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

20–697 PDF 2017

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, July 7, 2016 

Serial No. 114–48 

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, July 7, 2016 ............................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

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

Michigan ........................................................................................................ 2 

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

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

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Clarke, Kathleen, Director, Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, 

Salt Lake City, Utah .................................................................................... 34 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 37 

Fontaine, Jeff, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, 

Carson City, Nevada ..................................................................................... 10 

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

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 16 

Lyons, Jim, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC .......................... 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 27 

McAfee, Chuck, Landowner and Community Volunteer, Lewis, Colorado .. 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 19 

Ogsbury, Jim, Executive Director, Western Governors’ Association, 

Denver, Colorado ........................................................................................... 4 

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

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 9 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

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

official files .................................................................................................... 61 

Otter, Hon. C.L. ‘‘Butch’’, Governor of Idaho, May 25, 2016 Letter to 

Neil Kornze, Director, Bureau of Land Management ................................ 47 

Otter, Hon. C.L. ‘‘Butch’’, Governor of Idaho, July 1, 2016 Letter to 

the Federal Delegation of Idaho .................................................................. 51 

Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development, July 6, 2016 Letter 

to Neil Kornze, Director, Bureau of Land Management ............................ 40 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON STATE PERSPECTIVES ON BLM’S DRAFT PLANNING 2.0 RULE 

Thursday, July 7, 2016 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Louie Gohmert 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gohmert, Labrador, Westerman, 

Bishop; and Dingell. 

Also present: Representatives Lummis and Gosar. 

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

hear testimony on states’ perspectives on the Bureau of Land 

Management’s Draft Planning 2.0 Rule. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at a 

hearing are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority 

Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other 

Members’ opening statements be made a part of the hearing record 

if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. 

today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady from Wyoming, 

Mrs. Lummis—when she comes from a meeting we were having— 

and the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar, be allowed to sit in 

with the subcommittee, since they are part of the Full Committee. 

Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

I will politely ask that everyone in the hearing please silence 

their cell phones. When I was a judge, we would order them confiscated. I don’t do that now, but this will allow for minimum 

distractions. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF 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 testimony on BLM’s draft resource 

management planning rule. This draft rule is part of BLM’s 

Planning 2.0 initiative, and it completely upends the current process by which the agency prepares and amends resource management plans that govern public lands. 

Getting the planning process right is crucial because the effects 

of resource management plans on communities throughout the 

West cannot be overstated. In some counties, where the Federal 

Government owns a majority of the land, the decisions that BLM 

makes have an outsized impact. Families and local economies can 

2 

and do suffer as a direct result of BLM’s unaccountable, Washington, DC bureaucracy. That is why Congress specifically 

prioritized the input of those who are most affected by BLM’s resource management plans. 

The Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) made clear 

that BLM must coordinate with local governments on management 

plans. BLM’s Planning 2.0 effort and this draft rule appears to ignore the law and undermines the communities that neighbor BLM 

land. From refusing to further extend the comment period, to cutting local communities out of the resource management planning 

process, BLM has perfectly illustrated why so many people feel 

that the Federal Government is not a good neighbor. 

When BLM heard from numerous local governments, interested 

organizations, and Congress that significantly more time was needed to comment on the draft rule, BLM extended the comment 

period for only 30 days, effectively saying, ‘‘No, thanks. We don’t 

need to hear from all of you.’’ That probably should not have been 

a surprise, since, in many ways, the draft rule seems to be designed to increase Washington’s influence while minimizing BLM’s 

responsibility to work with the states, local government, and affected people. 

We are here today to remind BLM of its obligation to cooperate 

with its neighbors, to provide an opportunity for those who are 

most invested in an effective and efficient planning process to 

share their expertise. They are not in existence to repeatedly infuriate local landowners until they are provoked to violence resulting 

in the death of a landowner, as we have seen. 

Many people have acknowledged that the planning process could 

be improved, but BLM’s draft rule, as it is currently written, is not 

a workable solution. At a minimum, BLM needs to reopen the comment period to allow for full and substantive input on this complex 

rule. Ideally, BLM should go back to the drawing board and partner closely with the state and local governments to make sure the 

resource management planning process works for everyone, not 

just agency officials. 

In closing, I want to say thank you to our witnesses. Most of 

them have traveled a great distance. And obviously, you don’t come 

for the money, because you don’t get paid. This is all because you 

care about our country and our freedoms, so we much appreciate 

your willingness to come share your thoughts and your observations with us, and we look forward to your testimony. 

The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Dingell for 5 minutes for an 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy in accommodating me this morning. In the interest of time, I am going 

to ask unanimous consent to submit my opening statement for the 

record and yield back the balance of my time. I apologize to the 

witnesses that I am going to have to leave, to be blunt, to take my 

husband to the doctor. 

3 

But I will be here for the first round of questions and, as the 

Chairman knows, will pay attention to all the information we learn 

today. 

[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. And thank you to all of our witnesses who have taken 

the time to be here with us today. 

A little over a month ago, I was sitting in this very same seat, in this very same 

room, talking about this very same topic. In fact, this morning marks the third 

congressional hearing on the Bureau of Land Management’s resource management 

planning process. 

If I didn’t know better, I would think this re-run is a sign that this committee 

has run out of issues that warrant oversight and investigation. But I do know better 

and that couldn’t be further from the truth. 

My colleagues and I have made requests for committee hearing topics that demand our attention, but we continue to be ignored. Why aren’t we having a hearing 

to learn more about home-grown terrorism like we saw at Malheur National Wildlife 

Refuge where our public lands were held hostage at gunpoint and the public service 

employees who work on those lands were threatened? Why can’t we examine the 

alarming number of species that are going extinct each year and whether our 

Federal agencies have the resources they need to protect the biodiversity that we 

all rely on every day? And when will we do our due diligence in investigating the 

full spectrum of devastating consequences that climate change is having on our 

lands, ecosystems, and our own health, safety, and economy? 

That said, BLM’s resource management planning process is an important issue. 

As I mentioned in the first hearing on the topic, BLM is responsible for more public 

lands than any other Federal agency. And it’s clear that the agency’s current 

process for developing resource management plans is clunky, out of date, and inaccessible to the public. 

Fortunately, BLM’s proposed rule for revising this process, otherwise known as 

Planning 2.0, is a clear improvement. Planning 2.0 proposes several additional opportunities for the public to be involved in planning, making the process more transparent and relevant to all residents. Today we will hear some people claim that 

their organized voice should be elevated above the direct and unfiltered voice of 

Americans. I think that giving people more input into planning makes more sense 

than hoping that interest groups or other elected officials will do the talking for 

them. 

The rule also proposes developing plans according to the natural boundaries of 

landscapes and ecosystems, rather than political or jurisdictional borders. This 

‘‘landscape-level approach’’ not only makes sense, but has been consistently supported by leaders and experts in the field. In fact, there are ways in which BLM 

could strengthen its landscape scale approach in the new rule. For example, the rule 

should outline how landscape level plans will be monitored and evaluated to determine whether plan revisions are needed. Doing so is key to effective, adaptive 

management of our vast Federal lands. 

So while there is no doubt that Planning 2.0 is important and deserving of our 

attention, it seems to me that having three hearings about it is a bit excessive. I 

will say that I am pleased to see that a representative from the Department of the 

Interior was actually invited to answer our questions about their initiative this 

time. My thanks to the Chairman for taking my suggestion to do so. I’m hopeful 

that this hearing—which I call Planning 2.0, version 3.0—will be a more productive 

use of everyone’s time. 

I also hope that the Chairman will consider my other suggestions for hearings in 

the future as well. Thank you and I yield back my time. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Coming from one of the nicest people I know, 

certainly that is so ordered. 

Now I introduce our witnesses. Mr. Jim Ogsbury is the Executive 

Director for the Western Governors’ Association, located in Denver, 

Colorado. Mr. Jeff Fontaine is the Executive Director of the Nevada 

Association of Counties, located in Carson City, Nevada. Mr. Chuck 

4 

McAfee is a landowner and community volunteer from Lewis, 

Colorado. Mr. Jim Lyons is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Land 

and Minerals Management at the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

located here in Washington, DC. Ms. Kathleen Clarke is the 

Director of the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, located in Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Under Committee Rules, oral statements must be limited to 

5 minutes, but your entire written testimony will be part of the 

record. When you see the light turn yellow, you know you have 

1 minute left. When it turns red, your time has expired, and hopefully you will cease without having to be stopped. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ogsbury for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JIM OGSBURY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION, DENVER, COLORADO 

Mr. OGSBURY. Thank you, Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member 

Dingell, and Chairman Bishop. My name is Jim Ogsbury. I serve 

as the Executive Director of the Western Governors’ Association, an 

independent, bipartisan association representing 19 western 

governors and 3 U.S. flag islands. 

When it come to the development and administration of Federal 

public policy, Western Governors are duly concerned and often 

frustrated when they are regarded or treated as common stakeholders. Governors, the chief executive officers of their states, are 

much more than that. States are sovereigns. Governors have 

constitutional responsibilities, delegated authorities, and on-theground knowledge about their states’ economies, cultures, and environments. Their expertise and perspective should be brought to 

bear in the design and execution of Federal programs. 

The governors are particularly anxious to operate as authentic 

partners with Federal agencies in the execution of programs that 

have demonstrable impacts on state authority. States, for example, 

possess primary police powers to manage most fish and wildlife 

within their boundaries. Likewise, states have primary authority 

over the management of water resources within their borders, and 

they possess plenary authority over groundwater. 

Because the management of Federal lands implicates these authorities, and because the Bureau of Land Management owns such 

vast amounts of land in the West, the governors are deeply invested in the agency’s processes for the development of resource 

management plans. Moreover, the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act, FLPMA, recognizes this investment and mandates a substantial role for governors in the BLM planning process. 

Unfortunately, the proposed Planning 2.0 rule fails to honor the 

role of governors in this process, and instead diminishes it in significant respects. With respect to states, FLPMA says in relevant 

part that the Secretary of the Interior shall, ‘‘Coordinate the land 

use, inventory planning, and management activities of or for such 

lands with the land use planning and management programs of 

states. The Secretary shall provide for meaningful public involvement of state officials in the development of land use programs, 

land use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands. Land 

use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent 

5 

with state plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with 

Federal law.’’ 

Planning 2.0 changes the existing implementing regulations in 

ways that diminish gubernatorial authority and influence. Whereas 

current regulations provide that BLM shall strive for consistency 

between resource management plans and resource-related policies, 

programs, plans, and processes of states, the proposed regulation 

would only consider consistency between RMPs and officially adopted land use plans, substantially narrowing the influence of 

governors. 

Furthermore, the proposal eliminates the existing regulatory directive that BLM accept a governor’s recommendation submitted as 

part of his or her consistency review if they provide for a reasonable balance between the Nation’s interest and the state’s interest. 

Under 2.0, the Director is directed to simply consider governors’ 

views. By eliminating the current provision and failing to provide 

criteria or standards for the review of gubernatorial input, it appears that BLM is investing itself with great, perhaps unfettered, 

discretion to disregard a governor’s recommendations. 

Western Governors are concerned about several provisions that 

shorten timelines for public comment and obviate the need to 

publish notices in the Federal Register. The agency has suggested 

the comment periods are appropriately reduced because the proposed rule includes new opportunities for the public to participate 

early on in the planning process, such as during a new planning 

assessment phase. 

These additional opportunities, however much they may operate 

to elevate the role of the public and non-governmental organizations in resource planning, do nothing to promote coordination between the states and the agency; rather, governors are treated like 

any other stakeholder. 

Planning 2.0 includes new provisions calling for the use of highquality information. It is disappointing that the proposal fails to acknowledge the value of state science, data, and analysis, despite 

the congressional directive for the past 3 years that Federal land 

management agencies use state information, at least with respect 

to wildlife data, as a principal basis for land management 

decisions. 

There was little disagreement that the resource management 

planning process of BLM could be greatly improved. Accordingly, 

Western Governors are prepared to work with BLM as authentic 

and invested partners in the development and execution of a planning process that redounds to the benefit of individual states, the 

American West, and our great Nation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ogsbury follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES D. OGSBURY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WESTERN

GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Dingell, and members of the 

subcommittee. My name is James D. Ogsbury. I serve as Executive Director of the 

Western Governors’ Association. WGA is an independent, non-partisan organization 

representing the governors of 19 western states and 3 U.S.-flag islands. I am 

honored to be here to share perspectives of Western Governors regarding the U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) recently released proposal, Resource Management Planning—or, Planning 2.0. 

6 

In Planning 2.0, BLM proposes a number of changes in how it develops and implements resource management plans (RMP). The stated purposes of these changes are 

to clarify existing language, address landscape-scale management issues, and more 

effectively involve governmental and stakeholder partners. 

Upon review of the proposal, Western Governors have concluded that what the 

agency has proposed will have quite opposite effects from what it intended: 

confusion rather than clarity, less transparency rather than more. This proposal, if 

instituted, will significantly reduce the opportunity for governors, state regulators, 

local governments and the public to engage in what needs to be a collaborative land 

management planning process for huge swaths of the American West. 

STATE CONSULTATION

Western Governors have very clear expectations regarding how Federal agencies 

should interact with them when developing regulatory programs impacting states. 

To quote WGA Policy Resolution 2014–09, Respecting State Authority and Expertise, 

‘‘Western Governors support early, meaningful and substantial state involvement in 

the development, prioritization and implementation of Federal environmental 

statutes, policies, rules, programs, reviews, budget proposals, budget processes and 

strategic planning.’’ The rationale behind this position is a logical one: states have 

statutorily- and constitutionally-recognized authority to manage lands and resources 

within state borders. 

Governors expect Federal land management agencies to respect states as 

sovereign and full partners. As the chief executive officers of their states, governors 

also expect to play the principal role in determining the best-situated state governmental entity with which an agency should consult on any given issue. 

Governors have been very explicit in delineating what, in their opinion, qualifies 

as ‘‘early, meaningful and substantial’’ consultation: 

• Predicate Involvement: agencies taking into account state data and 

expertise to use as a basis for Federal regulatory action; 

• Pre-publication/Federal Agency Decision-making: pre-rulemaking 

consultation with governors and state regulators, including substantive consultation with states during development of regulations—and prior to launch 

of formal rulemakings; 

• Post-publication/Pre-finalization: Governors and state regulators should 

have the ability to engage with agencies on an ongoing basis to seek refinements to proposed regulations—again, prior to rule finalization; and 

• Rule/Policy Implementation: agencies should defer to states to formulate 

implementation and compliance plans where statutorily recognized delegated 

programs exist. 

The process BLM engaged in with states during development of Planning 2.0 falls 

short of the Governors’ definition of consultation. In September of 2014, BLM representatives briefed the WGA’s Staff Advisory Council on preliminary efforts related 

to Planning 2.0. That briefing focused on matters such as an explanation of BLM’s 

interest in landscape-scale planning and the agency’s general timeline and project 

leadership for the initiative. BLM representatives were not able to respond to substantive questions from Governors’ representatives during that briefing. 

BLM later noted in its proposal that it had consulted with WGA during rule 

development. Western Governors view this preliminary briefing—and a subsequent 

exchange of correspondence between WGA leadership and Interior Secretary Sally 

Jewell—as short of the consultation contemplated in WGA Policy Resolution 2014– 

09. Secretary Jewell did state ‘‘[a]s new information becomes available on the [2.0] 

Initiative, BLM will provide updated briefings to state and local representatives 

through . . . the WGA . . . and other venues as appropriate.’’ These updated briefings did not take place. 

Central to the Western Governors’ position is that agency/state consultation 

should be substantive and should take place on an early—and ongoing—basis. The 

two preliminary communications from BLM and DOI failed to achieve this standard. 

7 

GOVERNORS’ CONSISTENCY REVIEWS

BLM’s Planning 2.0 proposal includes a number of provisions that weaken the 

value and impact of Governors’ Consistency Reviews in the RMP development 

process: 

• It states that RMPs must be consistent with officially approved or adopted 

land use plans of other agencies, state governments, local governments, and 

tribal governments only ‘‘to the maximum extent practical . . .’’ Yet, the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)’s Section 

1712(c)(9) states, ‘‘Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall 

be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent [the Secretary] 

finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.’’ FLPMA clearly does not permit BLM to limit the consistency requirement merely because 

the agency thinks consistency would be impractical. 

• The time allotted for governors to conduct their Consistency Reviews is 

limited to 60 days. The clock alone would forestall states from exercising their 

statutory right to provide meaningful review of RMPs. Western states have 

extensive experience working with Federal RMPs. These lengthy documents 

contain extremely nuanced resource-specific—and often site-specific— 

information. Federal RMPs guide Federal planning decisions for their designated area for up to several decades. Western Governors argue vigorously 

that development of foundational documents such as Federal RMPs should include significant input from governors and state regulators. That simply cannot occur under the structure suggested by the Planning 2.0 proposal. 

• Not only does BLM propose to severely limit the time allotted, it also seeks 

to limit the scope of Governors’ Consistency Reviews. The rule would narrow 

the scope of Governors’ reviews by removing the words ‘‘policies, programs, 

and processes’’ from the definition of officially approved and adopted land use 

plans. 

Governors would no longer be afforded an opportunity to raise concerns based 

on inconsistencies between BLM RMPs and the very ‘‘state policies, programs, 

and process’’ that guide state planning efforts and decisionmaking but are not 

part of officially approved and adopted state land use plans. This would clearly limit Governors’ participation in RMP review and is especially problematic 

for states engaged in shared management of threatened and endangered 

species with vast ranges that span multiple planning areas and multiple 

states. This change could preclude BLM’s consideration of various kinds of 

state-endorsed plans—for instance State Wildlife Action Plans and multi-state 

agreements. Multi-state agreements have been used for decades to conserve 

resources like threatened or endangered species. These plans exhibit effective 

and ongoing cross-jurisdictional planning between states—planning that has 

taken place on a landscape-level basis. Preclusion of such plans by BLM 

would undermine its goal of planning on a landscape scale and would threaten existing state conservation efforts. 

Governors have primary decisionmaking authority for management of state 

resources, and have enacted effective plans to manage and conserve western 

resources. They therefore must be afforded an opportunity to raise any 

concerns that arise, not just those concerns that arise from inconsistencies between BLM and state plans. 

• The proposed rule states BLM may consider whether to adjust the timeline 

or appeal process for a Governor’s Consistency Review. To endow an agency 

with the flexibility to simply change the process—particularly the mechanism 

for states to appeal BLM’s decision regarding a Governor’s Consistency 

Review—would operate to the clear disadvantage of states. 

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

BLM proposes to establish a new step in the RMP development process: the planning assessment. This assessment would occur during the scoping process, before 

BLM begins work on an RMP. The goal is to, ‘‘combine and revise existing steps 

for inventory data and information collection and the analysis of the management 

situation.’’ 

This portion of the rule needs to clarify: the process for states to be substantially 

and meaningfully involved in development of a planning assessment; BLM’s obligation to use state data and information; how state data and information will be gathered; and how—and when—information supporting assessments will be made 

available to the public. 

8 

PROPOSED CHANGES TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESSES

Early, meaningful and substantive engagement of governors and their designated 

state regulators is crucial to the RMP development process. Western Governors also 

believe that any open and collaborative Federal regulatory process must involve 

adequate opportunity for engagement of the public. BLM’s proposal falls short in 

this regard. The agency proposes to shorten two key procedural aspects of RMP 

development: 

• BLM proposes to shorten comment periods for draft RMPs—and the draft 

environmental impact statements which must accompany RMP development—by a full one-third, from 90 days to 60 days; and 

• BLM proposes a 45-day minimum comment period—a full 50 percent 

reduction from the current 90-day minimum—for EIS-level amendments. 

Reductions in public comment timelines will greatly limit input of stakeholders, 

many of whom are likely to be directly affected by RMPs for an extended period of 

time. Additionally, significant changes can take place between the time that RMPs 

and environmental compliance documents are drafted. BLM should retain the existing minimum public comment period time frames so that states, local governments 

and other stakeholders will have adequate time to fully analyze proposed changes 

and provide meaningful feedback on foundational, long-term land management 

decisions. 

BLM has based its proposed reduced public comment timelines on a premise that 

doing so will reduce the overall decisionmaking timeline. Western Governors, however, are concerned that reducing the opportunity for stakeholder input early in the 

planning process will ultimately result in increases to the overall planning and RMP 

implementation time frames as stakeholder concerns are raised later in the process. 

Potential litigation stemming from these stakeholder concerns could further extend 

planning and implementation timelines. 

CHANGES TO WATER MANAGEMENT ASPECTS OF RMPS

BLM’s proposed rule indicates the agency may also add provisions to its RMPs 

that could result in greater agency involvement in water management, a concerning 

potentiality for western states. As stated in WGA Policy Resolution 2015–08, Water 

Resource Management in the West, ‘‘Western Governors believe Federal partners 

must continue to recognize states’ primary authority to develop, use, control and distribute surface and ground water within state boundaries.’’ 

Additionally, BLM’s proposal indicates the agency may add provisions to RMPs 

that could provide for greater involvement in areas affecting traditional state 

authority. These areas include: 

• Managing wetlands to buffer the effects of weather fluctuations by storing 

floodwaters and maintaining surface water flow during dry periods; 

• Identifying and responding to the degree of ‘‘local dependence on potable 

water from groundwater recharge in the planning area;’’ 

• Estimating the sustained levels of potable water from groundwater recharge 

based on the current and projected rainfall averages for an area; and 

• Considering the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources including watersheds. 

It is vital that nothing in BLM’s proposed rule be construed as affecting states’ 

primacy over allocation and administration of water resources in state borders. 

BLM’s Planning 2.0 must exhibit agency recognition and deference to states’ legal 

rights to allocate, develop, use, control, and distribute the states’ waters. 

Potential implications for water management and quality, and project development and maintenance, that should be considered by the agency include: 

• Siting for new water infrastructure on public lands; 

• Operation and maintenance of existing water infrastructure located on public 

lands; 

• Intrusions on states’ exclusive authority on water administration and development; and 

• Impacts on existing watershed plans under Section 319 of the Clean Water 

Act. 

9 

1WGA Policy Resolution 2014–09: Respecting State Authority and Expertise. 

TRANSPARENCY

Any process that reduces BLM’s responsibility to actively engage with stakeholders represents a retreat from openness and transparency. Yet that is what BLM 

suggests in Planning 2.0. Currently BLM publishes RMP documents exclusively in 

the Federal Register. The Planning 2.0 proposal, however, would permit the agency 

to forego formal publication of many RMP-related documents. Those documents 

could instead be posted to the BLM Web site and at BLM offices within an RMP 

planning area. This change would significantly impair the ability of affected stakeholders, local governments and states to monitor, understand and participate in the 

RMP development and amendment processes. 

