S.Hrg.119-210

1[Senate Hearing 119-210]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                      S. Hrg. 119-21056               HOW THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LAND7                USE PLANNING PROCESS UNDER THE FEDERAL8                LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT AF-9                FECTS PERMITTING FOR ENERGY, MINING,10                GRAZING, AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS11                ON PUBLIC LANDS12=======================================================================1314                                HEARING1516                               BEFORE THE1718                              COMMITTEE ON19                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES20                          UNITED STATES SENATE2122                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2324                             FIRST SESSION2526                               __________2728                           NOVEMBER 19, 20252930                               __________3132[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3334                       Printed for the use of the35               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources3637        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov3839                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4061-932                     WASHINGTON : 202641=======================================================================4243               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES4445                        MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman46JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico47JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon48STEVE DAINES, Montana                MARIA CANTWELL, Washington49TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii50DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania        ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine51JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia      CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada52BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado53CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        ALEX PADILLA, California54LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona55JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota5657                  Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director58    Chris Prandoni, Majority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel59       Sam Crofts, Majority Policy Director for Natural Resources60                 Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director61                 Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel62        Maya Hermann, Minority Natural Resources Policy Director6364                            C O N T E N T S6566                              ----------6768                           OPENING STATEMENTS6970                                                                   Page71Barrasso, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................     172Lee, Hon. Mike, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Utah............     273Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from74  New Mexico.....................................................     37576                               WITNESSES7778Brown, Hon. Derek, Attorney General, State of Utah...............     579Kenna, Jim, Retired State Director, Bureau of Land Management....    1480Christensen, Micah, Natural Resource Counsel, Wyoming County81  Commissioners Association......................................    2482Cramer, Adam, Chief Executive Officer, Outdoor Alliance..........    3783Sheehan, Greg, President and CEO, Mule Deer Foundation...........    468485          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED8687Barrasso, Hon. John:88    Opening Statement............................................     189Brown, Hon. Derek:90    Opening Statement............................................     591    Written Testimony............................................     792Christensen, Micah:93    Opening Statement............................................    2494    Written Testimony............................................    2695Cramer, Adam:96    Opening Statement............................................    3797    Written Testimony............................................    3998    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    8199Digital Power Network:100    Statement for the Record.....................................    93101Grid Action:102    Statement for the Record.....................................   102103    Response to DOI Request for Information, dated June 20, 2025.   106104Heinrich, Hon. Martin:105    Opening Statement............................................     3106Kenna, Jim:107    Opening Statement............................................    14108    Written Testimony............................................    16109    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    74110Lee, Hon. Mike:111    Opening Statement............................................     2112    Chart entitled ``Restrictive Land Designations''.............    51113    Statement for the Record.....................................    87114Risch, Hon. James E.:115    Statement for the Record.....................................    92116Sheehan, Greg:117    Opening Statement............................................    46118    Written Testimony............................................    48119    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    82120Western Governors' Association:121    Letter for the Record........................................   113122    Policy Resolution 2024-01....................................   