM to ensure that its planning documents remain current and reflect the 

present-day science of fish and wildlife management. By integrating monitoring 

strategies as a plan component, a feedback loop will inform the BLM and the public 

when relevant changes in circumstances necessitate a shift in management 

direction. 

24 

Meaningful public involvement will increase transparency and help to put 

the public back in public land management. 

The proposed rule will add two additional opportunities for public involvement. 

First, a planning assessment phase would include an opportunity for the public 

(along with local, state and Federal agencies) to suggest issues and opportunities 

that a resource management plan revision should address and to help establish a 

current baseline of conditions on the ground. 

Second, the proposed rule would create the opportunity for the public to review 

and comment on preliminary management plan alternatives, allowing stakeholders 

to raise issues before the BLM begins developing the impact analysis, a critical juncture in the planning process. 

Taken together, these two new public involvement steps will ensure that the BLM 

starts resource management plans off on the right foot, and is still on the right 

track at the halfway point. This kind of early-and-often collaboration with the public 

will help to make for a more responsive, transparent agency. 

Instead of only two isolated comment periods, the proposed rule would create a 

continuum of collaboration with public land stakeholders that builds trust, fosters 

communication, increases efficiency and creates management plans that are responsive to on the ground issues that are important to public land users. 

Landscape-scale planning will improve the management of fish and wildlife 

habitat and create certainty across administrative boundaries. 

Habitat requirements for fish and wildlife don’t change due to arbitrary lines on 

maps. However, all too often land uses and fish and wildlife habitat are managed 

inconsistently across administrative boundaries. For instance, when Montana BLM’s 

Butte Field Office adopted its resource management plan in 2009, resource professionals determined that a one-half mile development buffer was necessary to balance energy development with the conservation of native trout populations and 

rivers that have been awarded Blue Ribbon status, including the Yellowstone River. 

Yet, as the Yellowstone River flowed east into the Billings Field Office, no such stipulation was present, only a general restriction prohibiting development within riparian areas and the 100 year flood plain. Indeed, it was not until September of last 

year that the Billings Field Office completed its revised resource management plan 

and put in place a development buffer of one-half mile for the Yellowstone River. 

In other words, for 6 years a trout could literally swim between two field offices in 

which the measures in place for its protection varied greatly. 

This kind of inconsistent management isn’t only bad for trout; it is bad for anyone 

who values predictability for how our public lands will be managed. Those who 

make their living through resource extraction need certainty for how their activities 

will be managed, and sportsmen and women need certainty that America’s public 

lands will remain a great place to hunt and fish. Development and conservation 

need not be mutually exclusive and landscape-scale planning will help to strike that 

balance, even if those landscapes happen to cross field office or state office 

boundaries. 

SOLUTIONS REQUIRE COLLABORATION AND COMMUNICATION

While Planning 2.0 policies are not yet finalized, the BLM has been working with 

local stakeholders and county officials to apply some of the principles of Planning 

2.0 in places like Park County, Colorado. 

Park County is home to South Park, which includes the headwaters of the South 

Platte River, one of just a handful of gold medal trout streams and a world-renown 

angling destination. In addition, the South Platte River is particularly important as 

the water supply for the majority of Coloradans, and the area supports robust herds 

of big game that provide some of the best hunting in the West. 

Given these attributes and an increased interest in oil and gas leasing, stakeholders proposed the area for a Master Leasing Plan as part of the upcoming resource management plan revision for the Royal Gorge Field Office. However, in 2012 

the BLM denied the application, citing that although there was interest in leasing, 

because there were no producing oil and gas wells in the area, there was no reason 

to develop a Master Leasing Plan. 

Then something changed; the BLM listened. As the agency prepared to initiate 

a resource management plan revision, they heard from conservationists, sportsmen 

and the Park County Board of County Commissioners, all of whom advocated a forward-thinking plan for future energy development that would ensure impacts would 

be comprehensively addressed and mitigated. Today, the BLM has committed to developing a Master Leasing Plan for South Park and proposals submitted by the 

25 

public and Board of County Commissioners are under consideration as the BLM 

develops draft alternatives for the revised resource management plan. 

Instead of plowing ahead and developing a plan that didn’t meet the needs of local 

communities and public land users, the BLM heard from these stakeholders and 

changed course. It is this kind of collaboration and responsiveness that Planning 2.0 

is all about—stakeholders working together to create a shared vision for managing 

our public lands. 

I know that there are concerns from some local and state stakeholders that their 

roles will be diminished by aspects of the Planning 2.0 proposal. TU always advocates for meaningful local and state stakeholder input opportunities into Federal 

land management decisions of all types. Our partnerships with the city of Durango 

in Colorado to pass the Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Act, with the 

Sweetwater Board of County Commissioners to craft a responsible energy development plan for Little Mountain in southwest Wyoming, and with the state of 

Montana to restore trout populations on public lands, show that we care deeply 

about effective local and state involvement. We urge those with concerns to work 

with BLM throughout the comment period to ensure that their concerns are meaningfully addressed. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, the status quo for how the BLM develops resource management plans 

is not acceptable. Resource management plans are not the BLM’s plan, they are the 

public’s plan for the management of our American lands, and the public needs to 

be engaged earlier and more frequently throughout the planning process. 

Planning 2.0 will improve transparency, provide a continuum of involvement 

throughout the planning process, engage citizens more meaningfully, and make for 

a more nimble agency that is responsive to change. These are outcomes that should 

be appreciated and supported by everyone who values meaningful public engagement in land use planning. 

Planning is the foundation of public land management and healthy populations 

of fish and wildlife on public land start with sound resource management plans. Our 

hunting and fishing traditions face many challenges, but one of them should not be 

a cumbersome, outdated and ineffective process for developing plans that will manage fish and wildlife habitat. 

The proposed rule is a good start, but it is just a start and it is important for 

the BLM to see this effort through and implement changes that work for local communities, America’s public land users, and the agency itself. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much. 

At this point, Mr. Obermueller, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF PETE OBERMUELLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WYOMING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION, 

CHEYENNE, WYOMING 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Dingell, Representative Lummis, and members of the subcommittee. 

Let me just start out by acknowledging the fact that this is a 

very boring policy topic. Mention agency planning, and eyes glaze 

over all across America. That is simply a fact. It does not have the 

buzz, like fracking, endangered species conservation, or any of that. 

But make no mistake, that no matter what you or your constituency values with respect to Federal lands management, it is in 

these planning processes where those topics are first filtered. That 

is why they are so important. That is why they should not be overlooked, and why I thank you for taking the time to spend on this 

particular topic. 

26 

We, in Wyoming, have spent a great deal of time in the counties 

building and maintaining a strong working relationship with the 

BLM at every level. That is why we take them at their word that 

their goal in Planning 2.0 is to provide a more nimble, responsive 

planning process that has meaningful local government involvement. We think there are steps that need to happen in order to 

actually realize that goal. 

Let me start by what the BLM gets right. The BLM starts out 

listing the five policy objectives for coordination with local government. I will summarize them: that the Agency will be mindful of 

local land use plans, will try to be consistent with those when they 

can, and will provide for meaningful public involvement and local 

government participation. We strongly support these, but recognize 

that these are the minimum requirements already required of the 

Agency under FLPMA. 

Congress got it right in FLPMA when it established local governments as the conduit for messaging what local communities need 

and desire in the public lands that they live near. Congress knew, 

and we strongly believe, that coordination with local governments 

is the single most important effort Federal agencies can undertake 

to build local buy-in, to diffuse tensions in the West, and to realize 

success on management objectives. Getting it right at this level 

means we will get it right at the project level. 

We fear that, as currently written, the rule takes steps away 

from FLPMA’s coordination requirements, diminishes the role of 

cooperating agencies, and combines a move to centralize decisionmaking with the diffusion of local interests. In our official comments we will explain this in greater detail, but for now, let me 

focus on coordination and cooperating agencies. 

The BLM’s current regulations allow the Agency to analyze local 

government policies and programs in the absence of an official land 

use plan. That is right. FLPMA is explicit in giving that authority. 

But the proposed rule indicates that they will only accept official 

land use plans. Other data generated by local governments will be 

accessible in the newly developed plan assessment phase, where all 

data will be given equal weight and attention. Apart from the departure from the plain language of FLPMA, there are two additional problems with that. 

Number one, putting local data on par with single-issue special 

interest groups diminishes the clear added authoritative weight 

that Congress gave local governments in FLPMA. 