The public should be afforded a clear and consistent opportunity to review and 

comment on proposed new or revised Federal RMPs. This is particularly true given 

that management plans have a direct and substantial impact on existing multiple 

use rights such as grazing permits, road rights-of-way, conventional and renewable 

energy development permits, and rights-of-way for electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure. 

SUMMARY

In summary, BLM’s Planning 2.0 proposal, as drafted, presents serious challenges 

and contains significant shortcomings. This is unfortunate, not only for states, but 

also for local governments and stakeholders. In WGA’s estimation, much of the opposition to this proposal would have been mitigated had BLM engaged in ‘‘early, 

meaningful and substantial’’ consultation with Governors in the formative stages of 

the rule’s development. 

Chairman Gohmert and Ranking Member Dingell, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today and to provide the subcommittee with the viewpoints of the Western 

Governors I serve. I hope my testimony has been helpful to the subcommittee. I 

welcome any questions you or your colleagues may have. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. GOHMERT TO JIM OGSBURY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION

Question 1. During the hearing, you were asked ‘‘[H]ave you heard any stories 

from Western Governors [of] specific instances where they were not allowed the 

voices that they felt they should have in policies that affected the people in their 

states? ’’ 

To this, you replied, ‘‘[. . .] I would appreciate the opportunity to provide a more 

thoughtful answer for the record.’’ 

Please provide information about each instance in which a Western Governor was 

not given adequate representation or consideration regarding BLM policies that 

affected the citizens of their respective states. 

Answer. Lack of substantive consultation with states during Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) rulemaking and policy change efforts is an ongoing concern of 

Western Governors. Western Governors have made clear their view that prior to 

intervention in any state-run program, Federal agencies should consult with states 

in a meaningful way and on a timely basis. That consultation should involve: 

predicate engagement before a rule is proposed, pre-publication consultation with 

governors and state co-regulators, and post-publication engagement with these parties to seek refinements. Finally, as provided for by Congress in various statutes, 

significant deference should be granted to states for formulation of state plans designed to implement delegated programs.1 Two examples of insufficient engagement 

with governors by Federal agencies are discussed below. 

• First, and most pertinent to the July 7 Subcommittee hearing, is Western 

Governors’ consultation experience regarding BLM’s Planning 2.0 rule. This consultation fell far short of governors’ requested engagement with the agency prior 

to—and during—rule development, as well as after publication of the proposed rule. 

In the fall of 2014, Western Governors’ and WGA staff were provided a briefing 

by BLM on the agency’s Planning 2.0 initiative to revise the way it develops and 

amends resource management plans (RMPs). During this briefing, BLM representatives indicated they were not at that time able to provide substantive information 

for state partners on matters including the agency’s rule development and proposal 

timeline, its plans for state and public engagement, or its plans to ensure consistency with existing Federal RMPs and similar state plans. Western Governors’ staff 

10 

2Western Governors comment on BLM and Forest Service sage-grouse management plans. 

Published August 5, 2015. 

were told that further opportunities for engagement and discussion would be provided by the agency in advance of issuance of the proposed rule. These subsequent 

opportunities did not materialize. Instead, governors’ staff and state regulators were 

left to monitor BLM publications and announcements regarding the rule’s 

development. 

In-person engagement by BLM did not occur until after BLM’s Planning 2.0 rule 

had been proposed and comments submitted. That in-person engagement took place 

in Jackson Hole, Wyoming in June of 2016. While Western Governors appreciate 

BLM’s willingness to meet with state partners, they again found the level of engagement to be perfunctory in nature. For instance, this meeting lacked specific information about BLM’s plans to involve governors and state regulators during the 

agency’s post-proposal rule revision process. Additionally, there was no discussion 

about BLM’s plans for rule implementation or matters involving statutorily mandated deference to states. 

• A second example of less-than-satisfactory state consultation by BLM involves 

the 2015 development of agency sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat management 

plans. Prior to development and the 2015 release of BLM and U.S. Forest Service’s 

sage-grouse management plans, Western Governors worked with Federal agencies 

and multiple stakeholders in a proactive, collaborative, innovative and conservationfocused manner to design effective and sensible plans. BLM was involved with these 

cooperative efforts to develop state sage-grouse conservation plans, designed to 

conserve sage-grouse resources and habitat. 

Western Governors were concerned that the resource management plans ultimately released by BLM were significantly different from, and inconsistent with, the 

cooperatively developed state plans. The scope of difference and inconsistency 

reflected insufficient attention to, consideration of, and respect for, the input, experience and insight of governors and state regulators. 

Additionally, several Western Governors submitted very comprehensive consistency reviews in response to BLM’s sage-grouse management plans. These reviews 

detailed inconsistencies between the BLM plans and collaboratively developed state 

plans and pre-existing state conservation plans and programs. Agency responses to 

governors’ consistency reviews were largely truncated and dismissive. Further elaboration on this matter and comments from Western Governors can be found on 

WGA’s Web site.2

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the committee and to 

provide this supplemental response. Please contact me if I might be of further 

assistance to the subcommittee. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much. I appreciate that opening 

statement. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fontaine for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF FONTAINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NEVADA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, CARSON CITY, NEVADA 

Mr. FONTAINE. Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Dingell, 

and Chairman Bishop, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on BLM’s draft Planning 2.0 rule. Nevada has the highest 

percentage of federally managed public lands of any state, approximately 85 percent, and five of our counties contain over 90 percent 

of public land. The Bureau of Land Management administers the 

majority of this public land, 47 million acres. 

For good reason, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

requires engagement specifically with local partners in three ways: 

coordination, consistency review, and meaningful public involvement. Local communities are greatly impacted by the BLM’s land 

use plans and management decisions, and vice versa. Without local 

partners, the BLM cannot effectively manage their land; and withVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:15 Jan 10, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS\07-07-16\20697.TXT DARLEN
11 

out local engagement from BLM, impacts on local partners cannot 

be adequately considered and mitigated. 

As the Nevada BLM’s 1997 vision statement says, the future of 

Nevada will, in large part, be shaped by the future of public land 

management. 

Commissioner Jim French from Humboldt County, Nevada, testified before this subcommittee and noted three concerns with the 

draft rule: specifically, that BLM has not provided sufficient time 

for counties to fully digest and offer comment, that BLM has proposed changes that will diminish the statutory role of local governments and reduce requirements to ensure consistency with local 

policies, and that BLM seeks to implement a multi-state landscape 

level of analysis that could diminish the ability to meaningfully assess the local impacts of BLM management decisions. 

We share these same concerns. Meaningful public involvement of 

local government has not occurred in this rulemaking process, and 

FLPMA distinguishes between the general public, state, and local 

governments, and also imposes a higher standard on the BLM for 

involving state and local government. Only a few of our counties 

have the resources necessary to employ a full-time natural resources coordinator of similar position dedicated to monitoring proposals from BLM, let alone assessing the impacts of sweeping 

Federal land management actions, like Planning 2.0, at the county 

level. 

That is why meaningful public involvement of local government 

requires more than public notice and comment. That Nevada is 

shaped by the future of public land management remains true 

today, and that is why we have such a strong interest in Planning 

2.0. 

Nevada’s counties perform important sovereign responsibilities 

and provide fundamental services, such as planning and zoning, 

public health and safety, and emergency response. They also have 

an important role in maintaining local economies. Nevada experienced an unprecedented economic distress during the great recession, but is again a growing state with a diversifying economy, 

including renewable energy and other sectors that rely on BLM 

land. 

Counties need to effectively participate in BLM land use planning to promote continued prosperity while protecting public lands 

for future generations. Unfortunately, counties with the most public lands are also those with the least capacity to engage in BLM 

land use planning because of their limited staffing and resources. 

For this reason, proactive outreach from BLM to local government 

is a critical component of meaningful public involvement. 

We are concerned that 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. FLPMA 

requires consistency review occur at four different stages of the 

planning process. First it mentions appraisal, then consideration, 

an attempt to resolve, and, finally, consistency with state and local 

plans. 

Instead, proposed regulations say the BLM will determine 

whether the county provided officially approved and adopted landuse plans or raise specific inconsistencies with those plans. FLPMA 

12 

does not limit consistency review to land use plans, nor require any 

plans to be officially approved or adopted. 

Finally, Planning 2.0 proposes 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. 

Landscape-scale economic impact analysis are likely to dwarf local 

economic costs, which will greatly dilute the overall cost in the 

cost-benefit analysis, even where the cost to a local economy might 

never be recovered. This creates a bias and unjustly eliminates 

BLM’s requirement to resolve possible economic impacts to local 

governments. 

A landscape-scale approach that does not involve local officials 

would require state and local governments to spend more time and 

taxpayer dollars building relationships at higher levels, and local 

relationships that have been built over years of close collaboration 

would be de-emphasized. 

On May 25, the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) submitted to the BLM annotated comments and revisions which were 

carefully drafted with a coalition of local and state governments. 

Together, we have developed language that we believe helps to 

achieve BLM’s stated goals in Planning 2.0 while addressing significant local government concerns, including preserving the 

elevated role expressly granted to state and local governments 

under FLPMA. 

We continue to encourage BLM to adopt these comments. Thank 

you again for holding today’s hearing. I look forward to answering 

questions from the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fontaine follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY FONTAINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NEVADA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

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

thank you for the opportunity to testify today on BLM’s Draft Planning 2.0 Rule. 

My name is Jeff Fontaine and I have served as Executive Director of the Nevada 

Association of Counties (NACO) for nearly 10 years. NACO represents all of 

Nevada’s 17 counties and works on their behalf on public lands issues including 

land use planning. 

Nevada has the highest percentage of federally managed public lands, approximately 85 percent, of any state in the Union and five of Nevada’s counties contain 

over 90 percent public land. The majority of this public land, 47 million acres, is 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Nevada alone contains 

19.32 percent of BLM land following only Alaska at 29.27 percent. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) requires engagement specifically with local partners in three ways: coordination, consistency review, 

and meaningful public involvement. These responsibilities are meant solely for the 

BLM’s partners and for good reason: Nevada’s communities and economies are 

greatly impacted by the BLM’s land use plans and management decisions and vice 

versa. The BLM recognizes these realities, as the Nevada BLM’s 1977 vision statement says ‘‘The future of Nevada will in large part be shaped by the future of public 

land management.’’ Although ecological landscapes extend beyond political boundaries, political boundaries represent the BLM’s local partners and primary on-theground managers for each unit of land. Without local partners, the BLM cannot 

effectively manage any land. More so, impacts on local partners cannot be adequately considered and mitigated for if the BLM’s planning regulations do not implement a process that works for both the BLM and its partners. It is for these 

common-sense reasons that FLPMA designates counties as the BLM’s planning 

partners. 

Commissioner Jim French from Humboldt County, Nevada and a member of 

NACO’s Board of Directors testified at your hearing on ‘‘Local and State 

Perspectives on BLM’s Draft Planning 2.0 Rule’’ on May 12, 2016. 

13 

He noted three concerns with the Draft Planning 2.0 Rule, specifically 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 diminish the statutory role of local governments and reduce requirements to ensure Federal consistency with local 

policies; and 

• 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. 

We share these same concerns and today would like to expand on these issues. 

Only a few of our counties have the staffing and budgetary resources necessary to 

employ a full-time natural resources coordinator or similar position dedicated to 

monitoring proposals from the BLM let alone assess the impacts of sweeping 

Federal land management actions like Planning 2.0 at the county level. That is why 

NACO, along with representatives of state and local governments spanning the 

BLM’s jurisdiction requested that the BLM extend the public comment period from 

60 days to 180 days. The BLM granted only a 30-day extension until May 25, 2016. 

This alone indicates the lack of a true partnership between local and Federal land 

management. 

Goals and actions must be viewed as a whole. While the BLM’s stated goal is to 

‘‘ensure participation by the public, state and local governments, Indian tribes and 

Federal agencies . . .,’’ the commitment must be solidified within the regulatory 

text. While the discussions regarding Planning 2.0 continually stress the importance 

of local relationships, the text of the proposed rule compared to the existing regulatory language greatly diminishes in practice the inter-governmental and public 

roles. It is important that we work together to ensure the language achieves 

Planning 2.0’s positive narrative. 

That Nevada is shaped by the future of public land management remains true 

today and is why we are so concerned and interested in collaborating with the BLM 

on the development of their land use planning initiative. Nevada’s counties perform 

important sovereign responsibilities. Nevada’s counties, like others across the 

Nation, provide fundamental services such as planning and zoning; infrastructure, 

water and wildlife protection, public health and safety and emergency response on 

both private and public lands within their jurisdiction. Thus, it is imperative that 

the BLM maintain regulatory language that supports these activities and actively 

acknowledge the counties important responsibilities. 

Nevada’s counties also have an important role in maintaining local economies. In 

the last 25 years Nevada experienced periods of unprecedented growth in which it 

led the Nation in population expansion and then in economic distress during the 

‘‘Great Recession.’’ Nevada is again a growing state with a diversifying economy 

which includes renewable energy and other industries that rely on BLM administered land. We want to make sure that Nevada’s counties are able to effectively participate in BLM land use planning to promote continued prosperity while protecting 

the public lands for future generations. 

In Nevada, BLM planning is critical for all of our counties—whether our most 

rural or most urban. This requires a flexible process that relies on collaboration 

with local officials to address the unique needs of our individual counties. Where 

urban counties may be able to provide capacity for BLM rural counties may require 

additional outreach due to a lack of resources. Our two urban counties, Clark and 

Washoe, represent 2.5 million people, or 88 percent of our state’s population. These 

counties have comprehensive planning staffs who engage with the BLM on land use 

plans. Unfortunately, the majority of the counties with the most public land are also 

the most rural and economically distressed communities. NACO has been making 

efforts to enhance communications about public lands issues and has been cohosting quarterly public lands breakfast meetings in which state, county, U.S. 

Forest Service and BLM officials discuss specific public lands challenges in our 

state. At our most recent breakfast meetings BLM officials were interested to hear 

that our urban counties are experiencing challenges encouraging commercial and industrial development due to increasingly high prices driven by residential developers seeking newly disposed lands. As commercial development is one of Nevada’s 

strategic business sectors, our presenters expressed ways the BLM might work as 

a partner with the counties to ensure that the use of newly disposed land is driven 

by the state’s key economic goals. Similarly, as partners, the BLM and counties can 

create capacity to address non-controversial applications such as right-of-way 

permits which would free up the BLM’s time and help increase economic certainty 

for new projects and provide capacity for more Local Area Working Groups 

14 

performing on-the-ground sage grouse habitat restoration activities. This is not the 

type of information included in an ‘‘officially adopted land use plan’’ and likely 

would not be included in a BLM land use plan. It is coordination of local governments and BLM that enable the sharing of this critical information. These conversations must be ongoing, and if they are not then at a minimum they must occur at 

the forefront of any planning stage. 

In rural counties such as Esmeralda where over 95 percent of their land is managed by the BLM, in order to develop economic development strategies that will sustain and revitalize their local economy, a rural community needs a sense of the 

existing structure and overall trends within the local economy. Thus, the economic 

impacts of public lands management can drastically change that structure and these 

trends for their main economic sectors, including livestock grazing, timber, minerals, 

tourism, agriculture, and water development. 

Again, FLPMA provides three key roles for local government partners during the 

planning process: coordination, consistency review, and meaningful public involvement. These statutory mandates are not currently reflected within the planning regulations and in many cases were actively deleted from the existing regulations. It 

is not enough that the BLM says it will follow the law at what it believes will be 

‘‘appropriate times,’’ and it is not enough that the BLM provide internal guidance. 

‘‘COORDINATION’’ 

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (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.’’ These requirements apply to all steps of resource management planning, including the planning rules. The planning rule has 

not yet been finalized so there is still time for changes and for the BLM to work 

with their state and local government partners to address their concerns. 

‘‘CONSISTENCY REVIEW’’ 

NACO is also 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. 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. We read 

FLPMA to say that consistency review must occur at four different stages of the 

planning process; it first mentions appraisal, then consideration, an attempt to 

resolve and finally consistency with state and local plans. 

Yet the proposed regulations say the BLM will determine whether the county 

provided ‘‘officially approved and adopted land use plans’’ or raised ‘‘specific inconsistencies’’ with those plans. Otherwise, the BLM will not review those plans. 

Nowhere in FLPMA does the language say ‘‘officially approved,’’ ‘‘adopted,’’ and it 

does not limit consistency review to ‘‘land use plans.’’ The language is intentionally 

all-inclusive. These provisions are not in alignment with the BLM’s goals to improve 

relationships and speed up the process. The BLM will now add a step to determine 

whether the counties sovereign responsibilities are in fact worth reviewing where 

FLPMA already says that they are. 

Another consequence of limiting consistency review to ‘‘officially approved and 

adopted land use plans’’ is state and local governments will need to revisit every 

resource-related plan and program to find a way to call it a ‘‘land use plan.’’ This 

is very difficult to accomplish and stretches their limited resources. 

‘‘MEANINGFUL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT’’—APPLIES TO RULEMAKING PROCESS

Meaningful public involvement of local government has not occurred in this rulemaking process and is not a term included within Planning 2.0. FLPMA uses the 

term ‘‘general public’’ separate from ‘‘state and local governments’’ and also imposes 

a different standard on the BLM for addressing each, respectively. Meaningful 

Public Involvement is a collaborative affair that requires more than public notice 

and comment. Meaningful Public Involvement must be incorporated into the planning regulations. The engagement for Planning 2.0 has been exactly the same for 

local governments as for the general public, even for provision changes that greatly 

impact state and local government planning. We believe that had BLM done more 

outreach in counties that contain large amounts of public lands and engaged associations like ours they would have been able to develop a more workable proposal 

and address any unintended consequences or challenges posed by the proposed rule. 

15 

‘‘LANDSCAPE SCALE’’ 

Finally, Planning 2.0 proposes 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. 

Local BLM Officials should drive the planning process, especially at a landscape 

scale. Where planners (deciding officials and responsible officials) are elevated to positions outside of the planning area, landscape-level planning undermines the 

purpose of FLPMA (and NEPA). 

Landscape-scale economic impact analyses are likely to dwarf local economic costs, 

which will greatly reduce the overall ‘‘cost’’ in the cost-benefit analysis even where 

the cost to a local economy might never be recovered. This will create bias and 

unjustly eliminate BLM’s need to address and resolve the possible economic destruction of one or several local governments and programs as a result of their decisionmaking. 

Another unintended consequence is a reduced emphasis on local BLM relationships. A landscape-scale approach that does not involve local officials means that 

state and local governments will need to spend more time and taxpayer dollars 

building relationships at higher levels and the local relationships that have been 

built over years of close collaboration will be de-emphasized. 

The Nevada Association of Counties submitted to the BLM on May 25, 2016 

official comments as well as ‘‘Annotated Comments and Revisions.’’ The ‘‘Annotated 

Comments and Revisions’’ were carefully drafted with a coalition of local and state 

governments who are partners with the BLM in the planning process. Together, we 

have identified needs and developed language that we believe addresses significant 

local government concerns within the Planning 2.0 rule and helps achieve BLM’s 

stated goals. Other commenters that submitted the ‘‘Annotated Comments and 

Revisions’’ to the BLM include: 

• State of Nevada Governor’s Office 

• Nevada State Land Use Planning Advisory Council 

• Clark County, Nevada, City of Las Vegas, City of Henderson joint letter 

• Churchill County, Nevada 

• Eureka County, Nevada 

• Esmeralda County, Nevada 

• Storey County, Nevada 

• Wells Nevada Rural Electric Company 

• Nye County, Nevada 

• Mineral County, Nevada 

• National Association of Counties 

• Utah Association of Counties 

• Idaho Association of Counties 

• Rural County Representatives of California 

• New Mexico Association of Counties 

• Wyoming County Commissioners Association 

• Governor of Wyoming 

• Foundation for Integrated Preservation 

• McKenzie County, North Dakota 

NACO understands that relationships are keys to any planning process. Regulations require training and consistent application and where relationships are good 

they should be afforded the flexibility to accomplish mutual goals. We are fortunate 

to have in Nevada a State BLM Director and team with whom we coordinate and 

collaborate regularly. However, we cannot always count on having BLM managers 

and staff that understand our state and are as willing to have an ongoing dialogue 

with our counties. This is why it is extremely important that the BLM take the time 

to get the proposed regulations right. 

Our desire is to work with the BLM to make this a rule that strengthens the partnership between the BLM and local and state governments, preserves the elevated 

role expressly granted to state and local governments through Coordination, 

Consistency Review, and Meaningful Public Involvement in the planning process 

and ensures the role of the public through the public involvement requirement. 

16 

1 70 FR 14561. 

2 E.O. 2012–19, retrieved at http://gov.nv.gov/News-and-Media/Executive-Orders/2012/EO- 

_2012-19_-Establishing-the-Sagebrush-Ecosystem-Council/. 3Western Exploration, Case No. 3:15–cv–00491–MMD–VPC at 37. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. GOHMERT TO JEFF FONTAINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEVADA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

Question 1. During the hearing I asked ‘‘if you have specific instances that you 

can find where the rules have worked a hardship, then let us know those. Please 

send us those in the days ahead,’’ in regards to rules promulgated by the BLM. 

Please list specific instances where rules promulgated by the BLM have led to 

compliance hardships for either state, local, or municipal officials. 

Answer. We are unaware at this time if other rules promulgated by the BLM have 

led to compliance hardships for either state, local or municipal officials. With respect to the planning regulations addressed in Planning 2.0, what we have experienced is not necessarily a hardship from the existing land use planning rules. 

Rather, we believe the hardship is that the BLM has not followed its existing planning regulations. 

Planning 2.0 removes the specific regulatory sections with which the BLM has 

failed to comply. The existing rules, last amended in 2005, contain coordination requirements that are meant specifically to benefit local governments.1 Where the 

2005 Amendments added language that significantly increased the role of state and 

local governments, now the proposed regulations seek to reverse each of those 

improvements. 

The state of Nevada along with the majority of our counties are involved in a lawsuit challenging the legality of the BLM’s ‘‘current practices’’ regarding land management planning for the Approved Resource Management Plans designed to protect 

the Greater Sage-Grouse. This lawsuit alleges that the BLM has failed to adhere 

to its current regulations, specifically those provisions from 2005, and to the 

requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and National Environmental Policy Act. This lawsuit stems from a lack of consistency review, coordination, consultation and meaningful public involvement of the state and county 

governments. At the invitation of the Interior Secretary 2 in 2012 and with input 

from local BLM officials the state and counties invested significant time and public 

resources developing conservation plans. Yet last year the BLM signed Records of 

Decision for land management plans that disregard these plans. 

We understand that Utah, Idaho, Colorado and Wyoming have also filed similar 

lawsuits. 

