Don’t Do Dat: Advice for the New Admin on “Sharp Sticks in the Eye” BLM Decisions

Right now, there’s much concern in some media about bad things the new Admin is doing, which has effectively eclipsed stories on bad things the previous Admin did, especially at the end of the Admin.

Why do we care about that? Isn’t it old news? The reason is that if we’re not careful, the New Admin will notice the sharp sticks in the eye from the previous Admin, and sharpen even more sticks in retaliation. Say, for example,  the last Admin moved RMP decisions from the District Manager to the Director? The new Admin can move them from the Director to.. the White House! It all reminds me of the quote above from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I think it’s important for us to send the message to the new Admin to resist the tendency to one-up the last Admin on bad procedural ideas. We can disagree on the policies, and agree on the processes. The processes are the glue that hold us together, and the more dependable they are, the more trust people have in government to deal with contentious issues.

The relationship between local federal employees at the BLM and Forest Service and the local public is not exactly a sacred bond (sometimes it seems like it may have been a shotgun wedding?), but it is a relationship. That relationship is key to success in federal land management in all kinds of ways. If people in DC call down and make decisions about RMPs or wind or solar or oil and gas projects disregarding local input, it makes public processes seem like a waste of time, reduces trust and so on.

Let’s look more closely at the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan (12/20/24), although it’s certainly not the only example. The ROD was signed post-election, and there was great resistance in Wyoming. This means it’s likely to be overturned, leading to more work by employees (and involvement by the public).

It was signed by Nada Culver, as Principal Deputy Director, in DC .

For at least some of the recent decisions, we’ve heard that the Director and Deputy contacted the District Managers directly via phone to tell them what to put in the plan, so that the actual exchanges are not FOIAble, nor discoverable. That runs against transparency, and again, building trust.  If you are the Director or Deputy and you want to direct decisions, that’s fine, elections have consequences, but you should also be willing to put it in writing so people can understand the decision process and who made the call. Otherwise it makes it seem like the career folks are negotiating in bad faith; when in fact, their honest negotiations have been overruled from above.

My BLM retiree sources tell me that RMPs are usually signed by the District Manager. When decisions cross Districts, they are signed by the State Director. When they cross States, they are signed by the WO. That pretty much follows a reasonable logic path. So this recent approach is relatively unusual and apparently hands-on by DC, and in my view, not to be copied nor one-upped by the Trump Admin. I’d argue to return to traditional processes.

In addition to returning to that norm, traditionally, after the required Governor’s Consistency Review for RMPs, States and Feds try to work out disagreements. This apparently did not happen with this RMP. From the ROD:

The Governor of Wyoming submitted a Governor’s Consistency Review Letter dated October 22, 2024. The Governor’s Consistency Review Letter listed several areas of inconsistency: ACECs, proposed withdrawals, inconsistency with county land use plans, resource management, Cooperating Agencies, and  recommendations and Proposed Action. The BLM Wyoming State Director responded on November 18, 2024, providing detailed responses to these consistency issues; no changes to the RSFO Proposed RMP/Final EIS were necessary to addresses the listed areas of inconsistency.
The Governor of Wyoming was presented the opportunity to appeal the BLM Wyoming State Director’s responses pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e) within 30 days, ending December 18, 2024. The Governor of Wyoming appealed the BLM Wyoming State Director’s responses in a letter dated December 13, 2024. The BLM Director notified the governor in writing and published a notice in the Federal Register of the reasons for the BLM Director’s determination to reject the Governor of Wyoming’s appeal recommendations, in accordance with 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e).
No changes to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS were necessary as a result of the Governor’s Consistency Review letter or appeal.

Again, usually the Governor’s Office and the State Office would tend to work things out. Otherwise why have a Governor’s Consistency Review as a required part of the process? But “no changes required” seems unnecessarily sharp stick in the eye-ish.

Again, I recommend the new Admin return to traditional processes, even (especially) for this Admin, when D governors are in place.

Why? because I think Admins should take the win and find an alternative that most can live with.  You don’t have to be a psychic to predict that when Admins leave with a sharp stick in the eye to others, that others will redo the work, and there can be two results 1. apparently endless back and forth between Admins (think sage grouse or Monumentizing), or 2. the next Admin redoing the plan  with worse outcomes for your Admin’s interests.  Now, cynical people may think that that’s a good result in terms of fundraising for various groups, or increasing employment for lawyers; but endless fighting is  not a good result for employees, who are caught in the middle with whiplash,  nor the public, nor the relationships among employees, the public and elected officials.

Those of us who have been involved as federal employees know that there are always opportunities for approaches that take into the consideration the views of different stakeholders.  That is their job- finding paths toward some kind of peace.  When decisions are made based on phone calls from DC, it’s not good for employees, nor the public nor their relationship.  Sure, an administration should put their finger on the scale, but there a wide range of latitude between putting a finger on the scale and effectively giving a finger to Governors.

The new Admin should support decisions that will hold over the long term.

To my mind, there should be a compelling reason for disrupting historic and expected ways of working that have served federal lands and people over the last century of management. Given that we have always, and are always going to have, disagreements, at least people know what to expect of the process, and that builds trust. By empowering local federal employees, citizens can  speak directly to the persons involved in  making the decision, and that builds trust. Knowing the decision is informed by concerns of people talking to the team, and public comments read by the team, builds trust. And trust makes everything run more smoothly, now and into the future.

I guess I just don’t understand the need for a post-election flurry of decisions that local and State elected officials don’t support, are highly likely to be overturned, and make extra work for employees. One hypothesis is that such actions are intended to promote a future-fundraising opportunity for groups from which the appointees came and to which they are returning? Since this has been going on for awhile, perhaps it’s as simple as what’s known in the trade as “packing their parachutes” or auditioning for better post-government positions. Yet, it happens at the expense of the credibility and increases needless work for federal employees.

So, while there’s a few years between now and then for this Admin, I’d put “sharp sticks” as well as “last minute easily overturned decisions” on the Don’t Do Dat list.