And, number two, accepting only officially adopted land use 

plans is culturally insensitive to counties in the West that often do 

not have official land use plans, and likely never will have them 

absent significant electoral upheaval. 

Now, shift with me for a second to cooperating agencies. Think 

about cooperating agencies as the mechanics of how coordination 

works. When it is working, counties that are actively involved as 

a cooperating agency enjoy an added level of responsiveness from 

the agencies that is not available to the general public, as has been 

pointed out. But this is as it should be, because county commissioners are often the only people in the room on the day-to-day 

planning process who have both a broad policy perspective and are 

directly accountable to the public. 

27 

We appreciate that the BLM actually mirrors a significant 

amount of CEQ’s cooperating agency guidelines in this rule, but 

they have some caveats that cause concern. One is that they indicate that counties will participate in this process, ‘‘as feasible and 

appropriate, given the scope of their expertise and the constraints 

of their resources.’’ We appreciate their recognition of limited local 

government resources; but quite frankly, the counties in Wyoming 

have been proactive and intentional about making sure we are 

invited to the table, about developing MOUs with the BLM, and 

going above and beyond to work with the BLM in order to realize 

the success of these plans. We believe that the scope of county participation can be developed jointly in that MOU rather than dictated by the BLM as this language seems to imply. 

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot to talk about on this issue. Let me 

just end by saying that counties in Wyoming are committed to 

being engaged with the BLM in a meaningful way; and we would 

urge the BLM to show an equal level of commitment to being 

engaged with us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Obermueller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETE OBERMUELLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WYOMING

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION

Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Dingell, and members of the Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Planning 2.0 proposed rule. 

My name is Pete Obermueller. As the Executive Director of the Wyoming County 

Commissioners Association, I represent the Boards of County Commissioners in all 

23 of Wyoming’s counties. 

In Wyoming, the BLM manages approximately 18 million surface acres, and over 

40 million subsurface acres in 22 of the state’s 23 counties. By necessity, elected 

County Commissioners all across the state are actively engaged in Federal resource 

management plan revisions or amendments in various stages, NEPA analyses, 

Resource Advisory Committees, informal working groups, regional and national task 

forces on Federal land issues, as well as their own locally derived land use plans 

and management programs. 

In each of Wyoming’s counties and within our Association, we pride ourselves on 

our constructive efforts to engage with Federal partners in meaningful ways that 

helps produce defensible results. The rights granted to counties under the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) is the statutory avenue for local involvement in Federal land use planning. Wyoming’s counties take that duty very 

seriously, and thank this committee for its oversight on this rule proposal. 

The BLM’s stated purpose of Planning 2.0 is to ‘‘promote the principles of multiple 

use and sustained yield on public lands . . . [and] ensure participation by the public, state and local governments, Indian tribes and Federal agencies . . .’’ Further, 

the agency proposes five objectives of coordination. They are: 

1. Keep apprised of non-BLM plans; 

2. Assure that the BLM considers those plans that are germane in the development of resource management plans for public lands; 

3. Assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal 

and non-Federal Government plans; 

4. Provide for meaningful public involvement of other Federal agencies, state 

and local government officials, both elected and appointed, and Indian tribes, 

in the development of resource management plans, including early notice of 

final decisions that may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands; and 

5. Where possible and appropriate, develop resource management plans collaboratively with cooperating agencies. 

We support these objectives, caveated though they are, as they closely mirror the 

BLM’s obligations under FLPMA. We applaud the BLM for bringing them to the 

forefront in this proposed rule as we have long held that coordination with local govVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:34 Dec 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS\05-12-16\20117.TXT DARLEN
28 

ernments and local land use plans is the single most important effort the Federal 

Government can pursue to ensure local buy-in, diffuse tensions in the West, and realize ultimate success of land use plans or project specific environmental analyses. 

Wyoming’s Commissioners have greatly appreciated the input we have been afforded by the BLM on the development of this rule over the past 2 years. We have 

worked hard to develop a good working relationship with the BLM at all levels, and 

value our partnership with our Federal partners. That is why we were hopeful that 

the BLM would use this opportunity to enhance the local government role and 

identify new opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation. Unfortunately that is 

not the outcome of this proposed rule, at least not yet. 

Because of our fruitful engagement with the BLM, we take them at their word 

regarding their intentions to more closely coordinate with local governments under 

Planning 2.0. However, we remain concerned that the proposed rule as currently 

written takes steps away from the requirements placed upon the BLM for coordination in FLPMA, diminishes the role of cooperating agencies, and combines a move 

to centralize decisionmaking with a diffusion of local interests in ways that could 

lead to further marginalization of local governments and the communities they 

represent. 

COORDINATION AND THE ROLE OF COOPERATING AGENCIES

It is important to recognize that while FLPMA provides the agency some implementation latitude, the initial obligation of coordination with counties is not discretionary. Section 202 of FLPMA requires the Secretary to, at a bare minimum, 

attempt consistency with local land use plans and provide for meaningful involvement of local officials. Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA reads, in part: 

‘‘To the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the 

public lands, [the BLM shall] coordinate the land use inventory, planning, 

and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning 

and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies 

and of the States and local governments within which the lands are 

located, including, . . . among other things, considering the policies of 

approved State and tribal land resource management programs. 

In implementing this directive, the Secretary shall, to the extent he finds 

practical, keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans; assure 

that consideration is given to those State, local, and tribal plans that are 

germane in the development of land use plans for public lands; assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and nonFederal Government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public 

involvement of State and local government officials, both elected and 

appointed, in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, 

and land use decisions for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands.’’ 

(43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) 

Any evaluation of the BLM’s existing or proposed planning rules must begin with 

its adherence to the directives of its organic act. Here, Congress rightly identified 

local government as the appropriate conduit for the needs and desires of the public 

near Federal lands in the planning process. Counties fulfill that obligation in many 

ways, but not in identical ways. In Wyoming we continually stress the importance 

of being prepared to offer empirical data to back policy suggestions, but that effort 

can take many forms. 

Unfortunately the proposed rule goes beyond what is allowed under FLPMA by 

removing the current language that resource management plans be consistent with 

local ‘‘policies and programs.’’ The proposed rule limits the input of counties during 

the official planning process to only so-called ‘‘official land use plans.’’ Other data, 

no matter the quality or manner in which it was collected, will only be accepted in 

the newly conceived ‘‘planning assessment’’ phase. This is in direct contradiction to 

the plain language of FLPMA that requires an attempt at consistency with local 

‘‘management programs.’’ 

To be clear, we do not oppose the concept of the planning assessment. Early engagement with stakeholders is important. Rather, by placing data generated by local 

governments on par with other data submitted by single-focus special interest 

groups is a diminishment of the added authoritative weight Congress clearly intended local governments to possess. Additionally, it demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to the cultural norms of counties that for various reasons do not have official 

land use plans, and would be unable to produce one without significant electoral 

upheaval. 

29 

As FLPMA provides the statutory requirement of coordination, it is Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations promulgated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that provides for the specific mechanism for county 

involvement as a so-called ‘‘Cooperating Agency.’’ When it is working correctly, 

counties that participate in planning as a cooperating agency enjoy a level of engagement from the lead Federal agency not afforded to the general public. This is 

as it should be because often Commissioners are the only people involved in the dayto-day planning process with both a broad view of the benefits and impacts of 

management decisions, and who are directly accountable to the public. At a minimum, any planning rule advanced by the BLM should not substitute narrow special 

interests for broad policy views. 

To that end, we appreciate the proposed rule’s attempt to mirror much of the CEQ 

Cooperating Agency process used in NEPA analyses. The proposed rule maintains 

the requirement of Federal agencies to invite cooperators to the table and solidifies 

the points at which cooperators will be consulted. The proposed rule adds an additional level of coordination with cooperating agencies at the ‘‘planning assessment’’ 

level. All of these are positive steps, but there are a few troubling limitations on 

cooperating agencies that must be addressed. 