One purpose of the counties’ lawsuit is to ensure compliance with FLMPA and the 

current planning regulations, including several regulations now omitted from the 

proposed language in Planning 2.0. For example, 43 C.F.R. §§ 1601.3 and 4, which 

require that in amending land use plans the Secretary coordinate with state and 

local governments, consider state and local plans that are germane to the development of land use plans for public lands, and provide for meaningful public involvement of state and local government officials.3

Thank you again for your question and we hope this response was helpful. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much. 

At this time, Mr. McAfee, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK MCAFEE, LANDOWNER AND 

COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER, LEWIS, COLORADO 

Mr. MCAFEE. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you. My 

grandparents and their 1-year-old son, my father, came to 

Montezuma County in southwest Colorado 100 years ago. They 

came West because their Nebraska farm dried up. They homesteaded and began farming by hand-grubbing the sagebrush to 

plant and to harvest crops. They lived in a tent for a couple of 

years through two winters. They hauled water for themselves and 

for neighbors. They were tough, hard workers. Dry-land pinto 

17 

beans and wheat were the crops of the day, and those are 

important today. 

My perspective here is that of a long-time resident, thirdgeneration on the McAfee farm land. BLM is a neighbor. We are 

governed locally by an elected board of county commissioners. My 

comments come to you from what I observe, what I know to be 

true. In this context, I will address two topics: public participation 

and planning around natural landscape versus political boundaries. 

First, I am for as much public involvement as possible, as early 

as possible, in planning for public lands. I am local, I am concerned, I am thoughtful, and I do my homework. I take the long 

view. I am a life member of the local chapter of the Rocky 

Mountain Farmers Union, and we understand the relationships 

among public lands and agricultural lands. Local people want their 

voices to be heard. What we think and what we say can be extremely valuable in gaining a broad view from long-term local experience, interests, ideas, and needs for public lands, especially in a 

place like Montezuma County, where we have a lot of public land. 

I don’t understand why some county commissioners are so opposed to enabling greater public participation. Under Planning 2.0, 

they will not give up their participation, their voices and authority 

will not be diminished. The whole process will be made richer by 

inclusion of public voices early on. They are elected to represent us, 

but that does not translate to us giving up the right and responsibility of representing ourselves. 

We have perspectives and ideas that are broader and deeper, and 

sometimes they are too busy jockeying with the BLM about who is 

in control of our Federal lands to even represent us at all. Recently 

BLM started a process to discuss whether a master leasing plan 

would be helpful in our area. Our current resource management 

plan does not really get into the details of how and when leasing 

or development happens. Instead of engaging in the discussion, our 

commissioners spent a long time refusing to even come to the table, 

questioning BLM’s motives and authority. Meanwhile, many of our 

community members wanted to have this discussion, and wished 

that our commissioners would stop obstructing it. 

BLM should take the lead in getting through the rhetoric and 

getting on with dealing effectively with issues through a thoughtful, transparent collaboration. I know that it can work, and that 

giving the public more input will only make it better. 

Next, to planning around natural landscape versus political 

boundaries. In my view, this is so simple. The natural landscape 

and resources got here first. Political lines came later, and 

generally were not established with natural boundaries in mind. It 

is obvious when you think of watersheds, for example. Those responsible for managing natural resources need to have the latitude, 

and be held accountable for planning for the whole picture, the natural picture. In this way, the interests of local farmers and ranchers and others who depend on these resources will be taken 

seriously. This is part of the reform that BLM was proposing, and 

local government will continue to have a strong voice in this 

common-sense way of managing land. 

BLM’s proposal seeks to provide more and earlier opportunities 

for input. This makes sense to me for counties, states, tribes, and 

18 

even folks like me. We care about the land, and we want to have 

a voice in how it is run. Your Web page says, ‘‘Empowering people 

through our Nation’s resources.’’ What better way to empower us 

than to listen to us as plans are developed early on? It is about 

participation, collaboration, and transparency. Thank you for 

listening. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McAfee follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHUCK MCAFEE, LANDOWNER AND COMMUNITY

VOLUNTEER, RETIRED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, MONTEZUMA COUNTY, SOUTHWEST

COLORADO

Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity 

to share my thoughts with you on the topic of BLM planning processes. 

My grandparents and their 1-year-old son, my father, in-migrated to Montezuma 

County in Southwest Colorado 100 years ago. They came west because their 

Nebraska farm dried up. In the midst of the drought that we are currently experiencing, I’m not so sure that they would not reverse the trek if they were here now. 

My grandma, my granddad, and his sisters homesteaded land in Montezuma 

County where he began farming by hand-grubbing out the sagebrush to plant and 

to harvest crops. They lived in a tent on the land for a couple of years, through two 

winters. They hauled water for themselves and for neighbors. They were tough, 

hard workers. Dry-land Pinto beans and wheat were the crops of the day and they 

remain important crops now. 

My perspective here is that of a long-time resident, third-generation on the 

McAfee farm land. BLM is a neighbor. We are governed locally by an elected board 

of county commissioners. 

I presume that you know more than I do about BLM’s Planning 2.0 and I don’t 

intend to address too many details. My comments come to you from what I observe, 

what I know to be true. In this context I’ll address two topics with you today. 

First, I’ll talk about public participation in the planning process, including my 

observations about how that has been going in our county and how it can be 

improved. 

Second, I’ll address the issue of planning around natural landscape versus 

political boundaries. 

So, public participation in the planning process: I am completely supportive of enabling as much public involvement as possible, as early as possible, in planning for 

public lands. I’m local and I’m concerned. I’m thoughtful. I do my homework. I take 

the long view. I’m a life member of the local chapter of the Rocky Mountain Farmers 

Union (probably the oldest member). Our Farmers Union chapter is comprised of 

local family farmers, all ages, dryland farmers, farmers under the ditch, small scale, 

large scale, sheep growers, cattle men and women—we represent a diversity of agricultural interests in Montezuma and Dolores Counties. We understand the relationships among public lands and agricultural lands. As you can see in the submission 

from some of other local farmers, we are both affected by decisions on public lands 

and care deeply about them as part of our community. 

We want our voices to be listened to and heard. What we think and what we say 

can be extremely valuable in gaining a broad view of local experience, long experience, interests, ideas, and needs relating to planning and implementation of plans 

for public lands. How public lands are managed is vitally important to Ag people 

as well to everyone else in a place such as ours where public lands are so prevalent 

as they are in Montezuma County. 

I fail to understand why some county commissioners are so opposed to enabling 

greater public participation. Under Planning 2.0 they will not give up participation, 

their voices and authority will not be diminished by public voices. The whole process 

will be made richer by inclusion of public voices, early on. The local elected entities 

can view this as an opportunity to be proactive and inclusive, rather than taking 

a position that their roles are being undermined. They, of course, are elected to represent us. Yet that does not translate to us giving up the right and responsibility 

of representing ourselves. We have individual and collective perspective and ideas 

that go far beyond the capacity of elected officials to have the whole picture. 

And sometimes our elected officials are too busy jockeying with the BLM about 

who is in control of our Federal lands to even represent us at all. The words 

‘‘coordinating’’ and ‘‘cooperating’’ are on the table much of the time in these exchanges, while we wish the two parties would get on with actually collaborating for 

the good of our community. 

19 

Recently, BLM started a process to discuss whether a master leasing plan would 

be helpful. Our current Resource Management Plan doesn’t really get into the 

details of how and when oil and gas leasing happens or development happens, even 

though we’ve had a lot of conflict around that. Instead of engaging in the discussion, 

our county commissioners spent a long time refusing to even come to the table— 

questioning BLM’s motives and authority. Meanwhile, many in our community 

wanted to have this discussion, and wished our commissioners would stop 

obstructing it. 

BLM can and should take the lead in getting through the rhetoric and getting on 

with dealing effectively with issues through thoughtful, transparent collaboration. 

I know from personal experience that it can work to great advantage and the public 

will support such efforts. 

Public voices along with input from officials can be very complementary and 

valuable if we will let it happen. Giving the public more input will only make it 

better. 

A tag line on the House Committee on Natural Resources Web page says 

‘‘Empowering People Through Our Nation’s Resources.’’ What better way to empower people than to listen to and to hear their voices, their thoughts, as plans are 

developed? It’s about participation and transparency. 

I also wanted to comment on planning around natural landscape versus political 

boundaries: In my view, this is so simple. The natural landscape and natural resources got here first. Political boundaries came later, and generally were not established with natural boundaries in mind. People and agencies charged with the 

responsibility of managing natural resources and landscapes need to have the latitude, and to be held accountable, for planning for the whole picture, the natural picture. In this way the interests of local farmers and ranchers and others who depend 

on these natural resources will be taken seriously. 

A very real example of this is watersheds. Why not make watersheds be a definer 

for management units? The reality of watershed health and water management is 

a key element to economies and land use in the arid American West. It makes so 

much sense to assess, analyze, organize, plan and manage around natural watersheds rather than dealing with these realities being confined by political boundaries. 

It makes no sense for a watershed management plan to be different on one side of 

a political boundary from what it is on the other side. No sense. It’s just natural 

to be in concert with nature, as those of us who depend on natural resources do. 

If the BLM truly values local stakeholders and the way that we interact with public lands, it must consider how the people, wildlife and use of our public lands impact our farms and other private lands. The BLM can only do this by looking at 

the lands as a whole and collaborating with landowners at the landscape-level. This 

is part of the reforms that the BLM is proposing to make and local government will 

continue to have a strong voice in this common sense way of managing land. 

The reforms to planning that the BLM is proposing seek to provide more participation and transparency earlier in the process. This means more participation and 

transparency for the counties, states, tribes and even folks like me. As we all care 

about and manage our land, we should all agree that more conversation and a better understanding of how we’re having an impact to each other upstream and how 

we’re impacting each other downstream is better for everybody. 

Thank you for listening. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO CHUCK MCAFEE, LANDOWNER AND

COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER

Questions Submitted by Rep. Dingell 

Question 1. Was there anything else you wanted to say or respond to from the 

hearing? 

Answer. I would like to emphasize that the BLM’s Planning 2.0 initiative will only 

help, and not hinder, state, local and tribal governments as well as the public participation in land use planning for public lands. I appreciate Rep. Dingell’s acknowledgement of this fact and support for greater transparency and participation 

opportunities through this initiative. 

With that, I believe that with my oral testimony, my written testimony, my 

responses to Rep. Polis’ questions, and the letter from the Mancos farmers, my comments are complete at this point. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into this important process. 

20 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Polis 

Question 1. Mr. McAfee, under these new rules, local governments, like your county, still have special opportunities for participation but the public will also have 

more of a chance to give input. In your experience, is the county always sufficiently 

focused on representing its residents? What are the benefits of giving more of a 

voice to local residents whose lives are also affected by decisions made on the public 

lands? The BLM is proposing a more collaborative, transparent and democratic process to help navigate the planning process. How, in your experience, will more upfront engagement improve the planning process? Can that make it more efficient? 

Will resulting plans have more support? 

Answer. I have a fundamental belief that a genuine richness of thought and 

energy come from listening to ideas from multiple, diverse, thoughtful individuals 

and groups, whatever the topic of interest and discussion. With this as a backdrop, 

I will address each of the sub questions posed above by Rep. Polis. 

In your experience, is the county always sufficiently focused on representing its 

residents? 

A specific example that illustrates why I do not believe that the county focuses 

adequately on representing its residents has to do with the BLM’s consideration of 

creating a Master Leasing Plan (MLP) for public lands in Montezuma County. The 

intent behind the MLP is a simple land use planning concept: ensure that oil and 

gas development occurs in the least impactful places and protects others as appropriate. Instead of engaging in the discussion, our county commissioners spent a long 

time refusing to even come to the table—questioning BLM’s motives and authority. 

Meanwhile, many in our community wanted to have this discussion and wished 

that our commissioners would stop obstructing it. Here is a quote from an article 

in the Cortez Journal in June 2016: ‘‘Public comment, totaling 350 pages, has been 

overwhelmingly in favor of an MLP, officials report.’’ The Cortez City Council voted 

unanimously to support creation of an MLP. 25 local businesses attached their name 

to a statement supporting MLP. 

In spite of this strong local support, the Montezuma County Board of County 

Commissioners (BOCC) remains adamantly opposed. 

Another example: Several years ago a previous BOCC addressed the planning and 

development situation in the Dolores River Valley, along the East Fork of the 

Dolores River. They convened a group of local residents who, over a couple of years, 

came up with a process called Transferrable Development Rights (TDRs) to address 

the issue. Our current BOCC, at the end of a day-long public forum attended by 

120 local residents, where five people spoke in opposition of TDRs and 40 people 

spoke in favor of retaining the TDR program, suddenly passed a resolution to eliminate TDRs from the land use code. The County Planning and Zoning committee 

spoke to retain the TDRs. Four previous county commissioners spoke in an attempt 

to explain the concept to the current BOCC and to ask them to retain TDRs. The 

BOCC admitted that they didn’t understand it and simply voted it out. They ignored 

a day’s worth of thoughtful speakers and 2 to 3 years of thoughtful discussion and 

planning by a diverse group of local residents. 

To me, these are examples of our BOCC listening to what they want to hear and 

dismissing other voices. This is what the BLM seeks to avoid when they engage in 

land use planning through the concepts of greater public participation and input 

through the Planning 2.0 initiative. 

What are the benefits of giving more of a voice to local residents whose lives are also 

affected by decisions made on the public lands? 

I believe that the benefits of giving more voice to local residents, early on, will 

help create a better, more comprehensive, more lasting decision and action. The 

local residents know what is going on. They know the landscape, how it impacts 

them, how to work, live and play with public lands as a neighbor. They know how 

to address their needs and interests while helping plan for and tend to the health 

and sustainability of the public lands. There is no way that any three county commissioners can possibly have a comprehensive knowledge or understanding of how 

local residents and the communities are impacted by decisions made on the public 

lands. They can learn by listening to local residents. The residents, the public lands, 

and the community will benefit when local ideas are sought and voices are included 

early on. 

How, in your experience, will more up-front engagement improve the planning 

process? Can that make it more efficient? 

First, throughout my corporate experience with the Hewlett-Packard Company we 

engaged employees in the process of visioning and planning. We all brought great 

21 

ideas, different perspectives; we brought energy and commitment; we brought the 

skills necessary to implement the plans. We were successful. 

Second, I recently became involved in the Cortez Heart and Soul project, funded 

by the Orton Family Foundation, with the intent of learning how to engage all sectors of the community early on in the process of developing and maintaining a city 

plan. This was a deliberate effort to solicit voices from throughout the city population in the city planning process. So far as I know, no one in the Cortez city government or administration felt threatened by inviting local residents to participate 

from the beginning. They did not argue that their power was being eroded; rather, 

they engaged in the process. 

The planning process is inherently more efficient because of the transparency 

created by upfront-engagement by everyone. There is common knowledge of the 

common ground that is being traversed as the plans evolve. Local residents have 

perspective and ideas that go far beyond the capacity of elected officials to have the 

whole picture. 

Will resulting plans have more support? 

I believe that it is commonly accepted that people will support what they help create. They own it when they participate in its creation, when they know that their 

ideas have merit and are being genuinely considered. 

I believe that public lands administrators could start their deliberations by asking 

themselves a few relevant questions. Such as ‘‘Who else should be at the table? ’’ 

‘‘Who else should be looking at this? ’’ They could first tend to clarity, completeness, 

and relationships. 

Question 2. Mr. McAfee, as someone who’s life and livelihood are unavoidably 

linked with and affected by decisions made on the public lands, and specifically by 

the BLM, can you discuss how planning based on natural boundaries and for natural resources like watersheds would better serve you, other farmers and ranchers, 

and other members of your community? 

Answer. The public lands, all lands, comprise a system. This can be thought of 

as a landscape of connections, where occurrences upstream have consequences all 

the way downstream. Political boundaries generally have no association with the 

system. 

Think of the Dolores River watershed as such a system. Both the East Fork and 

the West Fork of the Dolores River are in Dolores County prior to crossing the political boundary (county line) into Montezuma County. The river doesn’t know the difference—it responds to upstream decisions and then follows its natural constraints 

and boundaries right on down. Anything that happens to those streams in Dolores 

County carries right on in to Montezuma County. Decisions upstream impact us all. 

Ranchers, farmers, municipalities all need to know what decisions are being made 

upstream. Those decisions are more sound and effective when they are made in the 

context of natural landscape rather than political landscape. 

It makes no sense for a land use plan for a landscape system to be different on 

one side of a political boundary than on the opposite side. I firmly believe that BLM 

should be encouraged and supported in its efforts to plan around natural landscape 

systems. Natural landscapes existed and functioned long before the modern 

construct of political boundaries. We should rethink the way we manage those 

landscapes. 

Question 3. Mr. McAfee, I have a letter here from a number of local farmers in 

the Mancos Valley expressing their support for the principles of Planning 2.0. The 

letter talks about how the BLM’s master leasing plan process in the area providing 

‘‘opportunities for us to bring our concerns and vision for our neighboring public 

lands early on in the process’’ how ‘‘making decisions on how to manage the land 

should start from similar concerns for the health of the land as a whole, including 

consideration of our farming operations, rather than driven by political boundaries.’’ 

Can you talk some more about the farming community in your area, how you’ve previously engaged with the BLM and how you see these planning rules improving 

cooperation and land management? 

Answer. I believe that the letter to which you are referring makes the points 

beautifully, regarding living and farming alongside public lands. What’s been happening in this context is that BLM has been quite transparent in seeking input to 

help with its MLP decision. This is in contrast with previous experiences where we 

the public were presented with an array of displays that attempted to inform us 

about the various options that were being considered. We had little or no 

background information, or context. I don’t recall seeing anything that spoke to 

landscape-level planning or consideration of the health of the land as a whole. 

22 

I know these farmers. They are young, energetic, responsible, small-scale. They 

show up and engage with ideas and comprehensive perspectives. We all, the local 

residents, will respond positively to transparency and inclusion just as these farmers have. It’s a certainty that these proposed planning rules and processes will improve cooperation (we will own the results) and land management (BLM will have 

gained great input that otherwise would have been lost). 

As I pointed out in my written testimony in July, your Web page says 

‘‘Empowering People Through Our Nation’s Resources’’. What better way to empower us than to listen to us as plans are developed? It’s about participation, 

collaboration and transparency. Working alongside elected officials and agency 

employees, we local residents can make a positive difference. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 

testimony, Mr. McAfee. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JIM LYONS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LYONS. Chairman Bishop, Chairman Gohmert, and Ranking 

Member Dingell, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss BLM’s proposed amendments to its planning rules. 

As you know, FLPMA was enacted into law about 40 years ago. 

The framework for developing and amending BLM’s land resource 

management plans has changed little in the past three decades 

and, in fact, has only been revised slightly. Yet much has changed 

in the past 40 years with regard to management and the use of the 

public lands. 

New uses, such as renewable energy production, are a part of an 

expanding variety of public land uses. Conflicts between users and 

uses of public lands are increasing, as pressures mount on rural 

communities to try to maintain their economic flow, meet the needs 

for their economies, and, at the same time, address the expanding 

interests of others. 

Factors affecting the use and management of the public lands are 

going beyond traditional planning boundaries, resulting in impacts 

on, as Mr. McAfee said, watersheds, landscapes, and regions. I 

think there are plenty of examples of that today, dealing with fire, 

invasive species, water supplies, and wildlife habitat. 

The current planning framework has been the source of frustration for many people, from community leaders, to public land users, 

to other stakeholders and, in fact, the planners themselves. The 

Bureau has heard many complaints about the planning process 

from many of these and, in fact, in 2011 initiated an internal effort 

to review the planning process. At that point in time, they recommended the need for change in the process. 

The complaints, again, were many. The process takes too long, it 

is not transparent, opportunities for input are few, and final plans, 

in the end, do not meet our needs. For these reasons and for 

others, the BLM has proposed new rules for public land use planning that have been in development for a number of years. These 

proposed rules are really built on the foundation of the current 

planning process, but they represent a sincere and serious effort to 

try to address the many concerns and complaints that have been 

23 

raised by a wide range of stakeholders with regard to BLM 

planning process. 

The proposed rules provide for some important improvements in 

the planning process, and I will just highlight a few. 

First and foremost, the planning rules seek to provide additional 

opportunities for input earlier in the planning process. Through the 

establishment of an assessment requirement, actually, before formal planning begins, the opportunity exists for everyone to provide 

input into the process, to share data, information, ideas, ways to 

identify and deal with conflicts, and potential areas of agreement 

as a foundation for planning. 

In essence, the purpose of the assessment is to provide a common 

baseline to share information and have everyone bring their views, 

perspectives, and resource information to the table. I would suggest 

that that in particular can be a significant benefit to local communities and counties who may not have the resources to do their own 

assessments, but can, in fact, benefit from those assessment reports that are prepared before the formal planning process begins. 

Second, resource management issues are not conveniently limited 

to traditional planning boundaries. Unfortunately, under current 

rules, no matter how expansive the concern or the particular need, 

we are required to do plans within the existing planning boundaries. So, when a wildfire crosses state lines, we have to develop 

plans that fit those particular circumstances in the current planning process. 

Under the proposed rule, the planning boundaries can be adjusted to the scale necessary to deal with the issues of concern. 

This can increase efficiency and effectiveness. It does not, in any 

way, negate the importance of local input and the value of that 

stakeholder, coordinator, and cooperator involvement. Nevertheless, it can help us do things in a more efficient and effective way. 

The same data analysis can help inform the planning process and 

all participants in moving forward, but dealing with the issue at 

the appropriate scale, in an appropriate manner, and hopefully in 

a much more efficient and effective way. 

Third, the proposed planning rule process actually reaffirms the 

unique role the cooperators play in working with the Bureau and 

helping with the development of land use plans. Cooperators can 

work with planners throughout the process and, similar to the current process for the engagement of cooperators, they become a part 

of the planning team from the very outset. In fact, many of our 

people talked about providing desk space and a chair for representatives who are cooperators from local and state government. So, 

cooperators’ opportunities are not negated in any way. In fact, we 

think they are enhanced through this more open and earlier planning process. 

Now, unfortunately, there is a great deal of misinformation and, 

I think, misunderstanding out there with regard to the Planning 

2.0 effort and the BLM’s proposed planning rule. We certainly look 

forward, Mr. Chairman, to working with all those who depend upon 

the public lands or have an interest in their lands, to try to address 

these concerns and put together a final rule that we think will help 

improve the planning and management of our public lands. Thank 

you. 

24 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM LYONS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND AND

MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the 

Interior regarding the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposed planning 

rule. The proposed planning rule is part of the BLM’s ongoing efforts to improve 

the way that the BLM develops land use plans that guide the management of the 

public lands administered by the Bureau as authorized by the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). 