114123124 HOW THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS UNDER THE125 FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT AFFECTS PERMITTING FOR ENERGY,126      MINING, GRAZING, AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ON PUBLIC LANDS127128                              ----------129130                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2025131132                                       U.S. Senate,133                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,134                                                    Washington, DC.135    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in Room136SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman137of the Committee, presiding.138    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Good139morning and welcome to all of you.140    Today, we are holding a hearing on how, exactly, the Bureau141of Land Management plans land use under the Federal Land Policy142and Management Act, also known as FLPMA. More specifically, we143will examine FLPMA's impact on how the Bureau--the BLM--issues144public land permits for energy, mining, grazing, infrastructure145projects, and other uses. We will be hearing from five146witnesses today to consider how BLM's permitting process has147become rigid, slow, and often detached from the intent Congress148expressed in passing FLPMA of multiple use and sustained yield149as those concepts are articulated in FLPMA itself.150    The witnesses include, first, the honorable Derek Brown,151Attorney General of the State of Utah; second, Jim Kenna,152retired California BLM State Director; third, Micah153Christensen, who is Natural Resource Counsel for the Wyoming154County Commissioners Association; fourth, Adam Cramer, CEO of155the Outdoor Alliance; and finally, Greg Sheehan, former Utah156BLM State Director, and current President and Chief Executive157Officer of the Mule Deer Foundation.158    We are going to recognize Senator Barrasso for a moment to159talk about one of these witnesses with whom he is familiar.160161           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,162                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING163164    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. And I165do appreciate what you just said--rigid, slow, and often166detached. And that has certainly been the experience that we167have seen in Wyoming.168    And so, I am delighted that Micah Christensen is here169today, and I am honored to introduce him to the Committee. He170is Natural Resource Counsel for the Wyoming County171Commissioners Association. He works closely with Wyoming's172County Commissioners every day on federal natural resource173issues. He is a seventh-generation member from Wyoming, grew up174in the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming, and graduated from the175University of Wyoming College of Law. Prior to joining the176Wyoming County Commissioners Association, he served as177Assistant Attorney General for the State of Wyoming. At that178point, he represented the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation179Commission. He now lives in Casper with his wife and his four180children.181    Over the past few years, he has worked to defend and182represent Wyoming's interests when it comes to federal land183management. He has become a pivotal voice for Wyoming, and has184seen firsthand the federal overreach from the previous185administration. So, I am grateful that he has come here today186to be with us to discuss the Federal Land Policy and Management187Act, and I am thankful for all he does on behalf of Wyoming's188County Commissioners and the people of our great state.189    Micah, thank you very much for joining us.190    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this opportunity.191    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much.192193              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,194                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH195196    When Congress first enacted FLPMA back in 1976, the idea197was pretty straightforward. Federal agencies would manage198public lands with a clear eye toward multiple use and sustained199yield. States and counties would, of course, be partners in200this. The planning process would be predictable and would be201responsive to conditions on the ground, as expressed by those202involved in the process. It's not always how the system203functions today. Congress intended the resource management plan204(RMP) to be flexible and that these processes would involve205flexible instruments that could adapt with changing206circumstances and according to local needs.207    But instead, they have often become these very large and,208in fact, enormous static documents that take many, many years209to write and even longer to revise. By the time an RMP is210finalized, local conditions have often shifted, new technology211may have emerged, and project needs may have changed212substantially. The rigidity that we see in this process can end213up affecting everything, from energy development, to grazing214renewals, to recreational access. A project can satisfy federal215law and environmental requirements, but if the plan that216governs the landscape is outdated, the project may be stalled217anyway, in which case, applicants are left waiting for permits218that should be routine. Project proponents face uncertainty.219Counties are forced to operate under assumptions that no longer220match reality.221    The expanded use of restricted designations, like areas of222critical environmental concern (ACECs) and wilderness study223areas (WSAs), demonstrates how far the process has deviated.224Congress intended these tools to protect specific resources.225Over time, however, the BLM has applied these concepts to226enormous tracts of land, often layered with other restrictions,227and these things are rarely reviewed. Even before the Biden228administration's abuse of the ACEC designations, as of 2021,229over 20 million acres of BLM land were designated as areas of230critical environmental concern. This designation limits active231management and access for uses that Congress specifically232drafted FLPMA to support.233    The Rock Springs RMP in Wyoming provides a pretty clear234case study of this phenomenon. The Biden administration tagged235more than a million acres with restricted designations, which236had sweeping implications for communities that rely on public237land. Wyoming counties raised concerns. The state raised238concerns. The proposed plan moved forward anyway. Now,239thankfully, in response to public outcry from local officials,240the Trump administration reopened the plan. But that sequence241of events reveals a process in which coordination with state242and local governments is a courtesy, not an obligation.243    FLPMA requires the Secretary to coordinate with state and244local governments, yet the statute gives that requirement no245legal teeth. As a result, federal planners can move forward246without the most current information available. States and247counties have up-to-date data on wildlife migration, water248availability, infrastructure, and emergency needs. That249information should strengthen federal planning. Instead, it's250often incorporated late in the process or incorporated not at251all. Coordination, when done correctly, results in locally252supported plans that are durable, leading to more certainty for253projects on federal lands.254    We have an opportunity to explore ways we can improve the255planning process. A functional