First, in defining a cooperating agency, the proposed rule inserts this new caveat: 

‘‘Cooperating agencies will participate in the various steps of the BLM’s 

planning process as feasible and appropriate, given the scope of their 

expertise and constraints of their resources.’’ (Proposed Rule at 9725) 

Recognition of the limited resources of local governments is appreciated. However, 

we do not believe it wise for the BLM to appoint itself as the arbiter of what is 

‘‘feasible and appropriate’’ for cooperating agency participation. In many instances 

Wyoming’s counties have gone well beyond expectations to provide not only meaningful comments, but additional resources to ensure that planning is as successful 

for their communities as possible. Because agencies only sometimes follow the requirement to coordinate, counties in Wyoming are proactive in seeking agency 

invitations and developing MOU’s with our Federal partners. The scope of county 

participation can and should be determined in the MOU process and jointly agreed 

upon, not dictated by the BLM. 

Second, the proposed rule establishes a new, two-part process for resource 

management planning that includes ‘‘plan components,’’ or the high level strategic 

planning of a certain plan area; and ‘‘implementation strategies,’’ or the actual 

boots-on-the ground efforts to implement the plan components. Cooperating agencies 

are included during the preparation of both, but excluded if the BLM desires to revise the implementation strategies. This exclusion during potential revisions jeopardizes successful implementation. Time and again we have found in Wyoming that 

the most successful plans and strategies are ones that have the support of local government. Without it the agency stands alone. 

LOCAL DECISIONS VS. CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY

The BLM’s proposed rule goes to great length to describe the importance of shifting away from political boundaries and toward landscape-scale decisionmaking. It 

is certainly the case that some resource management plans encompass landscapes 

and wildlife habitat that cross county and state lines. Attempting to plan at a larger, regional level is not in itself a bad thing. In fact, doing so could help to rationalize some planning efforts that are difficult to solve in separate, smaller areas. 

However, in an effort to facilitate regional planning the BLM proposes to remove 

Field Managers and State Directors as the official with direct responsibility for 

drafting and approving resource management plans when those plans cross political 

boundaries. By substituting ‘‘responsible’’ and ‘‘deciding officials’’ appointed by BLM 

that may or may not be the regional manager or State Director, the agency runs 

the risk of setting itself up for failure by imposing a decisionmaker on a community 

with which he has no established relationship and no working knowledge of the custom and culture of the areas he now oversees. 

It might be tempting to view this concern as seeing boogey-men where none exist. 

Indeed we are more concerned with how the BLM plans to engage with local governments than who is specifically placed in charge. However, we simply cannot ignore 

this risk of separation from local officials when it is combined with proposals in the 

rule to significantly broaden the scope of the BLM’s analysis beyond ‘‘local 

economies’’ toward enormous and nebulous analysis on ‘‘environmental, ecological, 

and social conditions,’’ and ‘‘regional, national, and international’’ dependence upon 

BLM resources. The BLM has a difficult enough time completing local analysis in 

30 

a timely fashion without introducing topics that are likely well beyond their expertise and resource availability. 

We urge the agency to maintain its efforts to keep land use planning as local as 

possible, in terms of the people who write and approve the plans, the issues and 

areas for analysis, and in the process for developing and implementing them. 

Establishing a successful and defensible planning process is not an exciting policy 

topic. It does not carry Hollywood buzz like fracking, or command attention like 

endangered species. But make no mistake, every single agency action—whether 

issue-based like fracking or single species conservation, or place-based like Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern—is first viewed through this over-arching planning 

lens. It is here, in the governing planning document where the filters are set for 

information gathering, where the scales can be tipped toward one interest group or 

another, and where the BLM establishes for itself guidelines that can either 

promote sound decisionmaking or incentivize protests and litigation. 

We appreciate that this committee has taken the time to explore this issue that 

is so fundamental to local participation in land use planning. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman. 

At this time, we will proceed with Members’ 5 minutes of 

questioning. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Obermueller, you were saying that this may not be the most 

fun topic to be taking up, but I was surprised. We have had substantially more response from people around the country on this 

issue of this specific rule change than most any of the more glamorous issues we have taken up. People are very upset and very concerned, as they have a right to be. 

Mr. French, you had mentioned that 90 percent of your county 

is owned by the Federal Government. Is that correct? 

Mr. FRENCH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I know in Oregon, where there have been so 

many problems, we have seen—when you look at the map with the 

overlays of all the different Federal land that is owned or managed 

by the Federal Government, you end up seeing layer after layer 

added, where somebody starts out with a big ranch or a big piece 

of land, then one government entity gets land near them, and then 

before long they are surrounded. They start having problems with 

being denied access to their land and it creates hard feelings. I am 

curious. Do you know approximately when—I mean, was this 90 

percent acquired by the Federal Government all at once, or was 

this over a period of time? 

Mr. FRENCH. This has been at one time. Ultimately, the Federal 

lands ownership in Nevada occurred right after the Civil War, 

when Nevada became a state. There were some state select lands 

that were offered to the state that are in private ownership now. 

Then, of course, the corridor for the Union Pacific Railroad has alternate sections that are privately held 20 miles either side of that 

corridor. 

Most of Humboldt County is administered under Bureau of Land 

Management, but we also have, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, 

other Federal agencies. We have national conservation areas, wilderness areas, a national forest, and a Federal refuge. So, add it 

all together, and we are at about 90 percent—88.8 percent, I 

believe. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The proposed rule says ‘‘cooperating agencies will 

participate in the various steps of the BLM’s planning process as 

31 

feasible and appropriate given the scope of their expertise and constraints of their resources.’’ 

I would like to ask each of you, what do you think that is going 

to mean to your county, your area, your association, if that change 

becomes effective? 

Mr. French, I will start with you. 

Mr. FRENCH. I believe that, unfortunately, most of the folks—this 

is a complex enough issue that most of the folks don’t know what 

questions to ask. In many cases in Nevada, in many of the counties, 2.0 really passed over the top of their head. They did not realize what the implications of this could be to their counties. Many 

of the counties have to hire additional consulting staff in order to 

review this material; and then, the 90 days that the BLM gave 

them will pass before they have a chance to actually approve it. 

So, we have an issue relative to involvement. And, the county 

commissioners themselves mostly are not full-time commissioners. 

Most of them are lay people who do not have the background to actually have meaningful input to something as wide scope as a 2.0 

policy change. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Let me hear from Ms. Cowan. What do you think 

that change would mean? 

Ms. COWAN. I think it will shut down county participation, because the counties in New Mexico are lay people who make very 

little being county commissioners. They are responsible for managing entire counties. Often when these rulemakings come up and 

we contact these folks to see if they even had notice, a secretary 

will say, ‘‘You know, I did see something like that, but it wasn’t 

important, and I threw it away.’’ So, I think it will just cut out 

county participation largely. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Fisher? 

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, speaking from the perspective of 

hunters and anglers, I think that one of the roles of organizations, 

like Trout Unlimited, is to help decipher some of that information. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, you will need to be doing a lot more. 

Mr. Obermueller. 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the 

BLM was trying to give some deference to counties about our limited constraints. I think that the words on the paper did not quite 

capture what they were after. To Mrs. Dingell’s point, I think that 

there is room here for the BLM to acknowledge our limitations and 

yet work with us to determine what our scope is jointly. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. It definitely gives them more 

authority to cut you out. 

My time has expired. I recognize the Ranking Member for 

5 minutes. Mrs. Dingell. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to agree 

with the Chairman that I think there may be more interest in this 

subject than you realize. I am probably the only Member on either 

side that gets grilled on this subject by her spouse on a regular 

basis. 

But, Mr. Fisher, I would like to ask you some questions, because 

I want to pursue this public involvement issue. I am trying to understand the assertion that more opportunities for public input are 

not necessary simply because elected officials are at the table. I 

32 

agree that elected officials have a duty to be a voice for the public, 

but aren’t there times when it is important for the public to be able 

to speak in their own voice as well? 

Mr. FISHER. Representative Dingell, I would agree with that. I 

think that the counties do have a very important role to play. I 

think the hunters and anglers are, oftentimes, the folks that are 

out in the field. We know these lands better than a lot of folks and 

a lot of public land users, so I think that our voice is very important and needs to be meaningfully heard at the table. 

Mrs. DINGELL. I think it is true that elected officials have unique 

knowledge about the local community. It is critical to include them 

in the resource planning, and I really respect their role; but I suspect that it is also true of their constituents. Do you and other 

hunters, anglers, and sportsmen, bring a unique perspective to the 

process? And what would be the disadvantage of not including the 

perspective of groups like this in your process? 

Mr. FISHER. I think that we absolutely do bring a unique 

perspective. Again, throughout the year out there, we see the conditions on the ground. I think that one of the disadvantages to not 

having that meaningful engagement is by not having that buy-in 

from all stakeholders in these plans. I think that it is very important for these plans to work to be a partnership, and that includes 

everybody. 