This proposed new rule is the culmination of over 2 years of outreach and discussion with state and local governments, communities, stakeholders, other governmental partners, and the public and reflects many of the lessons learned and best 

practices developed over the last 40 years of land use planning. This proposed rule 

responds to the recommendations and concerns raised by state and local governments, stakeholders, and the public to modernize and improve our land use planning process in ways that make our efforts more collaborative, transparent, and 

efficient. 

BACKGROUND

The BLM manages 10 percent of the land in the United States and 30 percent 

of the Nation’s minerals. Under FLPMA, the BLM is required to develop land use 

plans in partnership with state, local, and tribal governments, as well as the public, 

to manage these diverse public land resources in accordance with the BLM’s multiple-use and sustained yield mission unless otherwise provided by law. BLM land 

use plans establish goals and objectives to guide future land and resource management actions implemented by the BLM. 

The regulations governing the BLM’s land use planning process are more than 30 

years old. Pressures are increasing on BLM-administered lands and land managers 

to better balance often competing and increasingly conflicting uses of the public 

lands. The BLM and its stakeholders, including state and local governments, have 

also experienced an increased number of practical challenges, including unexpected 

delays, higher expenses, and expanded legal issues in managing these lands. 

Resource issues such as invasive species, wildfire, energy transmission, and wildlife 

conservation cross traditional administrative and jurisdictional boundaries making 

current planning less efficient and more costly to implement. 

State, local, and tribal government officials and representatives of diverse stakeholder groups have expressed concern about the current process, stating that they 

often feel disconnected from the BLM’s land and resource management planning 

process. We have heard the process described as one characterized by long waiting 

periods punctuated by short periods in which stakeholders have to digest and 

respond to large volumes of information. This can be exacerbated by the need to 

supplement draft plans that have been in process for years when new issues are 

identified or additional information is required late in the planning process. Delays 

in BLM planning efforts increasingly consume BLM staff capacity and resources 

that could otherwise be spent addressing critical resource management priorities. 

We understand and share many of these concerns. These factors, combined with 

the changing nature of the demands on public lands and the increasingly complex 

and conflicting issues that result, served as a catalyst for the BLM to update its 

land use planning process. The effort was launched in 2014. 

CURRENT PLANNING PROCESS

The current land use planning process begins with a formal public scoping process 

to identify planning issues that should be considered in the land management plan. 

The BLM analyzes these and uses them to develop a range of alternative management strategies. 

The range of alternatives is initially presented in a draft Resource Management 

Plan (RMP) and draft environmental impact statement (EIS), in which the BLM 

must identify a preferred alternative. The release of the draft RMP and draft EIS 

is followed by a 90-day public comment period. Once comments have been reviewed 

and evaluated, the BLM revises the draft plan, as appropriate, and then releases 

a proposed RMP and final EIS. 

Release of the proposed RMP and final EIS initiates a 30-day protest period for 

any person who previously participated in the planning process and has an interest 

that is (or may be) adversely affected by the proposed plan. At the same time, the 

BLM provides the proposed plan and final EIS to the governors of those states inVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:15 Jan 10, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS\07-07-16\20697.TXT DARLEN
25 

cluded in the RMP for a 60-day consistency review period to identify inconsistencies 

with state and local plans. After inconsistencies and protests have been considered, 

the BLM State Director can approve the final RMP. 

THE PROPOSED RULE

The proposed planning rule includes some important updates and improvements 

to the current process. These changes, consistent with FLPMA, are intended to: (1) 

respond to specific, articulated issues with the current planning process; (2) improve 

opportunities for state and local governments, stakeholders, and the public to better 

provide input to plans from the outset; and (3) reduce time delays, costs, and, we 

believe, the chance of litigation. 

For example, the proposed rule would add a requirement for the development of 

a planning assessment as a first step. This planning assessment would provide an 

opportunity for the BLM, state, tribal, and local governments, stakeholders, and the 

public to work together before any scoping or drafting takes place to better understand the existing conditions in the planning area, and to identify the types of data 

and information that will be necessary during the planning process. Gathering relevant data and information would be an important part of the assessment and 

would improve understanding of key resource issues and conditions, and other 

issues in the planning area. During this phase, participants would also be able to 

provide early input into identifying the planning area boundary, and would help 

identify data to use during the planning process. 

State, tribal, and local government entities would also be invited to participate 

as cooperating agencies at this time. The special role of state, tribal, and local government entities is fully preserved in the proposed rule, and is discussed in more 

detail below. 

The rule would also add the opportunity for a public review of and input on 

preliminary alternatives before the draft RMP is written. We believe that the 

production of a planning assessment and additional opportunities for input into development of the plan alternatives would help to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of land use plans. We believe these measures could also reduce delay and the 

chances of litigation as concerns and potential conflicts between competing land and 

resource users and uses would surface earlier, and opportunities to address these 

concerns could be initiated sooner. The need for supplemental analyses and data 

gathering would be reduced. 

These planning process improvements would provide new opportunities for public 

input early in the planning process. However, they would not change the special status currently afforded to state, local, and tribal governments. Opportunities for more 

frequent check-ins with governments and stakeholders during the development of 

the draft plan would also help the BLM identify errors or missing information 

earlier in the process. 

Under the proposed rule, after an RMP has been adopted and is being implemented, the BLM would publish a summary report on the effectiveness of the plan. 

This summary report would enable state, tribal, and local governments and the public to track implementation progress. It would also enable the BLM to determine 

whether implementation strategies need to be adjusted, or if the RMP needs to be 

amended or revised to more effectively achieve management goals. 

The BLM believes that these changes will contribute to a more efficient and costeffective planning process that should reduce the amount of time and resources the 

BLM would have to spend to develop and maintain land and resource management 

plans. The BLM would be able to react more quickly to address local needs, and 

amend land use plans in ways that may be critical to enabling local economies to 

adapt to changing circumstances. 

AFFIRMING THE UNIQUE ROLE OF STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE

PLANNING PROCESS

FLPMA, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the proposed rule provide 

state, tribal, and local governments a special role in the BLM’s land use planning 

process. This role is important to the BLM in ensuring the best quality plans are 

prepared. 

First, FLPMA directs the BLM to coordinate with state, local, and tribal governments to assist in resolving inconsistencies between BLM’s land use plans and local 

land use plans, to the maximum extent consistent with Federal law and the 

purposes of FLPMA. Specifically, Section 202(c)(9) provides, in part, that, in the 

development and revision of land use plans, the BLM shall: 

to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the 

public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management 

26 

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 . . . In implementing 

this directive, the Secretary shall, to the extent the 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 non-Federal 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. 

Cooperating agencies work closely with the BLM at every stage of the planning 

process to identify issues that should be addressed, collect or analyze data, develop 

or evaluate alternatives and, of course, review preliminary documents. This unique 

partnership is provided only to governmental entities and helps the BLM develop 

a land use plan that is responsive to the needs and concerns of local communities. 

For example, after the public scoping period, the BLM would collaborate with cooperating agencies to develop a preliminary range of alternatives and rationales, 

and to identify the preliminary procedures, assumptions, and indicators to be used 

in the analysis. The BLM would make preliminary versions of these key planning 

documents available to state, tribal, and local governments and interested stakeholders for review. The BLM would use feedback gained from this opportunity to 

develop alternatives in the draft land use plan that more fully address local needs 

and the concerns and information shared by various stakeholders during the early 

stages of the planning process. 

There are no changes to the status or role of cooperating agencies being considered as part of this draft rule. The BLM is committed to continuing its collaborative 

relationship with state, tribal, and local governments, as it has, consistent with 

FLPMA. 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED PLANNING RULE AND

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE

In 2014, the BLM launched a campaign to garner feedback on the initial ideas 

for updating its land use planning rules. The capstone of that campaign was a series 

of public listening sessions in Colorado and California in the fall of 2014. Through 

that listening process, stakeholders submitted more than 6,000 written comments; 

those comments provided invaluable feedback and formed the backbone for the development of the proposed rule. The BLM also presented information on its efforts 

to improve the planning process and the proposed rule at multiple stakeholder 

events, including: the 2014 and 2015 North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference, webinars hosted by the National Association of Counties, and 

Western Governors Association meetings. 

Since the release of the proposed rule on February 11, 2016, the BLM extended 

the comment period by 30 days in response to requests from the public; hosted a 

public meeting in Colorado in March 2016; and conducted multiple webinar outreach 

sessions in March and April 2016. Recordings of all of these events are available 

for viewing on the BLM’s Web site. 

In addition to outreach to the general public, the BLM has had several conversations with National Association of Counties (NACo) members and hosted a question 

and answer session with county and state governments. The BLM hosted a question 

and answer session for county representatives at the NACo Western Interstate 

Region conference on May 27. Finally, the BLM conducted government-togovernment consultation with federally-recognized tribes and hosted an informational webinar specifically for tribal representatives in May 2016. Recently, BLM 

leadership briefed staff of the Western Governors’ Association this past weekend on 

the proposed planning rule and answered questions that they posed. 

CONCLUSION

In recent years, the BLM has received valuable feedback from state, local, and 

tribal governments, other stakeholders, and the public that its existing planning 

process takes too long, is too costly, and is difficult to follow. We take this feedback 

seriously, and recognize the need for improvements in our current planning process. 

The Planning 2.0 Initiative was developed to assess the strengths and weaknesses 

of the current planning process; identify state, local, and other stakeholder and public concerns, and to develop ‘‘fixes’’ for the issues identified in order to make the 

27 

BLM planning process more efficient, cost-effective, and relevant to the issues 

affecting public land management today—nearly 30 years since the current planning rules were formulated. The proposed BLM planning rule incorporates lessons 

learned from the development of hundreds of land use plans and feedback received 

through numerous public meetings, webinars, briefings, and conversations over the 

past 2 years. 

Fostering close working relationships with local communities and increasing 

transparency and opportunities for state and local officials, stakeholders, and the 

public to participate in the planning process earlier and more often would allow the 

BLM to develop and maintain meaningful and effective land use plans. This updated approach to planning would also allow the BLM to react more quickly to 

amend land use plans to better address local needs and changing land and resource 

conditions, to enhance local communities’ ability to adapt to changing circumstances, and ensure that the BLM can meet its legal mandate to manage the 

public lands for multiple-use and sustained yield for generations to come. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views 

of the Department of the Interior regarding the Bureau of Land Management’s 

(BLM) proposed planning rule. I am happy to answer any questions that you may 

have. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO JIM LYONS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Questions Submitted by Rep. Gohmert 

Question 1. Every state has a state forest action plan (FAP) which was publicly 

vetted, is regularly updated and which provides guidance for all ownerships. These 

plans can be viewed for any state at forestactionplans.org. (FAPs, which include assessments and strategies, were mandated per the Farm Bill.) Since these plans provide guidance for vegetation management—including riparian areas, fuels priorities, 

forest insects and disease and fire management across all ownerships, it would appear that they should be foundational documents in BLM’s planning process. 

Why are state forest action plans not specifically mentioned as primary base 

documents in BLM’s 2.0 planning process? 

Do you consider input from state government officials with primary authority for 

activities and guidance across all boundaries to have the same weight as comments 

from an individual or small NGO? 

Answer. While state forest action plans are not specifically mentioned in the proposed rule, they represent an example of the types of documents that may be gathered and reviewed during the planning assessment. The plan assessment process 

will enhance opportunities for state and local input by setting the stage for the planning process as well as enhancing the ability of local governments and other interests to gather information to help them in their own planning processes. 

The existing, proposed, and final rule include provisions for the special relationship and involvement of cooperating agencies and coordination with other Federal 

agencies, state and local governments and Indian tribes. Specifically, under the proposed rule, to the maximum extent practical and consistent with FLPMA and other 

Federal laws, BLM Land Use Plans must be consistent with those of local, state, 

Federal, and tribal governments. 

Question 2. During the hearing, Representative Labrador asked if states other 

than Idaho have requested the withdrawal or substantive rewriting of the proposed 

rule . . . 

To this you replied, ‘‘We have heard from a number of states who are concerned 

about the rule. [. . .]’’ 

Afterward, Mr. Labrador asked you, ‘‘and have they specifically made request to 

just start the process over? ’’ 

To this you replied, ‘‘I would have to check on the specifics, Congressman.’’ 

Please provide a list of the states below that requested withdrawal or re-writing 

of the rule. Specifically include information about what each state requested and 

their reasoning for the request. 

Answer. The state of Alaska requested that the BLM revise the proposed rule and 

allow for an additional public review and comment period on that revision. Alaska 

expressed support for the goals of increased public involvement, efficiency, clarity, 

and transparency, but expressed concern that the proposed rule would create delays 

in the planning process. Alaska expressed additional concern that the planning rule 

28 

would not address issues unique to their state and may further complicate issues 

related to subsistence, economic development, and implementation of other Federal 

laws including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). 

The states of Idaho and New Mexico requested that the BLM withdraw the 

proposed rule, contending that BLM did not sufficiently consult with state 

governments. 

The state of Nevada requested that the BLM amend the proposed rule to address 

its concerns that the proposed rule reduced transparency, diminished the role of coordination with state and local governments, and should have allowed for more 

input from western states. 

The state of Utah requested that the BLM withdraw the proposed rule for analysis under NEPA, or amend the proposed rule where necessary to address concerns 

regarding coordination of land management with state and local governments and 

to ensure the role of cooperating agencies in planning. 

The state of Wyoming requested that the BLM withdraw the proposed rule because many of the goals the BLM expressed are accomplishable under existing regulations and suggested that the BLM better clarify the opportunities for cooperation, 

coordination, and public involvement in the planning process. 

Question 3. During the hearing, I asked about state’s primacy over allocation and 

administration of water resources within their respective borders, ‘‘[. . .] the BLM 

proposals here indicate the agency may [. . .] add provisions to its RMPs to increase 

agency involvement in water management. Specifically, what aspects of water management allocation would BLM incorporate into the future in new or amended 

RMPs? ’’ 

To this you replied, ‘‘[. . .] I am actually not aware of that,’’ and, ‘‘I am going to 

have to do a little homework and try to understand where the impression came 

from.’’ 

Please provide information about what aspects of water management allocation 

BLM would incorporate into new or amended RMPs. 

Answer. The rule does not indicate or imply that BLM will increase its involvement in water management and does not discuss water management allocations. 

The rule does incorporate language from FLPMA to identify general management 

objectives in the planning regulations, specifically that the BLM manage public 

lands, ‘‘to protect the quality of [. . .] water resource[s].’’ The preamble to the proposed rule provided both surface water and groundwater as examples of water resources for establishing baseline conditions in the planning area as part of Section 

1610.4—Planning Assessment, but it does not increase agency involvement in water 

resource management. 

Question 4. Please provide specific information about the pilot program for BLM 

2.0, including information about where it was implemented, any guidelines used to 

assess its outcome, involvement of state and local governments in the pilot program, 

and information about state and local government reactions to the pilot program 

pilot program. 

Answer. The BLM has applied some principles of Planning 2.0 in several new 

plan revision efforts, particularly the principle of early and frequent public involvement and planning at appropriate scales. These new planning revisions currently 

underway include the Eastern Colorado RMP, the Missoula RMP, and the Northwestern California Integrated RMP. The response to these planning efforts has been 

extremely supportive. Local governments and the public have expressed strong support for the upfront engagement of the public during the planning assessment 

phase. 

Question 5. How is it appropriate for the BLM to employ a NEPA Categorical 

Exclusion process for a proposed rule that is controversial and contrary to the congressional intent and language of FLPMA? Why is BLM using a CatEx for a rule 

affecting over 245 million acres of land and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral 

estate when the BLM requires a higher level of NEPA review for much smaller 

projects, such as a 1-acre telecommunications site? 

Answer. As described in the categorical exclusion documentation for the rule, the 

existing and final planning rules are entirely procedural in character. The BLM believes the categorical exclusion is the proper form of NEPA compliance for this 

action under 43 CFR 46.210(i). As discussed in the documentation, The actual planning decisions reached through the planning process are themselves subject to compliance with NEPA’s analytical requirements as well as with the statute’s public 

involvement elements. For this reason, the BLM’s reliance upon this categorical exclusion is appropriate. 

29 

Question 6. Has at least one public hearing been held in each state where the proposed rules would apply? How has your process consistent with Executive Order 

13563 which states that ‘‘regulations must be based on the best available science 

and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas.’’ 

Answer. Formal public hearings were not conducted in each state where the rule 

would apply. The rule complies with Executive Order 13563. With respect to public 

participation, the BLM launched the Planning 2.0 initiative in May 2014 by seeking 

public input on how the land use planning process could be improved. The BLM developed a Web site for the initiative (www.blm.gov/plan2) and issued a national 

press release with information on how to provide input to the agency. The BLM held 

public listening sessions in Denver, Colorado (October 1, 2014) and Sacramento, 

California (October 7, 2014). Both meetings were led by a third-party facilitator and 

were available to remote participants through a live broadcast of the event over the 

Internet via livestream. The goals of these meetings were to share information 

about the Planning 2.0 initiative with interested members of the public, to provide 

a forum for dialogue about the initiative, and to receive input from the public on 

how best to achieve the goals of the initiative. Prior to issuing the proposed rule, 

the BLM conducted outreach to BLM partners. Outreach included multiple briefings 

provided to the Federal Advisory Committee Act chartered RACs; a briefing for 

State Governor representatives coordinated through the Western Governors Association; a briefing for State Fish and Wildlife Agency representatives coordinated 

through the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; multiple briefings for other 

Federal agencies; a Webinar for interested local government representatives coordinated through the National Association of Counties; and meetings with other interested parties upon request. 

Following publication of the proposed rule, the BLM held one public meeting in 

Denver, Colorado (March 2016) and two Webinar meetings. All meetings were led 

by a third-party facilitator and were available to remote participants through a live 

broadcast of the event over the Internet or through Webinar access. The goal of 

these meetings was to share information about the proposed rule and answer questions from the public as they prepared their response to comments. During the 

comment period on the proposed rule, the BLM also held a Webinar for interested 

local government representatives coordinated through the National Association of 

Counties. The BLM also held meetings with other interested parties upon request. 

Question 7. Section 202(c)(9) of the Federal Land Policy Management Act 

(FLPMA) requires meaningful coordination with counties. County Leaders represent 

all of their constituents and must have continued government to government communications as the FLPMA Section 202(c)(9) coordination statute provides. Section 

202(c)(9) provides counties with meaningful involvement with BLM as it prepares 

and conducts significant Federal actions, such as changing land use plans. Why does 

the proposed rule relegate counties to the same stature and status as any nongovernment entity (NGO) instead of maintaining their status under FLPMA? 

Answer. FLPMA requires that the BLM keep apprised of state, local and tribal 

land use plans and assist in resolving, to the extent practical and consistent with 

Federal law, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans 

(see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9). The provisions in the rule that address coordination and 

consistency afford state, local, and tribal governments the opportunity to coordinate 

with the BLM in the development of resource management plans, with the goal of 

increasing consistency between Federal, state, local, and tribal land use plans. 

State, local, and tribal governments that have special expertise or jurisdiction by 

law (see 40 CFR § 1501.6 and 43 CFR § 46.230) are also invited to partner with the 

BLM in developing resource management plans as cooperating agencies. In most 

cases, formal cooperating agencies have access to preliminary and deliberative draft 

documents that are not routinely made available to the public. 

Under existing rules, state and local governments that do not participate as cooperating agencies may review planning documents when they are made available 

to the general public with the draft resource management plan. The rule provides 

additional opportunities to these state and local governments to review planning 

documents including: (1) the planning assessment report; (2) the preliminary statement of purpose and need; (3) the preliminary range of alternatives; (4) the preliminary rationale for alternatives; and (5) the preliminary basis for analysis. 

Question 8. How can the BLM institute ‘‘landscape level planning’’ but avoid ‘‘onesize-fits-all’’ solutions that do not work due to variables on the landscape? 

Answer. Although the BLM currently uses the field office as the default planning 

area, in practice the BLM plans at the most appropriate and relevant scale for the 

30 

resource and management issues being addressed in an individual planning effort. 

The intent of the final planning rule is to ensure that the BLM avoids a ‘‘one-sizefits-all’’ approach by considering all relevant scales in its planning process, rather 

than defaulting to a field office scale. The BLM would continue to consider impacts 

on local conditions and local economies, as well as impacts at regional and national 

scales during individual planning efforts. The BLM believes it is appropriate and 

necessary for a deciding official to consider all relevant scales and information before rendering a decision. 

Question 9. Logically, land management decisions should be made at the level 

closest to the lands being managed. Will this rule create the scenario where the 

BLM Director becomes the deciding official and the planning activity becomes removed from the local area to be undertaken by a project team of Washington, DC 

bureaucrats responsible only to the Director? 

Answer. The BLM will continue to select line-officers who are highly qualified for 

any given decisionmaking process. The BLM takes seriously the responsibility of a 

line-officer to make well-informed decisions and consider the impacts such decisions 

have on the public and the public lands. The BLM’s commitment to qualified and 

well-informed decisionmaking will not change under the proposed planning rule. 

Question 10. The current BLM rules contain a definition of ‘‘consistent,’’ that the 

‘‘Bureau of Land Management plans will adhere to the terms, conditions, and decisions of officially approved and adopted resource related plans, or in their absence, 

with policies and programs, subject to the qualifications in Section 1615.2 of this 

title.’’ Why is this definition being removed? 

Answer. The rule removes the definition of the term consistent because the definition is unnecessary as it is commonly used terminology. Section 1610.3–2 of the rule 

describes the requirements for consistency and would require that RMPs be consistent with state and local plans to the extent practical and consistent with Federal 

laws, including the FLPMA. 

Question 11. The current rule emphasizes that the impact of BLM land use 

decisions ‘‘on local economies, uses of adjacent or nearby non-Federal lands and on 

non-public land surface over federally-owned mineral interests shall be considered.’’ 

Why is the proposed rule written to erode the importance of protecting local 

economies and uses on nearby non-Federal lands and shift the focus to the ‘‘impacts 

of resource management plans on resource, environmental, ecological, social, and 

economic conditions at appropriate scales.’’ 

Answer. Consideration of resource, environmental, ecological, social and economic 

conditions is consistent with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield and 

therefore consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Multiple 

use, as defined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, includes ‘‘the 

management of public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the 

American people.’’ Consistent with FLPMA, the BLM must seek to understand the 

present and future needs of the American people, and the assessment of resource, 

environmental, ecological, social and economic conditions is an important tool to 

help the BLM understand the present and future needs of the American people at 

the local, regional, or national scale. The rule requires that all values associated 

with the management of public lands (i.e., environmental, ecological, social and economic) be considered, as appropriate, through the planning process. 

