Would Use of the CRA on RMP’s “Destabilize Land Management”? “Open Pandora’s Box?”

It seems like there are folks out there who are trying to get people worried about things.  I hesitate to call it “fear-mongering” after last time (when I said the land sales dog wasn’t going to hunt), but I think we need to dive in to some of the more histrionic claims.  We disagree and always will about how federal lands should be managed. I just think we need to be honest about the processes and how each Admin deals with getting its own way.  We can also favor a consistent application of process across Admins, and advocate for stopping  the partisanization spiral of doom wherever we see it.

BLM sources tell me that prior to Trump 1, BLM line folks mostly decided on preferred alternatives in RMPs but Trump 1 changed that and politicals made the calls.. This may not be true, so people who know, have at it in the comments.  Then, in the Biden Admin, the local folks were told by phone call by the then-Director and another individual exactly what to do.  I don’t know why those politicals didn’t write it down, as it seems likely we would find out anyway. Perhaps it’s a legal thing? Certainly elections have consequences, so they are entitled to do that, but that’s not the traditional way.  Picking a side might help politicals get their next job, but it’s heck on the career folks and the communities.

Then there’s this comment in Outdoor Life, which is kind of funny given what we have observed with at least the Rock Springs RMP:

“These RMPs aren’t political documents,” they say, speaking only on condition of anonymity. “They’re developed from the ground up, with people who live on and around these public lands helping direct the priorities of the agency. In my view, having a top-down, politically motivated decision like this is absolutely contrary to the local control that most conservatives say they want.”

Here’s a quote from a fellow at the Sierra Club:

Today’s votes set a dangerous precedent for the management of our public lands,” says Athan Manuel, director of the lands protection program at the Sierra Club. “RMPs are carefully crafted plans developed with robust input from local communities, Tribes, and local stakeholders—they’re examples of how our system should work. It’s concerning that House Republicans without expertise or local connections would inject themselves into this process, overrule the people most affected by the plans, and introduce chaos into the management of millions of acres of our most treasured public landscapes.”

Perhaps it was the last Admin’s RMP phone pals who didn’t have expertise or local connections.. just a guess. Maybe some of the House reps are from those districts..  It sounds like someone is saying that the Biden Admin never did what we know they did.  It would have been helpful if the source had not been anonymous; it’s a “former BLM staffer” so conceivably not speaking out of turn.  By the way, here’s the representatives of the Governor’s Task Force who gave recommendations on the Rock Springs RMP:.

And here’s a story on Governor Gordon’s appeal:

Kimberlee Foster, BLM Rock Springs field manager, said Gordon’s appeal will be handled by BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning. It will be Stone-Manning’s call to decide if more modifications are made to the plan based on the governor’s recommendations, or to keep it as is.

What was that about “overruling”  “the people most affected by the plans” again?

**********

“House members just effectively joined the administration’s efforts to dismantle and undermine federal agencies like the BLM by voting to undo decades’ worth of local planning,” says Justin Meuse, government relations director at The Wilderness Society. “Overturning land management plans in this unprecedented way could throw our public lands into chaos, threatening to expose thousands of permits, leases and rights of way to legal challenge.”

My question is… if the new plans took effect early this year, wouldn’t they just go back to the old plans?  And how many new permits and leases have been issued since then? Also if I remember that once a lease is issued, it has a certain legal standing.

Now, we can imagine that certain members of Congress may take issue with the decisions of several recently-decided RMPs. Perhaps especially those with ROD’s issued after the election.  It was not easy to find them, but it looks like the Rock Springs RMP (discussed here), the Central Yukon Planning Area (11/12/2024). AI generated these:

December 19, 2024	Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development
January 8, 2025	North Dakota Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

and the Outdoor Life article included Miles City (12/03/24).

Now the hoopla seems to be about Congress using CRA.  CRA has timelines- which maybe someone can explain because it seems kind of opaque.

So taking this at face value, we have to ask the question:

Why doesn’t Congress just ask the Admin to withdraw the decision and pick another alternative?  After all, that’s what the Biden Admin did with Alaska Roadless, and of all those recent RMP’s it seems likely that the Admin would agree with withdrawing them.

Back to CWP- I still don’t understand how this would affect “every management plan”; and there are valid existing rights.. this seems like quite a stretch.  What am I missing?

As Center for Western Priorities Deputy Director Aaron Weiss explains in a new blog post, if courts interpret this action broadly, every management plan written since 1996 could be challenged in court—potentially invalidating oil and gas leases, grazing permits, and threatening public access to trails and campgrounds.

This regulatory limbo threatens not just energy and ranching, but the entire recreation industry that fuels local economies across the West. Without modern management plans, land managers would be forced to revert to outdated frameworks from decades ago, written before today’s recreation economy took off. Outfitters, guides, and businesses that depend on reliable access for rafting, off-roading, and other outdoor activities could face years of uncertainty, permit delays, and costly litigation.

The Senate’s vote could mark the start of a new era of instability for public lands. For a closer look at the potential legal and economic ripple effects, read the full analysis on CWP’s Westwise blog.

It seems to me that those newer plans tend to be more restrictive about (certain forms of) recreation, so I’m not sure about “outdated frameworks.” I can’t say about RMP’s but I’m having a great time recreating on a National Forest with a 1984 plan (and a travel management decision in litigation, I think) so there’s that.