Mrs. DINGELL. By the way, I am married to someone who really 

thinks that, as you could probably guess. You all don’t know him, 

some of them here do. He is more conservative on some of these 

issues than anybody at this dais. 

Some local and state officials seem concerned that adding opportunities for public involvement in the resource planning process 

makes their involvement less important. What are your thoughts 

on this? Will local and state officials still have a substantial say in 

the resource planning process? 

Mr. FISHER. Representative Dingell, I believe so. In my review of 

the proposed rule, there remains to be that cooperating agency status. I kind of look at it as a three-legged stool. You have the local 

governments, the public land stakeholders, and the agency. If one 

of those important stakeholder groups really is not at the table, the 

whole thing falls apart; so I think it really takes all three groups 

to make this thing work. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Everybody is important to the process, and not 

trying to exclude local, which I agree. 

I have just received a letter from the Park County Board of 

Commissioners expressing support for proposed improvements to 

public participation. You mentioned Park County in your testimony, Mr. Fisher. Can you explain what is happening there as it 

pertains to planning? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Representative Dingell. Currently, in Park 

County, the Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan is taking 

a look at—it is called a master leasing plan which is going to 

determine where and how oil and gas leasing and then future 

development will occur. That process has been one of these really 

stakeholder collaboratives between hunters and anglers, communities, Denver Water, and the county commission, as you 

mentioned. 

33 

I think that it really incorporates a lot of the kind of core values 

that BLM is trying to do with Planning 2.0, which is to bring people together early in the process, develop collaborative solutions, 

and then implement them through their resource management 

plan revision. So, I am very pleased to hear that Park County has 

taken that position. 

Mrs. DINGELL. I am going to try to get one more in fast on 

landscape-scale planning. 

We know that resources like wildlife, rivers, and people do not 

politely coincide with state and field office boundaries, but they migrate and move across boundaries. It seems as though managing 

resources according to these boundaries creates unnecessary fragmentation and inefficiencies in the planning process. 

In your testimony, you gave the example of the Yellowstone 

River, which had different protections depending on the county you 

were standing in. Are there other disadvantages to managing resources at the field office level or other examples you can share in 

2 seconds. 

Mr. FISHER. Two seconds. Yes, it comes down to consistency, and 

that is not just for fish and wildlife management, but I think it is 

important for all uses—oil and gas development, timber. Everybody 

needs to know consistently across field office boundaries what constraints they will be operating under. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Fisher. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. At this time, the Chair will recognize 

the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fact sheet for this 

proposed rule lists economic change alongside social and environmental as key items requiring an improved response from BLM. 

But in the actual rule, economic is completely eliminated, leaving 

only social and environmental change. Considering the reduced opportunity for substantive state and local government involvement 

in this proposed process, I am concerned about BLM’s ability to 

monitor and respond to adverse impacts to rural economies resulting from these decisions. 

Commissioner French, your county is heavily dependent on 

economic activities on public lands. Does this proposed rule give 

adequate consideration for the economic impacts on counties? 

Mr. FRENCH. After reviewing 2.0, I believe that the consideration 

for economics and the impacts to county governments have not 

been adequately weighed in the sense that the planning that 

occurs, including master plans and such, are dynamic. They are a 

moving target. 

If we are subjected to cooperative agency status on one occasion 

and are allowed to input into an RMP revision down the road as 

transportation plans, development plans, water management plans, 

and various plans evolve in our counties, the BLM is not involved 

at that stage. I believe under 2.0 that needs to be something that 

is modified and shored up at this point. 

Mr. LABRADOR. OK. Thank you. Mr. Obermueller, same question. 

Do county commissioners in Wyoming believe that this rule gives 

adequate consideration to the economic impacts on counties? 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. Thank you, Representative Labrador, and it 

is a very important question that I am going to answer in a second, 

34 

but I also wanted to clarify for Representative Dingell that as it relates to county commissioners in Wyoming and the state and local 

officials that I deal with, we are not seeking an exclusion of any 

group. 

In fact, the BLM Planning 2.0 rule provides a new system, a plan 

assessment phase, where groups like Trout Unlimited, Stock 

Growers, and others can be involved. We support that. It says so 

in our written testimony, that we want that involvement. Earlyand-often stakeholder involvement is exactly right, as Mr. Fisher 

pointed out. The issue is, the law provides local governments with 

an added authoritative weight, and that is what we see diminished. 

So, Representative Labrador, to your point, this is what I alluded 

to about a diffusion of local interests in a sense that the rule 

changes wording and language away from local economies and local 

dependence on Federal lands for the very survival of the county toward broader, nebulous goals that we are concerned that BLM does 

not have the expertise or the ability to even assess. We have 

worked very hard with the BLM at improving their analysis of 

socio-economic data in the counties precisely for that reason, and 

moving away from that troubles us. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Commissioner French, I have been contacted by 

several stakeholders in Idaho who have raised concerns about the 

process that the BLM has used on this proposed rule. Specifically, 

they are concerned about the lack of public outreach, the very limited number of public meetings that have been held, and the timing 

of the meetings that have been held. For example, the hearings 

have been held on Wednesday afternoons when most individuals 

are at work. How would you describe BLM’s outreach efforts in 

Nevada? 

Mr. FRENCH. Very similar to what has been experienced in 

Idaho. We have had a revolving door in the Winnemucca District, 

in Humboldt County, of personnel, and there really has not been 

a very consistent voice in terms of being able to discuss even from 

a county perspective. But from a public comment period perspective, there was one opportunity that I am aware of that occurred 

on a Thursday afternoon, and it was at a telecommunications type 

meeting. 

Mr. LABRADOR. OK. Mr. Fisher, real quick, the BLM is seeking 

to accept citizen science—that is what they are calling it—in 

planning without identifying how that relates to the best available 

science. 

In the Denver public meeting, BLM’s representatives repeatedly 

stated that expanded incorporation of citizen science in planning 

would be a benefit of the new planning process. Do you know what 

citizen science is? And if you do, who gets to decide whose citizen 

science is going to be accepted? 

Mr. FISHER. Representative Labrador, I am familiar with citizen 

science. Trout Unlimited, as a resource organization, tries to incorporate and facilitate some citizen science through our membership. 

There have to be quality control measures in place, a quality assurance plan; and I think that, ultimately, it does come down to the 

resource professionals with the BLM to determine if citizen science 

is science that is the best available and whether it should be 

interpreted. 

35 

Mr. LABRADOR. So, resource professionals are going to determine 

what science is accepted, instead of being objective, so I am very 

concerned about that. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman. By the way, the Ranking 

Member commented about her husband. I am not surprised at all 

by the gentlelady’s comments. I have great admiration and respect 

for your husband. He is a man of honor and integrity, and 

represented himself and his constituents well. 

At this time, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Polis, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I come from a western state that has a 

wide variety of public lands; and after speaking with constituents 

across my district, revision of this plan is long overdue. There are 

few plans, or rules, that can stay relevant for four decades, two 

generations of my constituents; and BLM’s planning truly is 

outdated. 

Local control and constituent input are really my top priorities 

in the inherent values of those of us who live in and around our 

public lands. It makes sense that many counties in Colorado 

worked with local BLM offices on this type of plan, and that was 

even before the BLM completed this rule. As part of revising the 

Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan, the Royal Gorge 

Field Office in Colorado has already embraced and implemented 

some of the ideas from Planning 2.0, including recent envisioning 

sessions that involve a wide range of stakeholders. In addition, 

responding to a proposal from Park County, the BLM has agreed 

to evaluate a master leasing plan. I have a letter from the Park 

County Board of Commissioners that I would like to submit for the 

record. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

PARK COUNTY—BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 

FAIRPLAY, COLORADO

May 12, 2016 

Neil Kornze, Director, 

Bureau of Land Management, 

1849 C Street N.W., 

Washington, DC 20240. 

Re: The Bureau of Land Management’s Proposed Resource Management Planning 

Rules, 81 Fed. Reg. 8674 (February 25, 2016) 

Dear Director Kornze: 

The undersigned representatives of local government are writing to share their 

support for provisions of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Proposed Resource Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg. 8674 (Feb. 25, 2016) (the Proposed Rules). In particular, we support the provisions of the Proposed Rules that 

provide additional opportunities for public involvement earlier in the planning process, including the chance to review preliminary resource management alternatives 

and preliminary rationales for those alternatives. 