Question 12. Section 1610.3–2(b)(4)(ii) of the proposed rule, Consistency Review: 

(Page 9705 of the Federal Register Notice) is proposed to read that ‘‘The Director 

will consider the Governor(s)’ comments in rendering a final decision. The Director 

will notify the Governor(s) in writing of his or her decision regarding the Governor’s 

appeal. The BLM will notify the public of this decision and make the written decision available to the public.’’ In Planning 2.0, the BLM proposes to eliminate existing rule language requiring the BLM Director to accept the recommendations of the 

Governor(s) if the BLM Director determines that the recommendations ‘‘provide for 

a reasonable balance between the national interest and the state’s interest.’’ Why 

is the BLM no longer seeking to reach a reasonable balance between the national 

interests and state or local interests? 

Answer. The rule states that the BLM Director will consider the Governor(s)’ 

appeal and the consistency requirements of this section of the rule in rendering a 

decision. The proposed change would reflect that the BLM Director must consider 

many factors when rendering a decision, including whether the Governor(s)’ recommendations are consistent with Federal laws and regulations applicable to public 

lands, such as FLPMA. 

31 

Question 13. The BLM proposes, in the planning assessment, to no longer consider 

‘‘the estimated sustained levels of the various goods, services and uses that may be 

attained.’’ Instead, the BLM proposes to identify ‘‘the various goods and services 

that people obtain from the planning area, including ecological services.’’ 

Why is the BLM proposing to change the original purpose and intent of this section to measure the impact of BLM decisions against the objectively quantifiable 

value of tangible goods and services, such as minerals or timber; that could be lost 

as a result of the decision and instead throw in the concept of ecological services, 

which cannot be objectively or accurately quantified for comparison? 

Answer. Goods and services include a range of values and human uses of the resources provided by and derived from management of the public lands. However, determining the value of these goods and services is difficult and affected by many 

factors including markets, the state of the economy, and other variables. Benefits 

resulting from proper management of ecosystems, such as flood control from intact 

wetlands and carbon sequestration from healthy forests are referred to as ‘‘ecological 

services.’’ Some commodities sold in markets, for example, forest products resulting 

from timber production, are more easily valued. Others, such as wetlands protection 

and carbon sequestration, are not commonly valued in the marketplace but do provide tangible benefits and valuable services (e.g., flood control); they provide nonmarket values. The BLM does have guidance based on established practices for 

estimating non-market values for ecosystem goods and services for the purposes of 

comparison. The language included in the rule is simply intended to ensure that all 

goods and services derived from the proper management of public land resources are 

identified in the planning process, beginning with the planning assessment. 

Question 14. Why is the BLM proposing to remove from the Planning Assessment 

a requirement for the BLM to analyze ‘‘specific requirements and constraints to 

achieve consistency with policies, plans and programs of other Federal agencies, 

state and local government agencies and Indian tribes? ’’ 

Answer. The BLM did propose removing this provision of the plan assessment because at that early stage in the planning process, the BLM usually does not have 

sufficient information to identify ‘‘requirements and constraints’’ related to consistency, as the BLM would not yet have developed management alternatives for the 

area. Under the final rule, the BLM would require that as part of the planning assessment for an individual planning effort, the BLM identify relevant national, regional or local policies, guidance strategies or plans; in response to public comment, 

the final rule includes language identifying that constraints for achieving consistency would be addressed as planning issues during the scoping process. 

Question 15. Section 1610.4–4 of the existing rule directs the BLM Field Manager 

to analyze the management situation. The manager is to keep multiple use principles in mind as alternatives are formed. As part of the AMS process, the manager 

is to consider the degree of local dependence on resources from public lands. 

The proposed rules do away with the Analysis of the Management Situation and 

replace this step with the Planning Assessment. However, in the Planning Assessment, the focus of the assessment shifts from the concept of multiple use and 

resource development on public lands to preserving ‘‘ecological services.’’ 

How is this shift in focus consistent with congressional intent when FLPMA came 

into effect in 1976? 

Answer. In the planning assessment process in the rule, rather than consider the 

‘‘degree of local dependence on resources from public lands’’ (from existing 

§ 1610.4(g)), the BLM would instead consider ‘‘the degree of local, regional, national, 

or international importance of these goods, services, and uses’’ (from proposed 

§ 1610.4(d)(7)(i)). ‘‘Resources’’ would be replaced with ‘‘goods, services, and uses’’ to 

provide a more precise explanation of what the BLM considers with regard to those 

resources. The BLM believes that the use of more precise terminology in the regulations will improve understanding of this provision. The BLM does not intend for this 

change to change the meaning of this provision. The language in the rule is simply 

intended to ensure that all goods and services derived from the proper management 

of public lands and resources are identified and considered in the planning process. 

Question 16. During one of the recent Webinars associated with the planning 

rules; a question was posed whether one has to be a U.S. citizen to comment on 

the proposed rules. The answer was no; that anyone could comment. During a recent RMP process in Utah, there were approximately 68,000 comments received by 

the BLM; with approximately 11,000 of those comments being from outside of the 

country. Is the BLM willing to include provisions in the proposed rule to somehow 

give greater credence to the views of local elected officials and stakeholders over the 

32 

views of those with no direct connection to the land other than responding to a request to submit a form letter on behalf of a special interest group? 

Answer. Under the rule, and consistent with the previous planning rule, local, 

state, tribal, and Federal governments are afforded special consideration not afforded to other general members of the public such as foreign nationals. Specifically 

under the rule, to the maximum extent practical and consistent with FLPMA and 

other Federal laws, BLM Resource Management Plans must be consistent with 

those of local, state, Federal and tribal governments. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Dingell 

Question 1. The Bureau of Land Management’s Planning 2.0 initiative is an impressive undertaking. The proposed regulations will affect every facet of BLM land 

use planning and management. The U.S. Forest Service promulgated a similar rule 

in 2012, analyzing the many, significant environmental, economic and effects of the 

rule in more than 1,300 pages of environmental impact statements under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. How did the BLM decide that its equally expansive rule was excluded from review under NEPA? Would alternative analysis under 

NEPA have helped contribute to stronger proposed and final regulations? 

Answer. As described in the preliminary categorical exclusion documentation for 

the proposed rule, the Department of the Interior categorical exclusion at 43 CFR 

§ 46.210 is applicable to this action. The existing planning rule is entirely procedural 

in character and the amendment of this rule is entirely procedural. The amendment 

does not develop or amend any land use plans; any future revisions, plans or 

amendments will be subject to NEPA analysis, including appropriate public involvement, before any decision affecting the management of the public lands is made. 

Further, there are no extraordinary circumstances that would preclude the use of 

a categorical exclusion. For this reason, the BLM’s reliance upon the DOI categorical exclusion is appropriate. The BLM planning regulations are distinguishable 

from the 2012 Forest Service planning rule, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

and the Department of the Interior have different categorical exclusions. 

Question 2. In promulgating its similar planning rule, the Forest Service also 

heeded direction in the Endangered Species Act to manage public lands and resources in a manner that contributes to conservation and recovery of threatened and 

endangered species and specifically referenced the ESA in its rule, and even consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

on the potential of its regulation to support listed species conservation. By comparison, neither the BLM’s proposed rule nor the agency’s description of it even mentions the ESA. How does the agency intend to improve the final regulation to ensure 

that it achieves congressional mandates in the ESA to protect and recover listed 

plants and animals? 

Answer. While not specifically addressed in the rule, the BLM must comply with 

the Endangered Species Act, including Section 7 consultation requirements for actions that may affect a federally listed species or designated critical habitat. 

Additionally, the BLM planning regulations establish the procedures for developing 

and amending resource management plans and do not approve any land use plans 

or plan amendment or authorize any particular projects. The BLM will continue to 

comply with the ESA when it completes future individual planning efforts and will 

continue to address listed species during these future planning efforts. For example, 

under the procedures for plan development and amendment in the proposed rule, 

during future planning, the BLM would identify areas of potential importance 

through the identification of potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs) and other means such as habitat for federally-listed threatened and endangered species. 

Question 3. Was there anything else you wanted to say or respond to from the 

hearing? 

Answer. Planning 2.0 was developed to respond to concerns and criticisms of the 

existing planning process (which had not been revised for nearly three decades); to 

respond to state, local, and other stakeholder and public concerns; and to make the 

BLM planning process more efficient, cost-effective, and relevant to the issues affecting public land management today. The rule will allow the BLM to react more 

quickly to amend land use plans to better address local needs and changing land 

and resource conditions and ensure that the BLM can meet its mandate to manage 

the public lands on the basis of multiple-use and sustained yield, through a more 

open, transparent, and inclusive planning process. 

33 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Polis 

Question 1. Mr. Lyons, in your view, how does Planning 2.0 increase the transparency of the BLM land use planning process? How does Planning 2.0 help to ensure that the draft RMP more closely meets the expectations of stakeholders? There 

is no doubt that local input and concerns are highly important when planning for 

BLM-managed lands. Would the BLM’s proposed rule take away these special participation opportunities from states and local governments? 

Answer. The rule increases the transparency of the land use planning process by 

establishing more frequent check-ins with stakeholders. These frequent check-ins 

provide stakeholders the opportunity to review preliminary documents before they 

are formalized and provides the BLM an opportunity to engage in ongoing dialogue 

with stakeholders to better understand their needs, concerns, and expectations. By 

working closely with stakeholders throughout the duration of the planning process, 

the BLM will be better able to respond to stakeholders. 

Question 2. Mr. Lyons, help the committee to understand how ‘landscape level’ 

planning allows land managers to better tackle pressing natural resource concerns 

at an appropriate scale? 

Answer. The rule provides for an open and transparent process; supports assessment and management at appropriate scales; supports the use of the best available 

scientific information in planning; and applies principles of adaptive management. 

Key to this process is developing land use plans at a scale that is based on resource 

management concerns and the issues being addressed. We saw this with sage 

grouse, whose range covers 11 states and requires a coordinated, comprehensive, 

science-based conservation strategy as we developed leading to a ‘‘not warranted’’ 

decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Similarly, dealing with invasive species like cheatgrass across a larger landscape is essential for reducing the risk of 

rangeland fire across the Great Basin where it constitutes a significant threat to 

ranchers and rural communities. 

Question 3. Mr. Lyons, the agency has certainly received a lot of feedback from 

stakeholders on the proposal; what is the agency’s plan for incorporating that feedback to help ensure that the final rule works best for local governments, the public, 

the agency itself, and the natural resources the agency manages? 

Answer. The BLM received over 400 unique comments from members of the public, state and local governments, other Federal agencies, and tribal governments. We 

analyzed those comments and considered all suggestions made. As part of the rulemaking effort, we will publish a response to all substantive comments, along with 

the rationale for why we did or did not incorporate suggested changes. 

Question 4. Mr. Lyons, we know that things like wildlife, rivers and people do not 

just stop at state and field office boundaries but migrate or otherwise span political 

boundaries. I’m glad to hear that the BLM is seriously thinking about commonsense ways to plan for use and conservation of our public lands rather than rely 

on political boundaries. 

Question 4a. Can these planning ‘‘landscapes’’ be either larger or smaller areas 

as needed? 

Answer. The rule permits BLM land managers to determine the most appropriate 

planning area given the issues and resources that are affected. That is the most efficacious way of developing plans and involving all jurisdictions that may be affected 

by management decisions on that landscape. Through an open and transparent 

process, using the best available scientific information, and informed by a robust 

planning assessment, the BLM can determine the most appropriate planning area 

for any given set of management issues. While appropriate planning areas may be 

larger or smaller than the typical field-office boundary, in considering the resources 

needed to conduct effective land use planning, it is likely that the BLM will more 

often conduct planning at a field office or larger scale. 

Question 4b. How will local expertise and input be integrated into landscape level 

planning? 

Answer. Under the rule, the BLM would add several new opportunities for the 

interested citizens and stakeholders to engage with the BLM during the planning 

process, including development of a (1) planning assessment; (2) preliminary statement of purpose and need; (3) preliminary range of alternatives; (4) preliminary rationale for alternatives; and (5) preliminary basis for analysis. At each of these 

stages, individuals with local expertise would be invited to provide input either as 

34 

a cooperating agency (if an eligible governmental entity) or through public involvement opportunities during these stages of the planning process. 

Question 4c. Can you discuss some of the ways that this landscape level planning 

would benefit the public lands? 

Answer. The BLM manages a diverse range of natural resources, which occur at 

an equally diverse range of scales, and it collaborates with a diversity of partners, 

stakeholders and communities who work at different scales. For these reasons, the 

BLM planning process must enable consideration of issues and opportunities at 

multiple scales and across traditional management boundaries. Some of the management concerns that may benefit from a landscape approach to decisionmaking 

include those that cross traditional administrative boundaries, such as wildfire, 

wildlife, water resources, energy development, and transmission. 

Question 4d. And how it would provide for more meaningful input from 

stakeholders invested in the management of public lands? 

Answer. The rule increases opportunities for meaningful public involvement in 

several ways. First, during the planning assessment, the BLM must gather and consider public input before initiating formal planning. This provides local citizens and 

stakeholders with the opportunity to engage at the very beginning of the planning 

process—before issues are identified or alternatives are considered. The rule also 

establishes new opportunities for stakeholders to review preliminary planning documents prior to the formal public comment period for a draft plan or draft amendment. These new steps afford the public additional opportunities to track the BLM 

planning process as it develops and would provide them with more time to review 

preliminary documents before drafts are issued. The BLM believes that these new 

opportunities will promote meaningful involvement in the planning process by increasing the transparency of the process. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Lyons. 

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

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, DIRECTOR, UTAH 

PUBLIC LANDS POLICY COORDINATING OFFICE, SALT LAKE 

CITY, UTAH 

Ms. CLARKE. Chairman Bishop, Chairman Gohmert, Ranking 

Member Dingell, and members of the subcommittee, I am honored 

to be here today and want to thank you for this opportunity. I am 

here today to voice my strong opposition to BLM Planning 2.0. I 

come to my position based on my 30-plus years of experience with 

public land issues, and also having served as the Director of the 

BLM for 5 years. 

It is my sincere belief and my experience that BLM planning is 

most effective and durable when the BLM works side by side with 

counties and states to understand land management challenges 

and opportunities. 

When I was at the BLM, I felt so strongly about this partnership 

that I made a point of creating a BLM rule that mandates a rigorous, cooperative engagement with state and county officials. 

State agencies bring data, expertise, and a history with the land 

that BLM does not have. In my opinion, BLM Planning 2.0 will 

fundamentally undermine the role of state and county governments 

in their planning. 

Although the official position of the BLM and the Department is 

that the planning rule will not impact the BLM’s relationships with 

cooperators, in practice, I believe that the rule, as proposed, will 

significantly marginalize the role of cooperators and dramatically 

diminish their influence. 

35 

The BLM proposes a shift in planning philosophy toward landscape scale management. Planning areas will not be fixed as they 

are now, but may be arbitrarily designed by BLM officials. For 

example, such a policy, if adopted, could lead to a Colorado plateau 

resource management plan that would include three or four different states or portions of those states. 

This sort of multi-state management will force the BLM to juggle 

consistency with several different policy positions of multiple governors. I believe this proposal will prevent the kind of close coordination that was envisioned by Congress when they enacted 

FLPMA; and the biggest losers from this proposal will be state governments and the landscapes themselves, which require highly 

localized and fine-tuned management. 

Right now, I have a very strong relationship with the BLM 

Director acting in Utah, Jenna Whitlock. It is troublesome to me 

that BLM Planning 2.0 would diminish her decisionmaking authority, or at least it could, because it creates some ambiguous role for 

a deciding official, which does not have to be someone who has 

worked in or is familiar with the state. 

The BLM also proposes a similar dilution of the role of its field 

managers, which right now are closely aligned with county commissions. They work together as partners, not as adversaries. This 

vague shift in policy power could possibly bring someone in to 

make decisions that has no experience with the land and does not 

understand the culture or the land of the state of Utah. 

Another very troubling matter is this planning assessment business. The problem is that the BLM does not propose any additional 

coordination with state or elected officials. Under the proposed 

rule, state and local governments would have the very same role 

during the planning assessment as environmental organizations, 

special interest groups, and the general public. If unelected special 

interest groups have an equal seat at the table during the planning 

assessment, the role of state and local government as cooperators 

will inherently be diminished. Key decisions and directions will 

likely have been set before cooperating agencies ever have a chance 

to sit down with the BLM and work through their particular 

concerns. 

The BLM says it wants to better understand public values, but 

it is interesting that it then chooses to ignore the fact that the citizens within the given jurisdiction have elected their leaders to 

faithfully represent their values and protect their interests. They 

are the voices of the public opinion and the public interest. They 

are elected by a majority of their voters to comply with both the 

letter and the spirit of the law. I think BLM needs to modify this 

significantly. 

I believe this has the potential to undo many good relationships 

which are so important in the West, and we would ask the BLM 

to withdraw the rule and to work closely with cooperators if they 

feel, indeed, a need to modify it. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clarke follows:] 

36 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, DIRECTOR, UTAH PUBLIC LANDS

POLICY COORDINATING OFFICE

Chairman Bishop, Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Dingell, and members of 

the subcommittee, I am honored to be here and thank you for this opportunity. 

I am here today to voice my strong opposition to BLM Planning 2.0. It is my experience that BLM planning is most effective and durable when the BLM works side 

by side with states and counties to understand land management challenges and opportunities. When I was at the BLM, I felt so strongly about this that we developed 

a rule that mandates a process for rigorous cooperative engagement with state and 

county officials. State agencies bring data, expertise, and a history with the land 

that the BLM doesn’t have. County commissioners are able to articulate the interests of the people they have been elected to represent. While the system is not perfect, Utah has many examples of truly effective cooperation between the BLM and 

state and local governments that has resulted in workable compromises and practical solutions that are good for both the land and the people. 

In my opinion BLM Planning 2.0 will fundamentally undermine the role of state 

and county governments in BLM planning. Although the official position of the BLM 

is that the planning rule will not impact the BLM’s relationships with cooperating 

agencies, in practice, I believe that the rule as proposed will significantly 

marginalize the role of cooperators and will dramatically diminish their influence. 

Let me share with you a few examples. 

The BLM proposes a shift in planning philosophy toward what it calls ‘‘landscape 

scale management.’’ This is planning on a large scale that may extend across state 

borders. Planning areas will not be fixed as they are now, but will be established 

arbitrarily by BLM officials. For example, such a policy, if adopted, could very well 

lead to a Great Basin Resource Management Plan that includes portions of both 

Utah and Nevada. Or it could lead to a Colorado Plateau Resource Management 

Plan that includes three or four different states. This sort of multi-state management will force the BLM to juggle consistency with several different state land use 

plans. It will have to consider and respond to different policy positions of multiple 

governors. I believe that this proposal for multi-state landscape management will 

prevent the kind of close coordination between an individual state and the BLM 

that Congress envisioned in FLPMA. The biggest losers from this proposal will be 

state governments and the actual landscapes, which require highly localized and 

fine-tuned management. 

Utah possesses an incredibly diverse array of small, unique landscapes. They need 

specialized attention from the BLM. To be successful, land management must offer 

a plan for stewardship, monitoring, and funding for land treatments. Effective management plans require local input and expertise, not one-size-fits-all directives for 

large multi-state areas. BLM planning should encourage greater specification for 

small landscapes contained within a single state. Without the engagement and buyin of state and county elected officials in BLM planning, support for BLM plans will 

be diminished and success compromised. 

BLM 2.0 also proposes to weaken the role of its own State Directors and Field 

Office Mangers. Currently, the Utah BLM Director has broad decisionmaking authority within the state, which allows for strong partnerships with state elected officials and their representatives. I have a very positive relationship with the BLM’s 

Acting State Director in Utah, Jenna Whitlock. I see her often and we communicate 

regularly. This close association has allowed both of us to understand the different 

sides of a problem, make compromises, and resolve difficult issues resulting in winwin solutions. Unfortunately, BLM Planning 2.0 could strip BLM State Directors of 

much of their decisionmaking authority, putting it in the hands of what the BLM 

calls ‘‘deciding officials.’’ These deciders could be anyone, such as a bureaucrat in 

Washington, DC or some other third party brought in for a specific land use plan. 

There appears to be no requirement that the deciding official live in Utah or have 

real life experience with Utah lands or culture. The relationship of trust that currently exists between BLM state directors and state elected officials will be fractured as more BLM decision are made by BLM with employees with no ties to 

affected states. 

The BLM proposes a similar dilution to the role of its field office managers. 

Currently, the boundaries of most BLM field offices closely align with county borders. This facilitates effective cooperation between BLM field office managers and 

county commissioners. I know county commissioners who consider local BLM field 

office managers and staff to be personal friends. They meet often and resolve issues 

as partners, not as adversaries. But under BLM Planning 2.0, field office managers 

may be relegated to the side-lines, making room for what the BLM calls ‘‘responsible 

officials.’’ This vague policy could shift decisionmaking power to far-removed BLM 

37 

employees who have no history with the planning area and will never experience 

the real-world impact of his or her decisionmaking. The BLM should withdraw this 

proposal so as to not impair these critical relationships between state directors, field 

office managers, and elected state and county officials. 

Another very troubling matter proposed in BLM 2.0 is the introduction of a new 

step in the agency’s planning process. They call this step the ‘‘Planning Assessment.’’ The BLM purports that this ‘‘planning assessment’’ will ‘‘help the BLM 

better understand public values.’’ The ‘‘planning assessment’’ will include open public meetings at the very beginning of a planning process. The problem is that the 

BLM doesn’t propose any additional coordination with elected state or county officials. Under the proposed rule, state and local governments would have the same 

role during the ‘‘planning assessment’’ as environmental organizations, special interest groups, and the general public. If unelected special interest groups have an 

equal seat at the table during the ‘‘planning assessment,’’ the role of state and local 

governments as cooperators will inherently be diminished. Key decisions and direction will likely have already been set before cooperating agencies ever have a chance 

to meet privately with the BLM. 

The BLM says that it wants to better understand public values, but chooses to 

ignore the fact that the citizens within a given jurisdiction have elected their leaders to faithfully represent their values and protect their interests. Elected officials 

rightly represent the values of the majority of voters in their jurisdiction, not the 

values of the loudest, most well-funded interest groups. To comply with both the letter and the spirit of FLPMA and NEPA, the BLM must provide for formal coordination with state and local governments from the very beginning of its planning 

process. 

FLPMA explicitly requires that BLM plans be consistent with local land use 

plans, policies, and programs. Unfortunately, the BLM’s proposed rule requires the 

BLM to be consistent only with ‘‘official approved or adopted land use plans’’ of state 

and local governments, and allows the BLM to disregard land use ‘‘policies and 

programs’’ of state and local governments. This proposal is illegal as it is a clear 

violation of FLPMA. Not all counties have ‘‘officially approved or adopted land use 

plans,’’ and the BLM cannot ignore the consistency requirements in FLPMA merely 

because a county has a land use ‘‘program’’ or ‘‘policy’’ instead of an official ‘‘plan.’’ 