Each of undersigned representatives come from local jurisdictions whose land 

bases include substantial amounts of public lands managed by BLM. The management of these public lands is vitally important to the citizens we represent. Our citizens and local economies depend on these lands for sustainable multiple uses, from 

outdoor recreation to livestock grazing to mineral exploration and development. 

The current BLM planning methodology lacks adequate opportunities for public 

involvement, particularly early in the process. It also lacks transparency. It often 

36 

results in a range of alternatives that fails to address the concerns of all stakeholders. The proposed changes would provide the public with an opportunity to raise 

concerns and review potential management alternatives before these alternatives 

become solidified in a draft Resource Management Plan (RMP). This early public involvement will hopefully help resolve conflicts and produce RMPs that better reflect 

the needs of our citizens as well as others who use the public lands and have a 

stake in their future. 

In addition, we note that the Proposed Rules also expand opportunities for states 

and local governments to have meaningful involvement in the development of BLM’s 

land use decisions. The Proposed Rules continue to provide for coordination with 

state and local representatives in order to ensure, to the extent available under federal law, that RMPs are consistent with state and local land use plans, as provided 

in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

Sincerely, 

MIKE BRAZELL, 

Chairman. 

Mr. POLIS. The letter says, in part, that they share their support 

for provisions of the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed resource management planning rules in large part because of the 

people that live in and around the public lands, and that management of these public lands is vitally important to the citizens we 

represent from Park County, Colorado. 

Mr. Fisher, planning for public lands can be complex and involve 

lengthy documents that are sometimes difficult to understand. The 

BLM is now proposing a more collaborative, transparent, multistakeholder process to help navigate planning. How, in your experience, will more up-front engagement with communities improve the 

planning process? 

Mr. FISHER. Representative Polis, I think that that early-andoften engagement that we have talked about with those local communities is going to create, like I mentioned, more durable plans. 

People are going to have buy-in; they are going to have ownership 

over those plans. I think through the assessment phase that Mr. 

Obermueller mentioned, it is going to help identify those local 

issues. My hope is that that will form the foundation of how these 

plans are developed and what issues are meaningfully addressed. 

Mr. POLIS. In your testimony, you referenced the evaluation of a 

master leasing plan. How does that relate to the Planning 2.0 rule 

process, and how can we have local government representatives 

and residents engaged in that process? 

Mr. FISHER. Representative Polis, the master leasing plans are 

not explicitly mentioned in the proposed planning rule. But I believe that that master leasing plan process really emphasizes building solutions from the ground up, taking a look at a landscape, and 

deciding collaboratively what makes sense for management of this 

landscape. That is really at the core of master leasing plans, and 

I think that you see that also in this proposed rule. 

Mr. POLIS. Can you speak to not only the importance of stakeholder involvement, which you alluded to in getting buy-in to the 

plan, but how important is what my constituents and residents of 

nearby communities think in determining and providing input into 

actual plans of usage, and how will Rule 2.0 enhance the way that 

our local input counts in these decisions? 

37 

Mr. FISHER. Representative Polis, you know that early assessment phase is one. The other opportunity is through a new public 

comment engagement period between the initial scoping and before 

the draft alternatives are put out for review. There will be an intermediary step with preliminary alternatives that will allow the public to consider what the BLM is thinking, to look at the rationale 

for that, and to provide input to make sure that they are on the 

right track. 

Mr. POLIS. Finally, we know that wildlife, rivers, and people do 

not stop at arbitrary state boundaries or field office boundaries. 

Wildlife migrates and rivers move across political boundaries; so I 

applaud the BLM on thinking about common-sense ways to plan 

for use and conservation on our public lands rather than rely on 

political boundaries. How will these kinds of changes affect wildlife 

and the sportsman community around breaking down political 

boundaries? 

Mr. FISHER. Representative Polis, I believe that that kind of big 

picture thinking will create better habitat; and better habitat is 

better for wildlife, and healthier, more robust fish and wildlife 

populations mean better hunting and fishing. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Obermueller, 

the BLM’s proposed planning rule is lifted almost entirely from the 

Forest Service’s planning rules adopted in 2012. It is almost uncanny how similar they are. Whole concepts and ideas are taken 

straight from it, including this new planning assessment phase at 

the very beginning where the Agency asks all stakeholders for information and ideas on the scope of the management plan. 

My district contains well over 2 million acres of National Forest 

Service land, but no BLM land; so I want to know, how has the 

Forest Service implemented the 2012 planning rule, and do you believe it should serve as a model for the BLM or the Department 

of the Interior as a whole? 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. Congressman Westerman, thank you for that 

question. It is very insightful about the Forest Service planning 

rule that has been in effect since 2012, and you are exactly right. 

The BLM, in many ways, did not reinvent the wheel. They looked 

to the Forest Service planning rule in a lot of ways, including the 

planning assessment which you have heard a lot about. 

I want to make clear that we support the planning assessment 

phase, and we support any of the groups being able to provide data 

during that time. Our issue is that when local governments, by 

their own action, create data via impact memos—in one case in 

Campbell County, Wyoming, they convened a scientific symposium 

on raptors after the process had already begun. Under the proposed 

rule, the local government data generated at that point would not 

necessarily be admissible anymore, into the planning process. 

The Forest Service has its planning assessment phase as well. 

They have used it, we have supported it, and we appreciate the 

way the Forest Service has tried to engage local governments and 

be nimble. Here is the challenge—and I would be interested to hear 

38 

how your constituents feel about it in your forests—the challenge 

is the Forest Service under their Act, NFMA, does not have the 

same statutory requirements that the BLM does. The BLM, under 

FLPMA, has the statutory requirement of coordination with local 

governments. The Forest Service does it out of the goodness of 

their hearts. 

The trouble with the Forest Service in that case is that they do 

not have the anchor of Federal law from Congress to come back to 

about the direction they are supposed to take, so sometimes they 

flounder about how to engage any stakeholder, including local 

government. 

So, while we appreciate the Forest Service’s nimbleness, we keep 

coming back to what is directed to the BLM under FLPMA. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you for that. Mr. Fisher, you talked in 

the first part of your testimony about being an outdoorsman, hunting and fishing. It sounds very similar to where I grew up and 

what I still try to do. My son and I actually caught some fish 

Saturday and cooked them up for supper, and there is nothing better than fresh fish for dinner. It is making me ready to get back 

to Arkansas. 

I am not sure of all of your background, but I know you work 

for Trout Unlimited, so you are very concerned about the protection 

of streams and water quality. 

Can you describe what happens to a stream if you were to 

clearcut right down to the stream edge, remove the shade, and create soil erosion that would go into the stream? What does that do 

to trout fisheries? 

Mr. FISHER. Representative Westerman, increased water temperature and turbidity make it more difficult for trout, for instance, 

to have successful spawning. At the end of the day, the fishing gets 

worse. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So, that is something we definitely do not want 

to see—the water warm up, more soil going into the stream and 

damaging the fishery. That also does not do good for the water. If 

we look at forestry management, what natural occurrence does a 

clearcut simulate? It is a forest fire, a stand replacement forest 

fire; so if you get one of these huge forest fires that burn right 

down to the stream edge, it is essentially like you went in and 

clearcut it. Now you have exposed the water to higher temperatures. You have not only soil runoff but ash runoff into the stream, 

which is not good at all for the fishery. 

One thing I am concerned about in the rule—and I think it is 

a good thing—it says ensure that the public lands be managed in 

a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resources, and archeological values, and it goes on and on. I am 

almost out of time, but it just says to recognize the need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public 

lands. 

So, if we are only recognizing the need, and we are not actively 

managing the forest, I am worried we are going to destroy some of 

these other things that we say we are there to ensure. And if I 

wasn’t out of time, I would go on, Mr. Chair. 

39 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. At this time, 

the Chair recognizes Mrs. Radewagen for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. French, you 

are a former land manager and now a county commissioner, so you 

have been on both sides of coordination and of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act. Based on your impressions, does the 

proposed Planning 2.0 rule, as it is currently presented, serve to 

strengthen the hand of local governments or of the Federal 

agencies; and if so, how? 

Mr. FRENCH. In my view, Congresswoman, I believe that the 

plan, as it is proposed at this time, will weaken the ability of the 

counties to not only weigh in relative to the development of RMPs; 

but as the circumstances change within the landscape of the resources in this county, the ability to pivot and actually change 

management based on real life conditions on the ground will be 

limited. 

I believe it also is going to limit our ability as county commissioners to weigh in with our constituents in the form of public 

hearings as this moves forward, because it limits our ability to be 

involved at the ground level, especially with regard to changes that 

will occur within the context of the plan. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. How could Planning 2.0 be improved to better 

allow for greater local involvement in BLM planning? 

Mr. FRENCH. Thank you for that question. One of the major 

things that came to my mind, as I went through this plan the first 

time, is that if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. 

I agree with some of the comments that have been made here 

today that the plan that has been recognized under FLPMA for 

years could use some updating with regard to the public’s involvement. But that should not be at the expense of the stakeholder 

relationships with the public land managers, because those stakeholders, including the state and local governments, are the subject 

matter experts and the people that are on the ground on a day-today basis who will be able to recognize and make meaningful suggestions and contributions to plans being developed, as well as 

plans being modified in the future. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Mr. Obermueller, what can BLM do to 

improve this rule from your perspective? 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. Thank you for the question. I probably can’t 

answer that in 2 minutes. Our official comments will be rather 

lengthy, but I think there are a couple of things. Maybe most importantly, the Agency could clarify their intentions with regard to 

the opportunities and ability for local governments to be involved 

as cooperating agencies moving forward. 

The cooperating agency process that I alluded to in my testimony 

under CEQ regs is not perfect, but it is the process that we have; 

and in Wyoming, county commissioners in Wyoming, across the 

state, are actively involved in that process. It is not easy. It is a 

tough slog to wade through all of these rules and be involved in 

that way, and it is difficult to convince elected officials, as 

Commissioner French pointed out, who are often part-time and do 

not have staff or resources, to stay engaged if they do not see a 

result at the end, or do not feel that the agency is giving them the 

40 

time and attention they deserve, rather than simply checking the 

box. Clarifying our role as a cooperating agency would be primary. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Anything you would like to add, Ms. Cowan? 

Ms. COWAN. I think that it is interesting that we are talking 

about a planning rule that needs to include the public in the 

planning, but the planning rule did not include the public in the 

planning. 

So, stepping back and taking a look at this and working with the 

interested people, we have identified several areas of common 

ground here this afternoon. But this just seems to be a heavyhanded attempt to take local control, which is working very well 

in New Mexico at this point in time, and bring it to Washington, 

DC. And, when you take something that far away from the impacts, we have never had a good outcome. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentlelady yields back. At this time, the 

Chair yields to Mr. Clay for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me start with Mr. Fisher. 

Do you think the landscape-scale approach will improve management of public lands overall? 

Mr. FISHER. Representative Clay, I do believe that it will. I 

would like to address that landscape-scale planning a little bit. I 

think that what the BLM is really trying to get at, at least I hope 

so, for hunters and anglers, it is more of a scalable, so we are not 

just necessarily going and planning for a large landscape, but we 

are taking a look at conditions of the ground and planning for the 

issues that need to be addressed; and that could scale up, or it 

could scale down. But I think that having that flexibility will help 

with the management of our public lands. 

Mr. CLAY. The other witnesses have expressed concern that the 

landscape approach encourages a one-size-fits-all approach to resource planning by moving planning to the regional level. It seems 

as though planning at the landscape level would make the plans 

more tailored to the unique needs of the individual landscape. 

What are your thoughts about that? 

Mr. FISHER. I think that how that planning area is defined really 

needs to be informed with that assessment at that assessment 

phase; and that when it does, whether it is a regional plan or if 

it is scaled down to a smaller plan, that it is really going to help 

address the issues on the ground and find ways to do so from the 

ground up through collaborative processes. 

Mr. CLAY. Does landscape planning make plans more generic or 

more tailored to the resource needs? 

Mr. FISHER. Representative Clay, I think when done well, they 

would be more tailored to the resource needs and the needs of 

America’s public land users. 

Mr. CLAY. All right. As I understand it, one problem with the 

current planning process is that alternatives are evaluated without 

public input. So, when the public is finally involved, which may be 

months or years down the road, someone can sue because, for example, the selection of the alternatives was not complete. What is 

the effect on lawsuits that this rule is likely to have? 

Mr. FISHER. Representative Clay, I believe that that early-andoften collaboration, which will help achieve buy-in and create ownVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:34 Dec 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS\05-12-16\20117.TXT DARLEN
41 

ership from the public over these plans, would result in a reduction 

in litigation. I think when people view these plans as their own, 

they are less likely to litigate them. 

Mr. CLAY. That sounds like something my friends here would be 

in favor of, less litigation by trial attorneys. I am sure the 

Chairman would pretty much agree with that. Isn’t that right, Mr. 

Chair? 

Mr. GOHMERT. In the appropriate circumstances. 

Mr. CLAY. In the appropriate circumstances. Let me yield back 

the balance of my time. Thank you for your response. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Clay. At this time, the Chair 

recognizes Mr. Hice for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Obermueller, let me 

begin with you. Under the current regulations, if you asked to be 

a cooperating agency and the authorized officer denies the request, 

does it go automatically to the State Director for review at that 

point? 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. Representative, actually I am not quite sure 

of the mechanics at that point. They do have the authority, with 

respect to the cooperating agency regulations, of who to accept or 

not. 

In Wyoming, we are proactive in making sure that not only do 

we point out that they are instantly required to coordinate, but we 

work hard at making them want us to be involved; so we have not 

had a denial like that to work on. 

Mr. HICE. How does the new proposed rule work? 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. With respect to cooperating agencies, 

Representative? 

Mr. HICE. Right. 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. As I mentioned in my testimony, it actually 

closely mirrors the CEQ guidelines. Technically, under the CEQ 

guidelines, the agency is supposed to reach out to local governments and invite them to the table. We have learned the hard way, 

in Wyoming and in the counties across the West, that we cannot 

rely on the agency to follow that, to actually do the invitation. So, 

we invite ourselves, quite frankly; and we are proactive about that. 

Mr. HICE. All right. From this perspective, if for some reason you 

are denied, BLM says you are not allowed to participate. Is there 

any way to have that decision reviewed? 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. Representative, not that I am aware of. 

Mr. HICE. So, that is the final say? If they say you are not 

allowed to participate, that is the end of discussion? 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. I believe that is correct, Representative. 

Mr. HICE. Mr. French, would you like to tap in on that? 

Mr. FRENCH. Under current FLPMA law, if you are denied cooperating agency status, you can appeal that to the State Director’s 

office. Under 2.0, it is not clear if it would stop—— 

Mr. HICE. Is that a change that you think serves counties well? 

Mr. FRENCH. To be able to appeal that to the State Director? 

Mr. HICE. You said they are not able to under the new rule. Is 

that good for counties or bad? 

Mr. FRENCH. Not at all. 

Mr. HICE. Right. Why not? Expound on that. 

42 

Mr. FRENCH. I believe that, especially, if the decision to not 

admit an entity under cooperating agency status is made by a regulatory authority that might be in Washington, DC, or in a regional 

office at best, they may not understand the full dynamics of why 

that group, including a county, would want to be involved in that; 

and the county or a group that has petitioned for that should have 

the opportunity to make that case in front of a state director. 

Mr. HICE. OK. So, should there be some sort of back drop, do you 

think, to at least provide good reason for excluding counties if they 

have been denied the right to participate? 

Mr. FRENCH. I am not sure I understand what the rationale 

could be for that. We talked a few moments ago about limiting litigation. I think the probability for increasing litigation is probably 

a very real problem under 2.0, if the appeals process is shortcircuited. From a transparency standpoint, the more you can have 

your stakeholders make their case publicly for their involvement in 

a process, the better. 

Mr. HICE. OK. Ms. Cowan, you look like you are wanting to pipe 

in? 

Ms. COWAN. Yes, if I could weigh in on that a little bit. One of 

the things that is most startling as you go through 2.0, is that 

throughout the document, they removed the word ‘‘shall’’ in their 

regulations and replaced it with ‘‘will.’’ When you talk about words 

mattering as legislators, the difference between ‘‘shall’’ and ‘‘will’’ 

are vastly different; and that is a huge concern. 

Mr. HICE. Explain what that means practically for local 

governments? 

Ms. COWAN. To me, it means that BLM can do whatever they 

want. They will do something, but they are not held to that standard in any way. If they decide to change something, ‘‘shall’’ does 

not hold their feet to the fire. 