Utah is rapidly working to create official land use plans in all of its counties, but 

this proposal could do great damage to rural counties all across the West that lack 

the resources to create official land use plans. 

CONCLUSION

BLM Planning 2.0 has the potential to undue much of what currently works in 

BLM planning, and opens the door to a host of other problems and conflicts. We 

ask that the BLM withdraw the proposed rule and work with their legally identified 

cooperating agencies to consider a new rule that enhances state and Federal 

cooperation and trust. 

Thank you. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. GOHMERT TO KATHLEEN CLARKE, 

DIRECTOR, UTAH PUBLIC LANDS POLICY COORDINATING OFFICE

Question 1. During the hearing I asked ‘‘if you have specific instances that you 

can find where the rules have worked a hardship, then let us know those. Please 

send us those in the days ahead,’’ in regards to rules promulgated by the BLM. 

Please list specific instances where rules promulgated by the BLM have led to 

compliance hardships for either state, local, or municipal officials. 

Answer. It was a privilege to testify before the members on the ‘‘State’s 

Perspectives on BLM’s Draft Planning 2.0 Rule.’’ As a follow up to my testimony, 

you had asked that we provide specific examples of BLM’s regulations that have 

caused a hardship to the state of Utah (State). I have chosen a few specific examples 

that are discussed in detail below. However, there are multiple examples of practices and regulations enacted by the BLM’s Washington, DC office that have 

harmed, and will continue to harm, Utah’s wonderful economy and lifestyle. The 

practices identified below, however, highlight the ongoing practice of the BLM to 

usurp local control of resources and authority, unlawfully and unilateral ignore congressional mandates of multiple-use and sustained yield. They continue to illegally 

implement practices that result in a preservation of resources, in lieu of allowing 

for use and conservation of resources, as intended by Congress. If you have any 

38 

questions with regards to my testimony, or if you would like me to further highlight 

other BLM rules, regulations, and practices that harm the State and our citizens, 

I will provide such upon request. 

I. Sage-grouse Land Use Plans 

In 2015, the BLM developed land use plans (Land Use Plans) to manage the 

greater sage-grouse in Utah, and across the West. The Land Use Plans, developed 

and finalized by the BLM in September, 2015, have and will continue to cause unnecessary regulatory burden and hardship on the State. The Lands Use Plans have 

resulted in economic uncertainty, administrative delays, and setbacks, and utilize 

tools and ideas that are not based on local and relevant scientific research and 

known management practices. Since 2006, Utah has invested over $50 million dollars into greater sage-grouse 

conservation, management and research. In 2013, after much collaboration with 

stakeholders, including the BLM, the State approved a revised comprehensive conservation plan for sage-grouse (State Plan). The State Plan protects core sage-grouse 

habitat, known as Sage-grouse Management Areas (SGMA), on over 7.5 million 

acres across the State. The goal of the State Plan is to conserve 90 percent of the 

State’s greater sage-grouse habitat and approximately 94 percent of the population. 

The State Plan builds on the legacy of utilizing state biologists, university researchers, land managers, local working groups and Federal partnerships to manage sagegrouse. To date, the State has enhanced and restored more than 620,000 acres of 

sage-grouse habitat, protected over 25,000 acres of habitat using conservation easements and land transfers since 2013, and most importantly, has increased sagegrouse populations by at least 56 percent. 

The economic impacts to the State, from the Land Use Plans, are very clear. The 

BLM’s Land Use Plans specifically regulate over 2.5 million acres in Utah for a species that is not federally protected under the Endangered Species Act. Currently, almost $3 billion dollars’ worth of economic activity occurs annually in Utah within 

sage-grouse habitat. Over 13,071 Utahans depend upon energy development or resource use and extraction on public and private lands in sage-grouse range as their 

livelihood. The work by those Utahns results in approximately $830.9 million in 

earnings. Coal, oil, natural gas, renewable energy and other mining activities within 

Utah’s sage-grouse range account for $224 million in earnings annually. Similarly, 

livestock production on private, state and Federal lands in sage-grouse range accounts for approximately $52.9 million in earnings. The financial harm and burden 

resulting from the Land Use Plans will ultimately harm Utah’s local economies. 

Just a few of the most noticeable economic impacts from the Land Use Plans 

include: 

Limited oil, gas, and mining on Federal lands. The BLM’s Land Use Plans do not 

allow for any new oil, gas, or mining operations to occur on Federal lands within 

areas designated as Sage-brush Focal Areas. However, most of these Sage-brush 

Focal areas do not actually have sage-grouse populations. In areas designated as 

Priority Habitat, new development of oil, gas and mining resources is severely limited. For example, the BLM has created an arbitrary disturbance cap which limits 

disturbance in areas designated as Priority Habitat from oil, gas, mining and other 

uses into a 3 percent cap. When the cap is met, no new disturbances will be allowed. 

Further, if the BLM leases any new oil and gas mineral leases in Priority Habitat, 

the development will be subject to no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulations, with 

limited exceptions. Similarly, any development in areas known as General Habitat 

will be modified with specific mandates and measures, including mandates such as 

NSO, and controlled surface use and timing limitations will be implemented to further limit disturbance. 

Wind Energy Development is severely restricted. The BLM will not allow any new 

wind energy development projects to be permitted or occur in Sagebrush Focal 

Areas or Priority Habitat. Limited wind energy development in General Habitat 

may still be authorized. 

New solar Energy development will become non-existent on Federal lands. The 

BLM has decided to exclude new solar development on any areas designated as 

sage-grouse habitat on Federal lands. The BLM has stated that solar energy will 

not be permitted in any sage-grouse habitat on Federal lands in all Sage-brush 

Focal Areas. 

Land Use Plans will result in the modification or termination of certain grazing 

permits on Federal land. The BLM and the Forest Service are currently reevaluating every grazing allotment on BLM lands and reviewing the potential to 

modify the terms on 567 grazing permits in Utah (389 BLM and 178 USFS), encompassing over 5 million acres. 

39 

1See News Release No. WO2016, Wild Horses and Burros on Public Rangelands Now 2.5 

Times Greater than 1971 when Protection Law was Passed (May 11, 2016). 

Constraints on new recreational development. The Land Use Plans state that no 

new recreation facilities will be developed in Sagebrush Focal Areas or priority habitat. Further, the plans note that only minimal new recreational development will 

occur in general habitat but only after receiving special permit to recreate. 

It is clear that the practices identified above, are harmful to the State’s economy, 

especially in a state where over 50 percent of the land is under Federal management and control. These Land Use Plans have created economic uncertainty and 

hardships on the State and violate the multiple-use mandates identified and embraced in FLPMA. 

In addition, the plans have created huge administrative delays and burdens. The 

local BLM field offices have been unable to take action or make decisions because 

they are waiting on top-down direction from Washington, DC. The Land Use Plans 

are complicated, create a new layer of bureaucracy, and instruct BLM employees 

with jurisdiction over areas within sage-grouse habitat to prioritize their time, efforts, and budgets on matters relating to sage-grouse. 

In conclusion, the Land Use Plans for sage-grouse are a prime example of unnecessary and burdensome regulations being developed and implemented by the BLM. 

The BLM needs to adopt and embrace the Utah’s Plan for the Conservation of 

Greater Sage-grouse. The State Plan has worked and will continue to work to conserve sage-grouse. 

II. Wild Horse and Burro 

The BLM’s purposeful failure to manage wild horses and burros in Utah is a 

harming Utah’s rangelands, wildlife and water resources and impacting livestock 

producers throughout the state. Currently there are an estimated 5,440 wild horses 

and 400 burros in Utah. The BLM’s failure to remove excess horses in Utah has 

left us with nearly three times as many horses as should be on its lands.1 The BLM 

needs to take action to manage horses at the appropriate levels which includes removing horses, when necessary, to protects Utah’s ecological resources. 

The current levels of wild horses and burros on Utah’s rangelands is not ecologically sustainable. By continuing to allow horses and burros to exceed sustainable 

levels, the BLM is placing in jeopardy the future of wildlife, rangelands, and livestock operations in Utah, not to mention harming the long-term survival of the 

horses and burros themselves. The focus of the BLM Wild Horse and Burro program 

should revert to its original purpose and stated goal of achieving appropriate management levels in Utah. Last year the BLM only removed 123 excess horses from 

the range. The BLM’s ongoing practice of not removing horses is creating economic 

hardship and harmful ecological impacts that may not be reversed for decades. 

Direct removal of horses and burros from impacted regions will aid in maintaining 

the minimum management levels being achieved while simultaneously reducing 

their impact on the supporting ecosystem. The BLM’s current Budget Proposal seeks 

to only remove a minimal amount of wild horses and burros from Utah’s rangelands. 

We are concerned with the lack of urgency of the BLM in managing their wild horse 

and burro populations. With a growing level of conflict and the inaction by the BLM 

to meet their management obligations and bring horse and burro numbers to appropriate management levels, the State has asked for better management and removal 

of wild horses. Rather than tackle this difficult challenge, the BLM has chosen to 

put the burden of wild horse management on the livestock producers and tax payers 

within the State. This practice is unacceptable and must be changed. 

III. Coal Leasing Moratorium 

The BLM’s recent actions to stop new coal development on Federal lands threatens the viability of several major coal mine expansion projects in Utah. The BLM, 

under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, and in concert with 

President Obama’s Executive Order is currently reviewing the Federal coal program 

and placing a long-term moratorium on new coal leasing and development on public 

lands while the review is underway. 

The BLM’s coal leasing moratorium is a rushed and uninformed political decision 

that threatens Utah’s coal industry and the many benefits that industry provides. 

Coal generates 76 percent of Utah’s electricity and helps employ more than 45,000 

men and women across the state. In Carbon County alone, 8 out of 10 jobs in the 

county of 17,000 come from mining and power plants. In the event coal mines in 

Carbon County are closed, thousands of families will be displaced and without work. 

Similarly, hundreds of people lost jobs in Carbon and Emery County last year when 

40 

a coal plant and coal mine closed due to, among other things, onerous Federal 

regulations. 

The Coal Moratorium has recently halted the expansion of a mine in southern 

Utah, near Alton. The mine’s management worked together with the State and the 

BLM to identify ways that coal mining could continue while mitigating for environmental impacts through the use of compensatory mitigation tools. However, after 

working for months on a mitigation plan with the State and BLM, and submitting 

an emergency application to expand the mine during the Coal Moratorium, the application was denied. This failure to allow needed responsible expansion is unnecessary and another prime example of ridiculous and burdensome regulations harming 

the state of Utah and its citizens. 

IV. ‘‘Wild Lands’’—Unlawful Designation of Wilderness 

An additional practice that has created a hardship for the State is the BLM’s designation of ‘‘wild lands’’ within the State. On December 22, 2010, Ken Salazar 

issued Secretarial Order 3310 (the BLM issued its manuals shortly thereafter). 

Order 3310 created a new public land designation—‘‘wild lands’’ that superseded existing land use management plans and created additional steps in the implementation of land management decisions. In essence, the BLM began managing ‘‘wild 

lands’’ as ‘‘de facto’’ wilderness in violation of the BLM’s rulemaking procedures, 

Federal laws, and wilderness study areas designation process. 

Under ‘‘wild lands,’’ at least 6 millions of acres in Utah could be set aside, preserved, and managed as ‘‘de facto’’ wilderness. The ongoing preservation mentality, 

coupled with the failure to allow for multiple-use, development, and access into 

areas designated as ‘‘wild lands’’ is a burden on the state. Further, the unilateral 

action to designate lands as de facto wilderness, creates a lack of trust, displaces 

the roles of state and local government and displaces necessary economic development and utilization of precious resources within the State. Due to the hardships 

and issues surrounding the ‘‘wild lands’’ designations, the State filed suit in Federal 

court challenging the BLM’s actions. 

Please direct any other written questions regarding this correspondence to the 

Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, or call to discuss any questions or concerns. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Ms. Clarke. At this time, the Chair 

recognizes the Ranking Member, Mrs. Dingell, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your extraordinary 

courtesy. You are a true gentleman, and I love working with you. 

So, enough of that this morning. Can I ask unanimous consent 

to submit for the record a letter in support of Planning 2.0 signed 

by Trout Unlimited, the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, 

and the Rocky Mountain Regional Center? 

Mr. GOHMERT. So ordered. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

SPORTSMEN FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

July 6, 2016 

Hon. Neil Kornze, Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Re: Sportsmen Support for Planning 2.0 

Dear Director Kornze: 

Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development (SFRED) is a coalition led by the 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, National Wildlife Federation and 

Trout Unlimited and is made up of more than 1,500 businesses, organizations and 

individuals dedicated to advancing federal policy and practices that ensure responsible energy development on public lands. Our members have extensive experience 

engaging in the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Resource Management Plans 

41 

(RMPs) across the West and we can affirm that the agency’s current planning process needs to be modernized. We strongly support the BLM’s approach to improve 

land use planning through Planning 2.0 and urge you to see the rulemaking process 

through to completion. 

Successful BLM land use planning includes early and frequent communication 

with the public. Under the current process, the public submits comments at the 

scoping period, those comments seem to disappear into the hands of the agency, and 

years later the BLM comes back with a proposed draft RMP. The public then submits comments on the draft RMP and the BLM disappears for another year or more 

before issuing a proposed final RMP. This long timeline with little communication 

from the agency makes it difficult for the public to remain interested in the process, 

and the lack of transparency makes people question how and if their comments are 

being used. The current BLM planning process is cumbersome and outdated, generating some of the frustration that people are voicing towards federal lands management in general. 

Planning 2.0 is focused on fixing these problems by increasing the transparency 

of the land use planning process by adding three new steps to land use planning: 

the envisioning process, plan assessment, and preliminary alternatives. These added 

steps would enable the public to provide information about the planning area before 

the agency begins considering how the lands should be managed and allow the public to consider the plan’s direction and provide feedback before the draft RMP is 

formally proposed. These additional steps would help to maintain increased public 

interest in the planning process by providing a continuum of public involvement and 

help to ensure that the draft RMP more closely meets the expectations of stakeholders. 

These additional steps to the land use planning process should be supported by 

everyone who wishes to see the BLM work more closely with the public to develop 

land use plans that more closely meet the expectations of multiple stakeholder 

groups. 

We also support the BLM’s proposal to revise RMPs at the landscape level, such 

as across multiple BLM Field Offices at one time. Right now, land use plans are 

created along artificial jurisdictional boundaries, often at the Field Office level of 

the BLM within a particular state. Land managers have come to recognize that because resources like mule deer and steelhead don’t stop and turnaround at the BLM 

Field Office line, neither should land use plans. The BLM planning rule proposal 

to revise RMPs at the landscape level, such as across multiple BLM Field Offices 

at one time, makes common sense. By integrating landscape level planning into 

BLM management, the agency should be able to better care for fish and wildlife species that migrate and depend on different habitats throughout the year. 

We also believe that the BLM Planning 2.0 process creates an important opportunity to incorporate modern management tools into land use planning to better balance demands between multiple uses and to conserve important resources important 

for fish, wildlife and sportsmen. These tools include master leasing plans, migration 

corridor protection tools, and backcountry conservation areas. 

All of these changes would be achieved while simultaneously increasing the number of opportunities for cooperating agencies and decision makers to engage in the 

land use planning process. As you likely know, elected county officials located in all 

three areas where the BLM is implementing early adopter plans under the principles of Planning 2.0 (Missoula RMP, Eastern Colorado RMP, and Northwest 

California Integrated RMP) have endorsed the BLM’s proposed changes to the planning process. This support demonstrates that the local elected officials who are 

closest to the rule understand its importance in better involving the public in land 

management decisions and improving the management of BLM lands across the 

West. 

Finally, we appreciate extensive public outreach and that has culminated in the 

draft rule. For over two years, the BLM has sought and received input from a multitude of diverse stakeholders, employing public meetings, webinars and taking public feedback. During the comment period for the draft rule, many valid points have 

been raised and we urge you to finalize the rule in a way that works for the general 

public, cooperating agencies, the agency itself and the public lands and resources 

that the BLM is charged with managing. 

42 

While we have provided some specific recommendations for improving the planning rule in our formal comments, we believe Planning 2.0 is an important process 

that must move forward to completion. Thank you for your consideration of our 

request. 

Sincerely, 

KATHLEEN C. ZIMMERMAN, 

Policy Director, Public Lands, 

National Wildlife Federation, 

Denver, Colorado. 

JOEL WEBSTER, 

Director, Center for Western Lands, 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, 

Washington, DC. 

COREY FISHER, 

Senior Policy Director, Public Lands. 

National Wildlife Federation, 

Sportsmen Conservation Project, 

Missoula, Montana. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. McAfee, I continue to be surprised by the criticism that adding more opportunities for public involvement to the 

planning process is a bad thing. I was really touched by your testimony this morning—specifically, we have heard that the voice of 

elected officials in the planning process should be elevated above 

the voices of Americans that want to provide direct feedback to 

BLM, the idea that elected officials represent the people and can 

therefore speak better for them on BLM planning issues. But you 

mentioned a specific situation in which the opposite was true. Your 

local elected representatives were refusing to even talk to BLM 

about a proposed master leasing plan in your area. Can you give 

us a brief explanation about why a master leasing plan was needed 

in this situation? 

Mr. MCAFEE. First, let me thank my colleagues for teaching me 

how to push the button. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCAFEE. The management leasing plan process is one that 

is underway, right now in the very early stages, to determine 

whether or not there should be one. That is the major issue that 

is on the table. It has not been determined that there will be one. 

The reason for thinking about that is that the resource management plan for the areas of concern in Montezuma County are not 

specific enough to really protect some things that everybody agrees 

should be protected. 

For example, there is a world-class biking area, called Phil’s 

World, very near Cortez that is contiguous to BLM land; it lies on 

BLM land, as well as private and state land. That could be under 

severe risk if we don’t have some way to know what is coming 

down the road with leasing; and everybody, including the county 

commissioners, agree with that. 

The problem is that the county commissioners don’t recognize 

that the resource management plan does not really protect it. They 

believe that that could be easily changed and, for reasons that I 

don’t understand, they are opposed to an MLP. There has been a 

process to provide public input into that decisionmaking, and a lot 

43 

of people have showed up, hundreds; and I believe that at this 

point in time the preponderance of input into that question is 10 

to 1 in favor of doing an MLP. Yet, the commissioners really do not 

recognize that kind of public interest. 

That is why I believe that the process can be a lot better by listening to us, because we do our homework and we know what we 

need. 

Mrs. DINGELL. We have just a short bit of time here; so, in your 

opinion, were your representatives doing their job of representing 

your voice when they refused to come to the table with BLM about 

the master leasing plan? 

Mr. MCAFEE. The simple answer is no, because they backed 

away from that and did not want to participate in it. One of the 

beginnings of the process was for them to select community members to be on the study group. They refused to select community 

members, and then community members decided to select themselves and applied to be on that. 

And suddenly, our commissioners discovered that they were 

being left aside, and so they did step up and start to select members for that. But that was a case where they thought, by withdrawing and not doing anything, they were going to be able to 

retain power. Instead, they lost power and they lost credibility. 

Mrs. DINGELL. So, quickly summarizing, you are saying that your 

voice is currently not represented by your elected officials, and that 

they are actively advocating for things that you are saying that the 

majority of the community does not want. That sounds like a pretty 

good argument for maximizing the voice of everyday Americans in 

the BLM process. 

Do you think more public input in the master leasing plan process would have benefited this situation? How could the public have 

helped move this process along? And you have 30 seconds. 

Mr. MCAFEE. The public has been engaged because of the fact 

that they have come to the steering committee with input. What 

that has done is caused the steering committee to have to back off, 

and they have not made a decision yet as to what they will 

recommend. 

So, it is clear to me that: (a) we were not represented by our 

county commissioners; and (b) at a higher level, at a different level, 

our input is being considered. I think that is a good example of how 

public input early on by concerned and knowledgeable citizens can 

make a difference. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. And we hope you will give Mr. Dingell 

our best. He turned 90 years old—was it yesterday? 

Mrs. DINGELL. Tomorrow. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Tomorrow. OK. Well, he is a distinguished 

gentleman in the best sense of the word. 

At this time, we recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. 

Bishop. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, even though you 

put me all the way down here; but thank you. 

Let me ask a couple questions, if I could—I can go in the other 

room, if you would like. 

44 

First of all, Ms. Clarke, thank you for being here. I think adding 

to the resume is the fact that you were a former BLM director, so 

you understand this process and how these things work within the 

walls of the Interior Department, that great mausoleum to 

comradeship. 

Let me ask you a couple of questions. When FLPMA was actually 

passed, part of it said that it was there to preserve existing rights. 

That included grazing, leasing, water rights, yada yada. BLM was 

also there so that the plans would be consistent with state and 

local plans. That is the purpose of FLPMA, that was in the legislation. That provided for a coordination of land use inventory specifically with the agencies of state and local government. 

So, once again, I want to go—you touched on this in both your 

written and oral testimony—when I read BLM Planning 2.0, it appears that BLM is moving away from the rights granted to the 

state and local governments in the law. Under this new rule, how 

do you think BLM will honor their legal mandates to cooperate and 

coordinate with states, particularly the early public assessment 

phase? 

Ms. CLARKE. I believe, during this early public assessment phase, 

state and local governments can participate, should they choose, 

but their voice will be marginalized. They have a right to sit as an 

elevated partner because they are sovereigns, and they should not 

be relegated to sharing a position among the crowd. 

Elected officials do represent the majority of the voices of those 

elected, although they may not represent the voices of the loudest, 

most well-funded special interest groups. I believe that this is stepping aside from the law, and it is not the first time we have seen 

the Administration take such a step. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, I appreciate that. It is troubling for 

me. The Federal Government does own—I actually can’t see how 

much time I have, so when I am close to it, hit me or something, 

will you? 

The Federal Government owns a third of all America, we know 

that. About 45 percent is BLM property. The sad part is almost 

none of that is east of Denver; it is all west of Denver. That means, 

even though the votes in Congress are east of Denver, everyone 

here east of Denver thinks public lands are all national parks, 

when we know the bulk of it is BLM property, and it is for those 

of us who actually have the fortunate opportunity of living in the 

West. 

What that simply means is, sometimes ideas can gain support 

when they actually do hurt people in the process. I think those of 

us here in the West have a specific interest, and that is why I appreciate the first two witnesses who represent the governors and 

commissioners who have concerns about what will actually happen 

in the West, even though we do not have the numerical majority 

here. 

And, it is the same thing here. Mr. McAfee, you talked about the 

commissioners in your area. I am assuming they were voted by the 

people. 

Mr. MCAFEE. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I assume, if they don’t like what they are 

doing, they could be unvoted by the people. 

45 

Mr. MCAFEE. That might be the case. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I suggest you try that in the future. It is 

much more beneficial. We have 200 years of practice with that. 

By contrast, is anyone going to vote for Mr. Lyons? Absolutely 

not. I mean, so you get the free pass here. Whatever you decide to 

do, even if you think of something that I think is kind of crappy, 

you still get the free pass. It is through the elected officials that 

we have some kind of input for people, and that has to be why it 

was supposedly respected in FLPMA. 

So, let me go about this concept, this deciding official. Let me 

start with you, Mr. Ogsbury. If a plan does not cross state boundaries, should someone within the state be this deciding official? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairman Gohmert, Chairman Bishop, members 

of the committee, I think it is axiomatic that, to the extent decisions are removed from the states and moved to Washington or 

away from localities, that the influence and the authority of 

governors that is mandated under FLPMA would be—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Just say yes or no, because I have 20 seconds. 

Mr. OGSBURY. I am sorry, sir? 

The CHAIRMAN. You said it, fine. 

Mr. OGSBURY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, in those last 20 whatever seconds I have, because I see the yellow light up there, let me say this. The issue you 

always talked about is more input. The issue of getting more input 

is good; but it is who makes the decisions that is significant. This 

program significantly contracts who gets to make those decisions, 

centralizes who gets to make those decisions, minimizes elected 

input, and that is what everyone has been saying—almost everyone 

has been saying so far—except for Mr. Lyons. I hope you are listening to what everyone is saying, because that is the biggest flaw in 

this plan. 

I will be more than happy to go another round, but thank you. 

Sorry. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am assuming I went over, because I see a red 

light. I have a block. I am sorry. 

Mr. GOHMERT. No, actually I have a block, but you got a late 

start on your time, so it worked out fine. 

At this time, I recognize myself for 5 minutes. Of course, we 

know that there can be significant changes that occur between the 

original draft of a resource management plan and the finalization 

of the resource management plan. So, it is critical that the BLM 

hears from everyone who is a stakeholder. That especially includes 

governors that represent the whole state, even though their voice 

may be more in line with a majority, commissioners, county officials, and, certainly, the landowners themselves. That is why I am 

pleased with the representation we have here. 

Longer comment periods would seem to make that more likely. 

There was a hearing recently for the Senate Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee, and Director Kornze suggested that it makes 

sense to retain longer comment periods, although it did take some 

prodding from Senator Warren. 

46 

Mr. Lyons, do you disagree with Director Kornze? Do you think 

we should have the longer comment periods, go back to those, or 

do you still insist that we should have shorter comment times? 

Mr. LYONS. No, Mr. Chairman, Director Kornze and I have had 

a conversation about that, and that is certainly something we are 

willing to revisit. 

I should explain that, in an attempt to limit the amount of time 

spent on planning in providing additional information or opportunities for input up front, I think an effort was made to cut back on 

some of those later comment periods. I think we need to rethink 

that, as you suggest. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, thank you. I am very glad to hear you say 

that. 

Mr. Ogsbury, have you heard any stories from Western 

Governors, with specific instances where they were not allowed the 

voices that they felt they should have in policies that affected the 

people in their states? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairman Gohmert, members of the committee, I 

would appreciate the opportunity to provide a more thoughtful answer for the record. In the meantime, I would suggest that in the 

course of consistency reviews that were issued with respect to the 

sage-grouse RMPs, that there was considerable concern expressed 

by a number of governors that there was not enough attention paid 

to those consistency reviews. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I don’t know—we got representation from 

the various aspects, stakeholders. What I have heard in my district 

in dealing with Federal land issues is that sometimes a plan is 

being proposed and they don’t see word of it; they don’t feel like 

they get proper notice, and then all of a sudden their time has run 

out. 

Mr. Fontaine, are you aware of any situations like that, where 

commissioners didn’t feel like they had adequate time to respond? 

Mr. FONTAINE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. I 

think that is the case for many of our counties. We have a number 

of small rural counties that, quite frankly, do not have staff. I 

think we have eight or nine counties in our state that do not even 

have a county manager. So, even if the BLM, for example, might 

submit an email indicating that there might be some plan that is 

being considered, including this planning initiative, it is one of 

many emails that they may get and they may not have the opportunity to review that and give some thoughtful comment on that 

plan. 

We think that the better course would be for the BLM to reach 

out to those counties and to our association, as well. 

Mr. GOHMERT. You made a great point. My counties where 

Federal land is located normally have less assets to utilize, like you 

are saying. You cannot tax the Federal land, it is not being used 

now where it should be used to produce timber. That was the original idea, it is a renewable resource—these are not sequoias or pine 

trees. They are struggling, the schools struggle, and they don’t 

have the ability to respond; and I appreciate that point being made. 

My time is running out, but I just would ask all of you, including 

Ms. Clarke—you have special experience from all sides—if you 

have specific instances that you can find where the rules have 

47 

worked a hardship, then let us know. Please send us those in the 

days ahead. 

My time has expired, and I recognize the gentleman from Idaho, 

Mr. Labrador, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

the subcommittee for holding this hearing today. 

BLM’s draft Planning 2.0 rule, if finalized, will have major impacts on states with BLM land. In my state, BLM manages approximately 12 million acres of land which will be significantly 

impacted by this rule. Because the impact on Idaho will be so significant, I am very concerned that this draft rule marginalizes the 

role that state and local governments will play in the BLM planning process, and ignores BLM statutory obligation to coordinate 

with state and local governments, and to provide for meaningful 

public involvement of state and local government officials. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent first that a letter that 

Governor Otter sent to the members of Idaho’s congressional delegation, as well as the state’s comments to BLM be included in the 

record. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

STATE OF IDAHO, 

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE. 

May 25, 2016 

Director Neil Kornze 

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Director Kornze: 

The State of Idaho appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding the 

Bureau of Land Management’s (‘‘BLM’’) proposal to amend the regulations related 

to the resource management planning process (‘‘BLM Planning Rule 2.0’’). See 43 

CFR § 1600. Please accept the following observations and comments. 

BLM manages approximately 12 million acres in Idaho and over 14 million subsurface acres. Management decisions on federal lands have a significant impact on 

Idaho’s economy and way of life. There are over 1.3 million Animal Unit Months 

(‘‘AUMs’’) associated with 1,878 grazing permits and leases on BLM-managed lands 

within Idaho. Additionally, there are numerous oil and gas leases, mining operations, recreational activities, etc. that are located on federally managed land in 

Idaho. The way in which these decisions are made is important, which is why Idaho 

has consistently pushed to be a meaningful partner at every opportunity. However, 

time and again Idaho and its agencies have worked hard and in good faith to develop robust, collaborative planning documents with their local BLM offices only to 

have BLM’s national office in Washington D.C. unilaterally change course at the 

last minute. 

The BLM Planning Rule 2.0 represents another example of the BLM failing to engage state and local regulatory partners. This has become a pervasive policy for 

many federal agencies. Federal agencies do not appear to view states and their respective agencies as co-managers or co-regulators, but instead seeks to aggressively 

minimize the State’s role, often ignoring or overruling State plans, policies or priorities. If appropriate land management efforts in Idaho are going to achieve any level 

of success, the State and its representative agencies must serve a more prominent 

role in the development and implementation of federal programs and their attendant regulations. 

Interestingly, the proposed regulation suggests deleting the term ‘‘shall’’ throughout the entire regulation and replacing it with the term ‘‘will.’’ The justification is 

improving the regulation’s readability. I respectfully disagree with this proposed 

48 

change. The existing terminology does not suffer from readability problems. Moreover, the term ‘‘shall’’ is a generally recognized legal term of art that indicates mandatory or non-discretionary. This is an important term that should serve to remind 

BLM of such important congressional mandates as directives to ‘‘use and observe 

principles of multiple use and sustained yield’’ and ‘‘coordinate with other federal 

agencies, Indian tribes, and the States and local governments.’’ See 43 U.S.C. 

1712(a) sec. 202(c). 

Section 1610.4: Planning Assessment 

BLM proposes to establish a new ‘‘Planning Assessment’’ step in the RMP development process to ‘‘combine and revise existing steps for inventory data and information collection and the analysis of the management situation.’’ This step would 

take place during the scoping process, before the agency begins RMP development. 

It appears BLM is basing the shortened Governor’s consistency review, at least in 

part, on the fact that it will provide opportunity for State input during the Planning 

Assessment. Additionally, this section is written in a very ‘‘passive’’ fashion which 

seems to confer little obligation on the part of the BLM to gather appropriate data 

for its own planning process. We believe planning guidance should direct BLM to 

uphold an ‘‘active’’ role in soliciting, identifying and gathering relevant scientific information about the planning resources. Further, the BLM should be required to 

find and gather both (1) the best scientific data for relevant resources pursuant to 

a quality-controlled process and (2) appropriate data from the regulatory agency responsible for managing those resources. As now written, the BLM has the option 

of disregarding State management data for a given resource in preference for data 

from an individual or special-interest group, which is extremely concerning. 

The State of Idaho’s concern with this new process is two-fold: 

• This consultation would occur at the scoping stage of RMP development, prior 

to any actual RMP design; and 

• Specific opportunities for engagement by states appear limited. 

Section 1610.4(a)(3) states BLM is proposing to add a requirement that the responsible BLM official provide opportunities for states and other stakeholders to 

provide data and information, or suggest other policies for the agency to consider 

(i.e., ‘‘a state wildlife agency might ask the BLM to consider a conservation plan for 

a sensitive species’’). 

States are invited only to submit data and information. This also seems imbalanced by placing the onus of information submittal on states and other stakeholders 

while leaving BLM to make a subjective determination of whether to consider submitted information. Additionally, ‘‘[t]his opportunity would be provided through a 

general request for information from the public.’’ States should be treated with 

special solicitude, and not simply as members of the public, as BLM proposes. 

Section 1610.3–2 Consistency Requirements 

The proposed BLM Planning Rule proposes the following revision: ‘‘Resource 

management plans will be consistent with officially approved or adopted land use 

plans of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes . . . 

(emphasis added). (p 118). As a foundation for this change, BLM proposes replacing 

the phrase ‘‘resource related plans’’ with ‘‘land use plans’’ and to remove the words 

‘‘policies, programs, and processes’’ from the existing definition of officially approved 

and adopted land use plans (p. 52). Improved consistency with section 202(c)(9) of 

FLPMA is provided as rationale for this change. 

This narrows the existing planning context for consistency with resource-related 

plans and policies, programs and processes. Idaho is concerned that this will 

fundamentally preclude Governor consistency review consideration of Idaho Department of Fish and Game (‘‘IDFG’’) species management plans, which provide important context to official State and local government land use plans. We believe this 

flexibility is necessary because State and local governments’ officially approved or 

adopted land use plans often do not specifically incorporate species management 

population objectives yet IDFG species management plans are fundamental to hunting, fishing, trapping and other wildlife-related activities as components of outdoor 

recreation plans and also are important state plans that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands (which the Secretary is to assure that consideration is given, section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA). We recommend that IDFG species 

management plans remain an acceptable component of the governor consistency 

review process. 

The proposed BLM Planning Rule claims to enhance state and local governments’ 

opportunity to participate in the various BLM processes. However, a more detailed 

review of the proposed changes does not support that conclusion. In fact, developVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:15 Jan 10, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS\07-07-16\20697.TXT DARLEN
49 

1Section 1610.3–2(b)(l)(ii) 

ment of the proposed rule itself presented a perfect opportunity for the BLM to engage its state and local partners in identifying areas of needed improvement, 

crafting a process that takes full advantage of the important perspectives and priorities that states can provide, and roll out the proposal to the public in lock-step with 

the states. Instead, the rule was developed—as has become all too common—by 

officials in Washington, D.C., only engaging state partners in the same process with 

which it engages the general public. This process surely would overlook the important priorities or policies of the individual states and further erode the principles 

of federalism that are embedded within our history and national charter. 

This process of minimizing state participation is inappropriate given the congressional direction codified in BLM’s organic statute. The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) directs BLM, to ‘‘establish procedures . . . 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.’’ See 43 U.S.C. 1712(f). It is evident 

from the language of the statute that Congress perceived the role of state and local 

governments to be separate from and in addition to the general public’s participation. Congress has stated that land use planning should 

consider[ ] 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 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 

non-Federal 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(a) sec. 202 (emphasis added). The congressional mandates contained 

throughout FLPMA with respect to engaging state and local governments early and 

in a meaningful way are not being followed adequately, nor are they accurately reflected in the proposed regulation. How can the BLM ‘‘keep apprised of State, local, 

and tribal plans’’ and provide ‘‘meaningful’’ engagement by simply cataloging states’ 

comments along with the myriad of other written submissions to this rule or other 

important planning documents? 

The various sections of FLPMA highlighted above provide important, nondiscretionary direction with respect to stakeholder engagement. The proposed regulations must be consistent with these and other congressional mandates. Any final 

regulations should be amended to clearly recognize and emphasize the importance 

of the BLM coordinating its efforts with the states, local governments and Indian 

tribes. These governing bodies should have the opportunity to be equal partners in 

promulgating rules and land use plans. Of utmost importance is the need for the 

regulations to recognize the distinction between public comment opportunities and 

coordination with co-regulators and co-managers whereby state and local plans, 

policies and priorities are carefully considered and integrated into Resource 

Management Plans (‘‘RMPs’’) and other important planning documents. BLM should 

strive to create consistency with state policies, plans and programs at every level 

of RMP development, beginning with meaningful engagement with state and local 

governments. 

Additionally, BLM is considering whether to adjust the timeline or appeal process 

of the Governor’s consistency review.1 It justifies a modification of this important 

tool for Governors by claiming that this proposed rule provides early opportunities 

to identify the officially approved and adopted land use plans of state and local governments, and to resolve inconsistencies between those plans and the RMP alternatives that BLM would consider. 

BLM proposes no tangible early opportunities for participation by Governors. As 

discussed below, BLM is adding a baselining step to the RMP amendment process 

in which it will ask for information from state agencies with no assurance that BLM 

will seek consistency. If BLM chooses to adjust the timing for consistency reviews, 

it must not shorten the timeframe and in fact should consider granting states more 

time to make a consistency determination. 

50 

Section 1601.0–4: Responsibilities 

The proposed regulations attempt to shift certain decision-making authority from 

BLM state directors to the BLM director. This proposed change should be deleted. 

Empowering state directors to develop local solutions by engaging state and local 

co-regulators and co-managers is an important investment in the collaborative and 

coordinated model that is far superior to the centralized, top-down approach that 

is proposed. Federal agency personnel stationed in Washington, D.C. will never fully 

understand the unique socio-economic, cultural and conservation needs unique to 

the individual states. The attempt to codify the practice of top-down, one-size-fitsall decision making is misguided. This undermines collaborative local solutions and 

deflates enthusiasm for conservation initiatives. State and local leaders are closely 

connected to the citizens who are affected most by the regulatory framework contained throughout the proposed regulations. A more meaningful engagement with 

state and local governments improves the regulated community’s opportunity to 

interact with its government on all levels and provides a perspective that is otherwise missed. BLM offices don’t understand the issues in Idaho and across the West. 

BLM should maintain the status quo which allows the Idaho State Director to make 

the decisions that affect Idaho. 

Section 1610.2: Public Involvement 

BLM proposes to shorten the comment period for draft RMPs from 90 days to 60 

days and reduce the comment period for draft environmental impact statement 

(EIS)-level plan amendments from 90 days to 45 days. BLM justifies these changes 

in order to streamline its process, and that longer periods will be unnecessary because new and amended RMPs will take consistent approaches in the coming years. 

These timeline reductions eviscerate the important role the public plays in landuse planning and government accountability. Many Idaho citizens who are directly 

impacted by BLM management decisions strongly desire to participate in and comment on all the BLM’s land management planning. Recently, nearly all RMP- and 

EIS-level plan amendments consist of multiple volumes and thousands of pages. 

While BLM reserves the right to take as much time as it needs to create these documents, reducing the amount of time that the public has to review them all but ensures that these important parties to the process cannot provide meaningful input. 

BLM indicates that the reduction in review time is justified because of increased 

state/federal coordination early in the planning process. However, history shows us 

that early coordination between the state and BLM is ineffective because very little 

is required of BLM and other federal management agencies to meet their FLPMA 

‘‘coordination’’ responsibilities. Both the sage-grouse process and the Gateway West 

Supplemental EIS are recent examples of how BLM believed it had met its 

‘‘coordination’’ duties by giving Idaho advanced notice of plan changes. This is not 

enough. Increased early state/federal coordination should mean that states have the 

opportunity to be true partners in the planning process. 

BLM should maintain and consider extending comment periods to ensure that 

Idaho and other states and interested parties have adequate opportunity to review 

and comment on RMP amendments and EIS level plan amendments. 

Mitigation 

Idaho agrees with the construction and citation of a ‘‘Mitigation Hierarchy’’ as 

proposed in the proposed rule. Without referring directly to ‘‘preamble for proposed 

section 1610.1–2(a)(2)’’, we recommend a clearer statement that the hierarchy 

considers avoidance preferable to minimization, which in turn is preferable to compensation. Please clearly spell out that the sequence as stated is in order of 

preference. 

Agency Communication Protocol 

BLM proposes to eliminate the requirement to publish notices related to RMP 

development, including NEPA analyses, on the Federal Register. Rather, the agency 

would publish these actions on the BLM Web site and at BLM offices within the 

planning area of a given RMP. Similarly, BLM proposes to eliminate the current 

requirement to publish Federal Register notices at the start of every planning effort 

and to remove the requirement that BLM publish a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental assessment as part of an RMP amendment, but would retain 

the requirement to publish a NOI for an EIS related to an RMP amendment. 

Federal Register notices ensures that RMP amendments and other NEPA analyses 

are consistently communicated with interested parties, and ensures that all parties 

are kept apprised of changes or new developments. BLM should continue publishing 

notices in the Federal Register while adding publication on the BLM Web site and 

51 

at BLM offices within the planning area of a given RMP in order to ensure that 

interested parties are notified of BLM’s actions. 

Conclusion 

It is my opinion that the proposed rule cannot be fixed simply by line-item edits. 

As I stated before, officials in Washington, D.C. will never fully understand the 

unique socio-economic, cultural and conservation needs of the individual states. 

State consultations should have occurred prior to the publication of this proposed 

rule. After much discussion with Idaho’s State agencies, I request that the proposal 

be discarded and a new proposal drafted with the BLM appropriately engaging the 

states. Throughout the consultation process, I would remind the BLM that state 

agencies are not merely stakeholders, but rather are the BLM’s partners, especially 

when implementing important land management actions. Idaho has a wealth of 

data, experience and expertise from which the BLM could benefit in developing a 

much more collaborative, robust and effective planning rule. 

As Always—Idaho, ‘‘Esto Perpetua’’, 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, 

Governor of Idaho. 

STATE OF IDAHO, 

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE. 

July 1, 2016 

Hon. Mike Crapo 

Hon. James E. Risch 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. Mike Simpson 

Hon. Raul Labrador 

United States Congress 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Idaho Delegation: 

I recently submitted the attached comments on the Bureau of Land Management’s 

(BLM) proposal to amend the resource management planning process (Planning 2.0) 

regulations. If instituted, Planning 2.0 will significantly limit opportunities for 

Idaho, local stakeholders, and the public to engage in collaborative land management planning. 

As you know, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee recently 

held a hearing to conduct oversight on the Planning 2.0 initiative. Likewise, the 

House Committee on Natural Resources held a similar hearing in the Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations to examine the local perspectives on Planning 2.0 

in May. The testimony at these hearings showed a general displeasure across the 

West on the contents of the proposed initiative, and I wanted to take this opportunity to share my thoughts on the rule. 

I have very clear expectations regarding how federal agencies should interact with 

the State while developing regulatory programs that impact Idaho. Federal land 

management agencies must respect Idaho as a sovereign and full partner. Planning 

2.0 is no exception. However, the BLM failed to engage Idaho in early and meaningful consultation while drafting Planning 2.0. The BLM could not follow the very 

principles it purports to endorse in Planning 2.0 while drafting the rule itself. 

Planning 2.0 includes a number of provisions that weaken the value and impact of 

Governors’ Consistency Reviews in the RMP development process, and leaves states 

with an undefined role in the planning process. 

Planning 2.0, as drafted, presents serious challenges and contains significant 

shortcomings. I urge you to support any effort to delay the implementation of 

Planning 2.0 until BLM appropriately engages Idaho, and addresses the serious 

issues that I provided in my comments. Please feel free to contact me if you have 

any questions or would like clarification on my comments. 

As Always—Idaho, ‘‘Esto Perpetua’’, 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, 

Governor of Idaho. 

52 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. 

Mr. Ogsbury, thank you for being here today. As I mentioned, 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires that the 

BLM coordinate the land use inventory planning and management 

activities with state and local governments, and provide for meaningful public involvement of state and local government officials. 

That is what the law says. 

Do Western Governors believe that BLM’s current planning 

regulations comply with these requirements? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairman Gohmert, Representative Labrador, we 

believe that Planning 2.0 steps away from that requirement. 

Mr. LABRADOR. In what ways? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Governors under FLPMA are, as you pointed out, 

given a very substantial role with respect to the BLM planning 

process when, for example, the scope of consistency reviews are 

narrowed from having RMPs be consistent with plans, programs, 

policies, and processes to simply being consistent with officially 

adoptive land use plans; that is a step away from gubernatorial 

influence. 

When 2.0 says that governors’ views will be considered, simply 

considered, that is a step away from saying governors’ recommendations submitted as part of a consistency review will be 

adopted if it represents a good balance between national and state 

interests. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So, trying to change the law through regulation, 

in essence. This draft rule appears to shift planning away from 

local communities to BLM headquarters here in Washington, DC. 

This, to me, is very problematic for several reasons. 

Idaho’s comments to BLM state that, ‘‘Idaho and its agencies 

have worked hard and in good faith to develop robust, collaborative 

planning documents with their BLM offices, only to have BLM’s 

national office in Washington, DC unilaterally change course at the 

last minute.’’ 

Mr. Fontaine, have counties in Nevada had similar experiences 

to those that Idaho has had when planning documents go to BLM 

headquarters? 

Mr. FONTAINE. Thank you for the question. I cannot think of a 

specific example today, but, generally speaking, we have a good 

working relationship with our local BLM officials, and strive to 

come up with plans and agreements on how those should be implemented and administered. Once they do leave the state and go to 

Washington, DC, it is really, quite frankly, beyond our control; and 

the last thing that we want to have happen is for our county officials to have to go back and try to rectify something that may have 

been changed that was not agreed to at the county and state level. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I think you are making an important point. I 

think most of us have pretty good relationships with our local officials. It is when it comes here to DC that things seem to shift most 

of the time. 