Mr. HICE. OK. So they can do what they want. Would you 

consider this an over-reach? 

Ms. COWAN. Absolutely. Without a doubt. We talked about litigation, and we talked some about the landscape. I guess it would be 

my contention that landscape planning is going on already, because 

we have organizations like Mr. Obermueller’s where county commissions get together. They work on these things together; and 

things do not just stop at one county line and move on to the next. 

In this over-reach, you are taking local government out. So, the economics of what happens in each county becomes a factor that is 

not considered all. There are some things that may need to be 

changed in this, but there are a lot of things that work; and we 

need to work through and save those things. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. At this time, the Chair recognizes the 

gentlelady from Wyoming, Mrs. Lummis, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To follow on the last 

line of questioning about centralization of decisionmaking—Mr. 

Obermueller, if field managers and state directors are removed 

from the rule as the specific go-to people with direct responsibility 

for drafting and approving resource management plans, who then 

becomes responsible? 

43 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. Thank you, Representative Lummis. This is 

a very good question. The proposed rule, in an effort to do these 

landscape-scale analyses, which I will get to in a moment, does remove the State Director and the field manager as the officials specifically designated to draft or approve these plans, replacing it 

with a deciding official, an approving official, or something like 

that. 

The county commissioners in Wyoming do not want to 

necessarily be focused on who is doing this. We are much more interested in how. But this is a troubling trend in the sense that Mr. 

Fisher mentioned—if it is done right, then landscape planning will 

work. We are concerned it cannot be done right, if in a particular 

area, a person is air dropped in who does not have a cultural affinity, or a recognition or rapport, with the local stakeholders on the 

ground in any given county. 

So, I am not troubled by the notion of landscape-scale planning. 

You know this well, Representative Lummis, that in Wyoming we 

already do that. We plan large scale for sage grouse, for wildlife 

migration, for energy development; we plan large scale all the time. 

But, I am very troubled by this notion of diminishing the role of 

counties, that somehow county boundaries do not matter or somehow hinder landscape-scale planning. What are county commissioners for if not to represent the people in the county, every one 

of them, single issue interest or not? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Are there examples of where Federal agencies 

have minimized the role of local governments already? 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. Yes, there certainly are. I hate to focus on 

the negative, but one of the things that particularly troubles county 

commissioners, elected officials, is some Federal agency’s tendency 

to want to go out and do what they call ‘‘situational assessments’’ 

or ‘‘stakeholder analysis’’ and that sort of thing. 

Again, it is the people of the county who elected the commissioners. If you want to do a situational assessment, ask the elected 

county officials, and you will get a situational assessment that is 

a broad view. They are accountable to the public. If the public 

thinks they are not giving the right assessment, they will be gone, 

and a new group will be back. 

Those are some examples, and that is why we are concerned in 

the Planning 2.0 rule, particularly with respect to when and how 

county-generated data can be inserted into the planning process, 

that that will marginalize local governments. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I have been a little concerned about how multiple 

use is being interpreted. It seems like it has been morphing over 

the years to prioritize certain multiple uses and deprioritize others. 

What steps could Congress take when we are looking at FLPMA 

and the Wilderness Act, to ensure that multiple use is adhered to 

on Federal lands? And I would like to ask that question of each of 

our panelists, so please be as brief as you can with a broad question. Could we start with Mr. Obermueller? 

Mr. OBERMUELLER. Yes. Thanks for that question. It is a very big 

question, and I think that I appreciated watching the testimony on 

the local Act introduced, or discussion draft, about ways to try to 

improve local coordination. 

44 

One of the things that concerns us is that we have to be very 

careful with that, about making sure that the agencies are encouraged and incentivized to work with local governments as opposed 

to giving them just a checklist that, as soon as they check it, they 

are out the door. 

It would take a long time to get into the specifics of how to make 

that work; but, again, it goes back to their responsibility and our 

responsibility to not only know that you need to follow the law, but 

you have to be willing to do the work to be engaged in a meaningful way. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Fisher, multiple use. How can we protect true 

multiple use? 

Mr. FISHER. Representative Lummis, that is a wonderful question. I think that Congress could really help to ensure that earlyand-often public engagement, through collaborative processes to 

find that balance between resource development and conservation, 

and to make sure that all stakeholders’ interests are represented. 

Then, when those collaborative processes result in a solution, to 

help implement that if a legislative mechanism is necessary. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. My time is expired, Mr. Chairman. Could you 

indulge the other two witnesses the opportunity to answer that 

question? 

Mr. HICE [presiding]. Yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you so much. Ms. Cowan, same question. 

How can we ensure true multiple use? 

Ms. COWAN. Mr. Chairman and Representative Lummis, I think 

that Mr. French and I were perhaps raised in different generations 

than the gentleman to my right. I was raised with the idea that 

you had to be held accountable, and I don’t often find that 

Congress is holding the agencies accountable to sticking to their 

missions. 

When you look at the resources, the financial and manpower 

resources, that went into this document, where did Congress authorize this kind of a process that sucks public participation and 

government participation out? So, if there are ways that Congress 

can hold agencies more accountable, via their budgets or other 

ways, you have to do your job first and then you look beyond at 

what you have the time and resources to do. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. French, same question. 

Mr. FRENCH. I will try to be brief, but I am going to date myself. 

I was an active wildlife biologist when FLPMA was actually adopted, and I recall the working relationships the state wildlife agency 

had prior. I worked with it for 34 years after, and I can tell you 

that that was one of the things that Congress had in mind when 

FLPMA was passed—we called it the sweet spot, that area that 

was not overly regulatory and did not provide for overutilization of 

public resources. 

But to answer your question, the interpretations of the law need 

to be tightened up. The devil is in the details, in terms of how one 

line manager interprets FLPMA and his involvement in creating a 

range of alternatives that involve an accurate depiction of what is 

needed for public land management in a particular location, because it is different in every location. 

45 

So, I would say if we could tighten up the rule and tighten up 

the language which would make it consistent from one district to 

another, that would go a long way. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the witnesses, and I thank the Chairman 

also for your indulgence. I yield back. 

Mr. HICE. You are very welcome. I would like to thank each of 

the witnesses for your testimony and each of the Members for the 

questions today. 

I would also like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record two letters regarding the Planning 2.0 rule. The first consists of comments from the American Motorcyclists Association, 

and the second a letter to BLM from the Utah Public Lands 

Coordination Office. Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

May 11, 2016 

Hon. LOUIE GOHMERT, Chairman, 

Hon. DEBBIE DINGELL, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 

Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Dear Chairman Gohmert and Ranking Member Dingell: 

The American Motorcyclist Association applauds the Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations for holding the hearing titled, ‘‘Local and State Perspectives on 

BLM’s Draft Planning 2.0 Rule.’’ The usurpation of local, state, stakeholders and 

Congress that underlies the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s proposed planning 

rule is very troubling to us. 

Founded in 1924, the AMA is the premier advocate of the motorcycling community. We represent the interests of millions of on- and off-highway motorcyclists in 

the United States. Our mission is to promote the motorcycle lifestyle and protect 

the future of motorcycling. 

The AMA recognizes the benefit of periodic reviews to ensure processes are 

relevant to current conditions and appreciate the opportunities—to date—that were 

provided for public input. 

However, we are concerned that the landscape-level focus of the Planning 2.0 

proposal minimizes input from local and state governments, public officials, and private citizens; fails to address economic impacts and administrative costs of the proposed changes; and results in comprehensive changes which can be easily reversed 

under new secretarial leadership. 

Inconveniently scheduled public input opportunities, despite assurances of increased public involvement, have been insufficient and speak directly to the AMA’s 

long term concerns about the proposed planning approach. The processes that 

spawned the Rapid Ecological Assessment and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives that are central to the proposed foundation of landscape planning provide a 

troubling example. The proposal’s assurances of greater input from other federal 

agencies does not address that concern. 

Without any mention of the economic impacts of the proposed changes on affected 

communities and other stakeholders, the AMA is justifiably concerned that no 

consideration was given to the topic. Similarly, direct costs of the proposed changes 

were left unaddressed and should be a primary topic in this era of constrained 

budgets. 