Under this proposal, do you think Nevada counties have a seat 

at the table when BLM engages in the planning? 

Mr. FONTAINE. Under this proposal, I believe that we still have 

a seat at the table. But again, I think our concern is that that seat 

and our voice might be part of a much larger group of stakeholders, 

53 

and somehow backs away and diminishes the elevated role that 

county governments and local governments have in the process. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. 

Ms. Clarke, thank you for being here today. Will this proposal 

strengthen the relationships that states and local governments 

have spent years developing with local BLM officials? 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you for the question. I believe absolutely not. 

I think it will go the opposite direction. Those relationships in the 

state are robust, but it is very disappointing when we sit and come 

to terms with one of our BLM counterparts and they say, ‘‘OK, now 

I have to go back to Washington and see if I can get this validated.’’ And very often they cannot. They come back with a 

counter-proposal. 

I think this will just make that problem more prevalent. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you very much. I yield back my time. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. At this time, the Chair recognizes the 

Arkansas razorback gentleman, Mr. Westerman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for being here today. One of the most significant changes 

under Planning 2.0 would be moving to the implementation of a 

landscape-level management of resources. I don’t want to knock the 

landscape-level process, because it is used by large private landowners and you can look at individual management of stands and 

then the conglomeration into the landscape. So, the science of that 

I don’t necessarily disagree with, but we have to make sure that 

the process is still followed and that you still have the state and 

local-level input into that process, so that all the views are being 

represented and that we are not shifting power away from the local 

communities. 

Mr. Fontaine, are you concerned that this change will centralize 

management planning in DC, rather than at the state and local 

level? Do you feel like state and local authorities will still have a 

role in this? 

Mr. FONTAINE. Congressman, thank you for the question. We are 

very concerned about how this might affect our local communities. 

We have a number of rural counties that contain small 

communities. 

I will give you an example. Esmeralda County is one. It is a 

neighboring county to Clark County, our most populous county, 

with over 2 million people, completely different in terms of their interests and the impacts of BLM lands on their county. But 

Esmeralda County has 897 people. If somehow that county is included in a larger landscape-level planning initiative, we are very 

concerned about how the impacts to that local community in that 

county would be dwarfed by the larger economic analysis and impact analysis for landscape-level planning effort. 

So, yes, we are very concerned. We have, again, a number of 

counties that would potentially be affected that way. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Do you believe the current system benefits 

states by allowing for closer relationships with Federal officials in 

the state and field offices? 

Mr. FONTAINE. Again, thank you for the question, Congressman. 

Yes, we do. We have close relationships with our state office. We 

have district offices throughout our state, as well. And I know that, 

54 

while there may be differences between counties and the BLM 

officials at the local level from time to time, we encourage our 

member counties, as does the BLM encourage, I believe, their staff 

and management across the state, to work closely together to try 

to address those issues at the local level. We think that is very important, those relationships are absolutely critical. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. But do you think if the decision process is 

moved to DC or a more centralized process, do you think that 

would give outside groups, who may not have a local interest in the 

landscape, undue influence? 

Mr. FONTAINE. I certainly believe that opens the door to that 

possibility, very much so. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I would like to ask Mr. Ogsbury and Ms. 

Clarke your thoughts on the BLM shift to landscape-level 

management. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, I appreciate that opportunity. As I said, 

I have worked with many agencies, Federal and state, regarding 

land use planning and plans. It was delightful when I served at 

BLM to very often be out with local folks, sometimes elected officials, and to be told that BLM was a superb partner and asked, 

‘‘What would it take to get the Forest Service to function the way 

the BLM did? ’’ 

I think you automatically see the difference. They have 

landscape-scale designs around those forests. They do not have any 

kind of geographic boundaries that align with political boundaries. 

While that is convenient for them and good for the forest, they are 

not the greatest of partners. I used to have my counterpart, Chief 

of the Forest Service, say this, ‘‘It is great to partner with the 

BLM, because they are open-armed.’’ But he says, ‘‘If you want to 

partner with the Forest Service, you have really got to want to 

partner, because we will not make it easy.’’ 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairman Gohmert, Congressman Westerman, 

members of the committee, WGA does not have a specific policy on 

the movement toward landscape planning. But as you so 

articulately observed, whatever process is pursued, it is critical to 

preserve the special role of governors and the substantive role in 

the BLM planning process. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I am almost out of time, Mr. Chairman. I will 

yield back and hang around. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. We will have a second round, and I 

will now recognize Chairman Bishop for 5 minutes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you again. 

Mr. Lyons, I have a couple of questions for you, one in response 

to your testimony to Chairman Gohmert just a second ago, that you 

were thinking of making comment periods in BLM 2.0 longer. So 

I guess the question is why, then, do you refuse to extend the comment periods about BLM 2.0 more than 30 days, even though you 

had requests from numerous special interest groups to do so? 

Mr. LYONS. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. We have 

gone through an extensive process in developing the rule and in 

seeking input from various sources. We have held workshops, we 

have held webinars, we have had a 60-day comment period, which 

was extended another 30 days. We do not want the process of 

55 

preparing the planning rules to last as long as it takes today to 

prepare a plan. 

The CHAIRMAN. Even though you have had repeated requests for 

extended comment periods? 

Mr. LYONS. We will continue to accept input from those who 

want to provide that input. In fact, we continue to look at that 

input and will factor that into the completion of the final rule. 

The CHAIRMAN. I guess it comes back again to, it is not where 

the input is coming from, but who is actually making the decisions 

on this input, which is one of the other questions that we have 

coming up here. 

Let me ask you one other question, as well. Are you aware of any 

instances, including the management of national monuments, 

where BLM is currently using Planning 2.0 procedures or where 

BLM has told communities that the Planning 2.0 procedures would 

be used, regardless of whether or not they had been finalized? 

Mr. LYONS. Mr. Chairman, we have pilot-tested the application 

of Planning 2.0 principles. In particular, I would offer work that 

was done in western Montana, in and around the communities of 

Missoula. And the response was quite positive. In fact, if I may—— 

The CHAIRMAN. No, just answer the question. Have you done it? 

Mr. LYONS. We have pilot-tested this in a number of places, and 

it has been a very positive response. 

The CHAIRMAN. Have you told communities that you would use 

2.0 regardless of whether they have been finalized or not? 

Mr. LYONS. We did not use 2.0, we applied the principles and 

concepts as we are developing this to try to do what I think any 

prudent organization would do. We are testing the approach—— 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, come on, in English. The answer is yes, 

then? 

Mr. LYONS. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. The answer is no. So you have not 

implemented—— 

Mr. LYONS. No, we have not implemented Planning 2.0 yet. It is 

not the rule—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Except even though you said you have already 

pilot-tested—— 

Mr. LYONS. We have pilot-tested elements of it. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And there has not been a situation in which you 

told communities you are going to be using this whether it is 

finalized or not? 

Mr. LYONS. No, sir. We have not completed the rule. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Then I hope some of the input we are 

having has been inaccurate. 

Let me go back to that ‘‘deciding official’’ concept again. Mr. 

Fontaine, let me ask you the same thing I asked Mr. Ogsbury earlier on. Is it ever appropriate to have that defining official be somebody who lives outside the jurisdiction of either a county or a state, 

if the entire plan is within the jurisdiction of that county or state? 

Mr. FONTAINE. Chairman Bishop, thank you for the question. I 

don’t understand how you can have a deciding official make a decision about a place where they don’t have knowledge, haven’t 

resided, haven’t spent time with the community, or haven’t worked 

with that community to understand what the needs are in that—— 

56 

The CHAIRMAN. You have never seen the administrative state in 

action, then. 

Ms. Clarke, let me come back to you on that. Do you have any 

concerns on how BLM will select these deciding officials under this 

new plan? 

Ms. CLARKE. I have grave concerns about it, because I do not 

think there is anything I have seen in the rule that limits who that 

might be. And I do not see anything that says it needs to be someone local, someone who understands the culture. 

But, there has been discussion here about ‘‘we are not going to 

diminish the role of the cooperators.’’ Yet, I think it will fundamentally be diminished if, after you have talked and worked with them, 

they pull in someone to decide who has never been party to those 

conversations. So, it is another way to really diminish the input of 

state and local governments. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me go back to another one, then. States do 

have primacy over allocation and administration of water resources 

within state borders. So, Mr. Lyons, the BLM proposals here indicate the agency may add provisions to its RMPs to increase agency 

involvement in water management. Specifically, what aspects of 

water management allocation would BLM incorporate into the 

future in new or amended RMPs? 

Mr. LYONS. Mr. Chairman, I am actually not aware of that, so 

I am going to have to do a little homework and try to understand 

where that impression has come from. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, good. If we gave you an extended comment 

period, maybe you could answer that. 

Mr. LYONS. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I see a yellow light over there. Let me yield back 

and see how many other people have something else to go with. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. The Chair yields back. I am struggling here. Given the significant impact that this rule is going to 

have on the 12 western states where the Federal Government, the 

BLM, owns so much of that land, and given the disproportionate 

impact that this rule 2.0 is going to have on these 12 states, why 

did the BLM choose not to travel to those states and have field 

hearings and hear directly from the people most affected? 

And, as Mr. Fontaine points out, some of these counties, because 

there is so much Federal land in their county, do not have the resources to come to Washington to lobby like other special interest 

groups do. Why was there not even a trip to the sites that are 

going to be so materially affected before this was put out as the 

rule? 

Mr. Lyons? 

Mr. LYONS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would say this. We have done 

outreach, as I said before. We have sought input. We have gotten 

over 6,000 comments on the rule, which I am glad to provide for 

the record, if you like. Our intent is not to have to have people 

come to Washington. Our goal is to engage with people on the 

ground. That is the way the plans would be implemented. It is no 

different than the way things occur now with regard to cooperators. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That is what we are worried about. 

Mr. LYONS. I would emphasize that we have worked through our 

resource advisory committees—and again, I can provide this inforVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:15 Jan 10, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS\07-07-16\20697.TXT DARLEN
57 

mation for the record—who are locally representative, to secure additional input and feedback on the rules, as well. We are trying to 

engage at that level, and to engage as well on a regional level to 

secure information that will help us improve the rule. 

This conversation is interesting and helpful in helping us to decide how we are going to finalize the rule. As I indicated to the 

Chairman, we are not done yet, and we certainly appreciate the 

feedback. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, what about extending the rule, or extending 

the comment period for the rule itself? Since you and Director 

Kornze talked and you think it would be a good idea to extend it 

within the rule, how about extending the comment period for the 

rule? 

Mr. LYONS. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a conversation to be had with the Director, but I would suggest that we have 

done our utmost over the period of time that we have been working 

on this rule to try to secure additional input, and now it is time 

to finalize a rule based on all the input we received and then apply 

it. 

Mr. GOHMERT. You are hearing from people who represent areas 

in the West. You are hearing from others saying, ‘‘Give us more 

time.’’ We invited Director Kornze, and they sent you to answer for 

him. That is why you are being asked the question. You are answering for the Director, you are the one they sent. So, I would 

appreciate it if you would not pawn it off on the Director when he 

sent you to answer. 

It sounds like you are saying, ‘‘We are not extending the comment period. We have our little bevy of folks around here in 

Washington; we haven’t been to those areas. We are going to materially impact them, and we don’t care. We have our plan, and we 

may extend the comment period within the plan for other rules, 

but the big killer plan, we are going to leave it right where it is. 

We are satisfied with our little crew right here in Washington.’’ 

That is the impression you are giving. Then, when you throw it 

back to Director Kornze, when he sent you to testify on his behalf, 

it gives me a lot of concern. 

Mr. Ogsbury, aren’t the Western Governors pleading for more 

comment period before 2.0 is put in as a finalized rule? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairman Gohmert and members of the committee, the Western Governors are pleading for BLM to take a step 

back and take their concerns into account. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Let me just say this, since my time is running 

out. It looks like we are heading to a CR or an omnibus, and the 

Republican leaders come to people like me and they say, ‘‘Look, we 

need you and we need other conservatives like you. What will it 

take? ’’ And I tell you what. We are about to get to the point where 

it is going to take gutting BLM’s leadership until we get people 

who will be responsive to the people that they are gutting. That 

may be what I need to support, the CR or omnibus, if we do not 

get more responsiveness out of BLM. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes Mr. Labrador for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

58 

Ms. Clarke, just to follow up on the questions I was asking you— 

do you think that the shift to multi-state landscape management 

benefit the actual landscapes? 

Ms. CLARKE. Not necessarily, because I believe that the best 

stewardship of the land comes when there is a partnership that 

empowers local people to be engaged, and that has solicited their 

commitment to the plan. If they are a part of it, I think they will 

honor it; and they will do their utmost to take care of the land. 

The land is often where they live, where they play, and, for 

many, where they make a living. I think they will be good stewards. I think if you go to landscape level you lose that very personal touch. Unlike the Forest Service, that can draw a circle 

around their land, the BLM land is so fragmented that BLM has 

to partner with its neighbors. This is not going to lead to good 

partnership. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. Do you think there is any statutory 

authority for this change? 

Ms. CLARKE. No, I do not. I think this is moving beyond the 

statute, and kind of ignoring the statute. 

Mr. LABRADOR. OK. Mr. Lyons, you state that the proposed rule 

is intended to ‘‘improve opportunities for state and local government, stakeholders, and the public to better provide input to plans 

from the outset.’’ Based on the comments from the witnesses here 

today, and the comments submitted to BLM by the state of Idaho, 

it appears that the proposal fails to meet that goal. 

Based on the fact that state and local elected officials from all 

over the country are commenting on the rule and expressing concerns that their ability to participate in the planning process with 

BLM will be reduced, does BLM still contend that the draft rule 

satisfies the requirements of FLPMA? 

Mr. LYONS. I am confident, Congressman, that the proposed rule 

is consistent with FLPMA and our authorities. My takeaway is we 

have a lot of work to do to help correct some misperceptions and 

misunderstanding of the rule, and—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. You are smarter than all the governors and all 

the county commissioners. You just need to convince them of your 

brightness. 

Mr. LYONS. No. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Is that what you are telling us? 

Mr. LYONS. No, no. What I am saying, Congressman, is that we 

have work to do to consider all the input that was provided today 

and has been provided throughout this period, and to see, to what 

extent we can address those concerns, but I am confident—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. You have the Western Governors’ Association, all 

the western governors, telling you that it does not comply with 

FLPMA. Their concern about their inability to be able to participate in the process—that you are actually taking their ability away 

that FLPMA clearly provides. It is not like we are making it here 

out of whole cloth. We are not just inventing it from the dais. We 

are actually reading the statute that says that they have to have 

significant impact and significant input. 

Mr. LYONS. Well, I would suggest, Congressman, that everyone 

is rendering opinions, including myself. I am not an attorney. I will 

let our solicitor’s office confirm that, if that is helpful. 

59 

Mr. LABRADOR. No, it is not helpful. The state of Idaho has requested that BLM discard the proposed rule and that a new proposal be drafted with the BLM appropriately engaging the states. 

Has BLM received similar requests from other states? 

Mr. LYONS. We have heard from a number of states who are 

concerned about the rule. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And have they specifically made that request to 

just start the process over? 

Mr. LYONS. I would have to check on the specifics, Congressman. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you know, Mr. Ogsbury, if other states have 

made the same request? 

Mr. OGSBURY. I believe the state of Wyoming has asked for a 

withdrawal of the rule. The state of Utah has asked for a withdrawal of the rule, as well. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But Washington knows better, right? 

Mr. Lyons, does BLM plan to comply with these requests, or is 

the agency committed to finalize the draft rule? 

Mr. LYONS. I think we are going to do everything we can, 

Congressman, to address the concerns that have been raised, and 

attempt to complete the rule. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Lyons, is BLM using these proposed regulations in the development of the management plan for Oregon 

National Monument? 

Mr. LYONS. I am not aware of that. I can’t answer that, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. OK. So, your testimony today is that you are 

going to take these comments back, but you are going to do nothing 

with it, because you are going to continue with the proposed rule; 

correct? 

Mr. LYONS. That is not what I said, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I want to be clear. Are you willing to start all 

over with this rule? 

Mr. LYONS. No. What I said was, we are willing to listen as we 

have, and will continue to do. We are going to listen to the comments that have been provided—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. And what are you going to do with those 

comments? 

Mr. LYONS. Attempt to address the issues to the best of our 

ability in attempting to finalize the rule. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So, you are going to attempt to educate us on the 

wisdom of Washington, DC, because you are not going to do anything to change the proposed rule. I am asking a serious question. 

Are you going to do anything to change the proposed rule? 

Mr. LYONS. I think we are in the process of working that through 

right now, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lyons, 

welcome to the committee. In full disclosure to the committee, the 

last time I think Jim and I were in the same room, he was a visiting professor at Yale when I was taking a policy class; so I am 

glad you gave me a good grade in the class. 

Mr. LYONS. Where did I go wrong? 

60 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I remember from that class one of the discussions we had was in resource management, that government is 

more effective when it was closest to the people. That was a topic 

we discussed quite a bit. I still believe that is true and hold true 

to that. I am very concerned about when we enact policy that 

moves government or moves decisions further away from the 

people. 

I am also concerned that when we are looking at resources, we 

get the policy and the science on the same page. As I said earlier, 

the science behind landscape management is not all bad, you get 

some benefits from things like landscape-wide stewardship contracting, or areas to maximize the use of the resource much better. 

But I am really concerned if we do not do this correctly, then we 

will be taking the decision away from the people who are most affected by the decision; and the decisions will be based more on politics, rather than science. And in the end, the American public loses 

because our resources are not managed well. 

Could you just elaborate a little bit on how we can be assured 

that this rule will still keep decisions local, that there will be collaborative efforts, and that those that are most affected by these 

management decisions will have, not only a seat at the table, but 

the front seat at the table. 

Mr. LYONS. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate the opportunity, and I am proud to see one of my students, at least, has been 

successful. 

What I would say is that I agree completely that local input is 

essential to making sound resource management decisions. You 

have heard me say that before. I think, unfortunately, the way in 

which this rule has been characterized misrepresents, at least from 

my perspective—and I realize there are different perspectives in 

the room—how this would work. 

The goal here is to provide additional opportunities for input up 

front. That is what the assessment process is about, so everyone 

has the same basic information going into the planning process. 

We would require, before plan alternatives are developed, that 

there be a discussion with all the local interests, all interests, 

including locally elected officials and cooperators, about the construction of those alternatives; and the responsible official who is 

developing the plan has an obligation to explain why those 

alternatives fit with the resource conditions and the baseline information provided. I think that helps improve local collaboration, coordination, and should produce a better product. 

What was indicated in the pilot we did in Missoula was that that 

was, in fact, the case. In fact, many of the issues that probably 

would have been exposed much later in the process surfaced early, 

and discussions began among various parties toward resolving 

those issues, and they were pleased with the outcome. 

We are trying to find ways to expedite a process that should be 

driven by local interests and local concerns, recognizing that these 

are public lands and every American may have an interest in these 

lands. But local interest, locally elected officials, cooperators, have 

a unique role to play. FLPMA acknowledges that, and that is why 

they have a seat at the table. Or, put another way, that is why 

they are in the tent. They are a part of the process from start to 

61 

finish, and that would continue under this proposed rule. That 

would not change. 

So, I think the perception that this drives all decisions back to 

Washington is a gross misunderstanding of what the rule intends 

to achieve. It is, in fact, intended to capitalize on lessons learned 

over a long period of time in planning to respond to what we heard 

from local interests and from our own planners, who said we have 

to change the process. 

In fact, in part it reflects a conversation that Director Kornze relayed to us as we began this process. In one of his first meetings, 

he met with Governor Herbert and Secretary Jewell. One of the requests that Governor Herbert made was, ‘‘Can you please fix this 

process? It just takes too long, and by the time you are done it is 

irrelevant.’’ And this is what we are seeking to do in the changes 

we have made in this proposed rule. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right, thank you. I thank the witnesses for 

their testimony. Thank you for being here. 

Members of the committee may have some additional questions. 

Under Committee Rule 4(h), they may have some written questions 

to submit, in which case the record will be held open for 10 additional days. The witnesses agree to respond in the event there are 

questions—Ms. Clarke, Mr. Lyons, Mr. McAfee, Mr. Fontaine, and 

Mr. Ogsbury. 

All right, thank you, everyone. For the record, we have comments 

from the Nevada Association of Counties dated May 25, 2016, and 

from the National Association of Counties, a letter dated June 21, 

2016. Without objection, those will be submitted as part of the 

record, as well. 

If there is no further business—hearing none, without objection, 

the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

1. Letter dated June 22, 2016 addressed to Neil Kornze, Director 

of the Bureau of Land Management, from Ryan Sundberg, 5th 

District Supervisor of Humbolt County, Eureka, California, 

expressing support for BLM Planning Rule 2.0. 

2. Letter dated June 22, 2016 addressed to Neil Kornze, Director 

of the Bureau of Land Management, from Mark Lovelace, 3rd 

District Supervisor of Humbolt County, Eureka, California, 

expressing support for BLM Planning Rule 2.0. 

3. Letter addressed to Neil Kornze, Director of the Bureau of 

Land Management, from the Lewis & Clark County Board of 

Commissioners located in Montana, expressing support for 

BLM Planning Rule 2.0. 

4. Letter dated May 23, 2016 addressed to Neil Kornze, Director 

of the Bureau of Land Management, from the Missoula 

County Board of Commissioners located in Montana, expressing support for BLM Planning Rule 2.0. 

62 

5. Letter dated May 12, 2016 addressed to Neil Kornze, Director 

of the Bureau of Land Management, from the Park County 

Board of Commissioners located in Colorado, expressing support for BLM Planning Rule 2.0. 

6. Letter dated June 21, 2016 addressed to Chairman Gohmert 

and Ranking Member Dingell from the National Association of 

Counties, providing comment on BLM Planning Rule 2.0. 

7. Testimony submitted by Public Land Solutions in response to 

the oversight hearing dated July 13, 2016. 

8. Testimony submitted by farmers of the Marcus Valley in 

southwestern Colorado in response to the oversight hearing 

dated July 13, 2016. 

9. Letter dated May 25, 2016 addressed to Neil Kornze, Director 

of the Bureau of Land Management, from Director Clarke, 

providing comment on BLM Planning Rule 2.0. 

10. Letter dated May 25, 2016 addressed to Neil Kornze, Director 

of the Bureau of Land Management, from the Nevada Association of Counties, providing comment on BLM Planning Rule 

2.0. 

Æ