Finally, the significance of the proposed changes being based on a Presidential 

Directive and four Secretarial Orders—all of which circumvent the U.S. Congress, 

states and a wide range of national, regional and local stakeholders—cannot be 

overstated. It is ironic that President Obama’s 2009 Open Government Directive is 

cited as the basis for the proposed rules that minimize public involvement. Further, 

Secretarial orders 3289 on climate change, 3285 on renewable energy, 3330 on mitigation policies and 3336 on rangeland fire protection were created and used to 

justify the proposed rule, apparently without any public input. 

This process appears to be similar to the way the failed Washington, D.C.-led 

effort of the Wilds Lands (Sec. Order No. 3310) designation would essentially allow 

46 

1 81 Fed. Reg. 9674 (February 26, 2016). 

2 81 Fed. Reg. 9674, at 9705. 

3The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Title II, Sec. 202(a)(9). [43 U.S.C. 

1712(c)(9)]. 4 Id. 5 81 Fed. Reg. 9674, at 9729, 9730. 

6 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9). 

officials in the BLM to manage public land as if it had received a ‘‘Wilderness’’ landuse designation from Congress, but without requiring congressional approval or 

local and state input. 

In conclusion, while the AMA recognizes the need for periodic review of planning 

processes and acknowledges the limited opportunities that were provided for public 

input to date, we nevertheless believe the current process—which is based on presidential and secretarial proclamations and designed to favor input from other federal 

agencies over local and state stakeholders—has created an inherently flawed 

planning proposal. 

Again, thank you for holding this important hearing and supporting outdoor recreation and motorcyclists. The AMA looks forward to working with you on all 

motorcycle-related issues before Congress. 

Sincerely, 

WAYNE ALLARD, 

Vice President, Government Relations. 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,

PUBLIC LANDS POLICY COORDINATION OFFICE, 

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

May 10, 2016 

Neil Kornze, Director, 

Bureau of Land Management, 

1849 C Street N.W., 

Washington, DC 20240. 

Re: Resource Management Planning, Proposed Rule ‘‘Planning 2.0’’; 81 Fed. Reg. 

9674 (February 25, 2016) 

Dear Mr. Kornze: 

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) recently proposed planning rule,1 often 

referred to as ‘‘BLM Planning 2.0,’’ adds a new step to resource management planning called the ‘‘planning assessment’’ that would purportedly ‘‘include new opportunities for public involvement.’’ 2 The State of Utah finds that the proposed planning 

assessment process fails to ‘‘provide for meaningful public involvement of State and 

local government officials’’ as required by the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA).3 The State requests that the BLM amend the Proposed Rule to require BLM officials to formally coordinate the planning assessment with State and 

local governments, in accordance with FLPMA. 

Under FLPMA, the BLM must ‘‘coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and 

management activities . . . with State and local governments’’ as well as ‘‘provide 

for meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials.’’ 4 These 

requirements apply to all steps of resource management planning, including the proposed planning assessment. As currently written, the Proposed Rule would place 

non-governmental organizations and the general public at the same level as State 

and local governments in the planning assessment process,5 violating FLPMA. If the 

BLM adds planning assessment to its planning process, it must specifically and formally coordinate each planning assessment with State and local governments. That 

coordination must be distinct from any public outreach in order for the State and 

local governments’ involvement to be ‘‘meaningful’’ under FLPMA.6

Democratically elected government officials represent the majority view of their 

constituents. The views of State and local government elected officials should receive 

particular consideration in the planning assessment process. Under FLPMA, the 

BLM may not formally coordinate with non-governmental organizations since such 

groups are not elected bodies and do not represent the views of the majority. The 

public is empowered to influence resource management planning through their 

elected officials, and to vote out of office those government officials who fail to represent public views during coordination with the BLM. Thus, coordination must inVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:34 Dec 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS\05-12-16\20117.TXT DARLEN
47 

7 81 Fed. Reg. 9674, at 9729, 9730. 

8 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9). 

9 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9). 

10 43 U.S.C. 1712(a). 11 43 U.S.C. 1712(f). 

clude private meetings between the BLM and State and local governments where 

officials from both sides can openly share expertise, assess the resource, environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions of the relevant planning area, 

and formulate the objectives of the planning assessment. Such meetings should include a discussion of State and local land management plans and explore how the 

relevant BLM plan can complement the objectives of State and local management 

plans. 

The planning assessment process should facilitate efficient resource management 

planning without circumventing the role of State and local governments in coordination. The State proposes the following amendments to Section 1610.4 7 of the 

Proposed Rule (suggested additions in italics, suggested deletions in underlines). 

§ 1610.4 Planning assessment. 

Before initiating the preparation of a resource management plan the BLM 

will, consistent with the nature, scope, scale, and timing of the planning 

effort, complete a planning assessment. 

(a) Information gathering. The responsible official will: 

(1) Arrange for relevant resource, environmental, ecological, social, economic, and institutional data and information to be gathered, or assembled 

if already available, including the identification of potential ACECs (see 

§ 1610.8-2). Inventory data and information will be gathered in a manner 

that incorporates data from State and local governments, aids the planning 

process, and avoids unnecessary data-gathering; 

(2) Identify relevant national, regional, State, or local policies, guidance, 

strategies or plans for consideration in the planning assessment. These may 

include, but are not limited to, executive or Secretarial orders, Departmental or BLM policy, Director or deciding official guidance, mitigation 

strategies, interagency initiatives, and State, ormulti-state, and local 

resource plans and policies; 

(3) Identify State and local plans with which BLM plans must be consistent 

to the maximum extent consistent with FLPMA and Federal law, in accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9); 

(3)(4) Provide opportunities for other Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, Indian tribes, and the public to provide existing data and information or suggest other policies, guidance, strategies, or plans described 

under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, for the BLM’s consideration in the 

planning assessment; and 

(5) Coordinate with State and local governments and Indian tribes to formulate BLM planning and management objectives in the planning area, in 

accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9); and 

(4)(6) Identify relevant public views concerning resource, environmental, 

ecological, social, or economic conditions of the planning area. 

The above amendments would fulfill the BLM’s statutory mandate to ‘‘coordinate 

land use inventory, planning, and management activities . . . with State and local 

governments’’ and to ‘‘provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local 

government officials.’’ 8 It would assure that State and local governments, as elected 

representatives of the public, have a specific, formal role in the planning assessment 

process. The proposed amendments would also fulfill FLPMA’s requirement that 

‘‘Land use plans of the [BLM] under this section shall be consistent with State and 

local plans to the maximum extent [the BLM] finds consistent with Federal law and 

the purposes of [FLPMA].’’ 9

The State’s proposed language would still allow the BLM to identify public views, 

consistent with FLPMA’s requirements to develop, maintain, and revise land use 

plans ‘‘with public involvement’’ 10 and to ‘‘give Federal, State, and local governments and the public, adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the formulation of plans and programs relating to the management of the 

public lands.’’ 11

The BLM can greatly improve the Proposed Rule through regular consultation 

with State and local governments. This letter constitutes an attempt by the State 

48 

to consult with the BLM, not as an opposing party but as a partner with the BLM 

seeking the best management of public lands. Greater consultation and coordination 

with State and local government is needed across all BLM planning, and adoption 

of the changes recommended in this letter would be a critical first step toward better coordination. The State strongly requests that the BLM amend the Proposed 

Rule according to this letter and looks forward to the response. Please feel free to 

contact Utah’s Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

KATHLEEN CLARKE, 

Director. 

Mr. HICE. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond 

to those in writing. Under Committee Rule 4(h), the hearing record 

will be held open for 10 business days for these responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

— Foundation for Integrated Preservation—Comments: Comments 

on BLM Resources Management Proposed Rule (Planning 2.0). 

Sent to the Committee in regards to the hearing (May 2016). 

— Letter with Comments from the County of Otero, New Mexico, 

addressed to BLM Director Neil Kornze, Acting Asst. Director of 

Resource Planning, Mike Tupper, and Director (630) in regards 

to BLM’s proposed Planning 2.0. 

— Letter with Comments from the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage 

Conservation Council addressed to DOI Secretary Sally Jewell in 

regards to BLM’s proposed Planning 2.0. 

— Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership—Brief: BLM 

Planning 2.0—A Needed Change (May 2016). 

— Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership—Editorial: BLM’s 

Planning Rule for Public Lands Will Give Locals More of a Voice, 

Not Less (May 2016). 

— Submitted Statement of Joel Webster, Director of Western Public 

Lands at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership to 

the Subcommittee in regards to the hearing (May 2016). 

Æ