system should allow for adaptive256management. It should allow for timely adjustments and stable257expectations for project sponsors. It should respect the258knowledge of state and local governments that live with the259practical consequences of these federal decisions. FLPMA rests260on the idea that decisions made in Washington, DC, gain261legitimacy only when they reflect the judgment of the people262who have to live with the outcome. That assumption is as true263today as it was in 1976, and it remains embedded within FLPMA264today, as it was in 1976. The question before us is whether the265Federal Government is meeting that obligation if what we want266is a planning process worthy of the land that the process267governs. Accountability cannot be merely symbolic. It must be268real, it must be early, and it must include the states and269local governments that know these landscapes the very best.270    With that, we will turn the time over to our Ranking Member271on the Committee, Senator Heinrich.272273           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,274                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO275276    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to277add my welcome to our witnesses here today to talk about how we278decide what to do with our public lands.279    Talking about resource management plans might not be280everyone's idea of a great way to spend their Wednesday281morning, but personally, I am very glad that this Committee is282looking at this important element of public land management.283The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, says284something pretty simple: it says that the Bureau of Land285Management should look at the lands it manages and decide how286to manage those lands for multiple uses. The BLM has a287complicated job--it has to figure out how to fit energy288development and wilderness and grazing and wildlife habitat and289mining and fishing and forestry and recreation and cultural290resource preservation on the lands that it manages.291    One approach could be a free-for-all--whoever puts the land292to use first gets to decide what happens there going forward.293Our nation did that for a long time, giving away public land294via homesteading and mining claims and granting lands to295railroads to facilitate western expansion. But conservationists296like Teddy Roosevelt began to recognize that if we kept going297down that path, we would have no public lands left, which would298mean most Americans would be locked out of the nation's open299spaces.300    A few decades later, Congress passed FLPMA, and directed301the BLM to keep public lands public and to manage public lands302under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. To do303that, it requires the BLM to periodically produce land use304plans to guide its management decisions. Now, recognizing that305multiple use doesn't--and frankly can't--mean every use on306every acre, these land use plans ensure that all uses have some307of those acres. Land use planning is a robustly public process,308integrating information and priorities from local residents,309from businesses, from tribes and local governments, and public310land users from across the nation. Finding ways to accommodate311the broad range of everything from wilderness to mining is not312easy, but the planning process makes sure that all uses are313considered and everyone's voices are heard.314    Now, unfortunately, these plans are updated far too315infrequently--that is something that I think we all agree on--316and are intended to be in place for about 20 years. The BLM has317not been able to keep up with revisions to keep these plans318aligned with today's priorities and technologies. Some plans in319place now were written well before utility-scale solar was320common, and few are ready to facilitate the increase in321geothermal energy production that's on the horizon. Many322current plans don't accommodate the explosion in outdoor323recreation that our public lands now host. Recreation on public324lands is now an economic powerhouse, generating $128 billion in325economic activity every year and driving $6 billion in federal326tax revenue. On BLM land alone, recreation supports 76,000 jobs327and contributes to more than $12 billion in economic output.328Those numbers are very different than they were 30 or 40 years329ago, when many BLM land use plans were actually written, and in330fact, we weren't even keeping track of recreation statistics331when many of these plans were written.332    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we333can make the planning process more efficient and more334responsive to changes in how we use our public lands while335making sure that our public lands continue to serve the public336for generations to come.337    Thank you, Chairman.338    The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Heinrich.339    We will now begin hearing from each of our witnesses, and340we will start with Attorney General Brown and then move over341from there. Each of you will have five minutes.342    As we do so, I want to briefly introduce Attorney General343Brown. Derek and I have known each other for most of our lives344now, going back 30-plus years, ever since college. We have345worked together on four or five separate occasions, working at346the same location. He has been a member of my team in the past.347We practiced at the same law firm, and he and his wife Emilie348are good friends of ours.349    So, I welcome our state's esteemed Attorney General, The350honorable Derek Brown.351    Mr. Brown, you may proceed.352353                STATEMENT OF HON. DEREK BROWN,354                ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF UTAH355356    Mr. Brown. Thank you. I appreciate that.357    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of358the Committee. As the Chairman said, I am the Utah Attorney359General, Derek Brown, and I appreciate the opportunity today to360speak with you about an issue that is critical, not just to my361home State of Utah, but to the entire American West, and that362is effective public land management.363    Now, in Utah, the Federal Government controls the364overwhelming majority of our state, roughly 68 percent of our365landmass. So, because the Federal Government controls virtually366two out of every three acres in our state, it's critical for367our environmental, economic, and social well-being to have a368functioning system of what we often call ``cooperative369federalism,'' where we work together. And the nature is what370are really the ``3 C's'' of public land management--371coordination, cooperation, and consistency in mandating the372multiple use and sustained yield that is part of FLPMA.373    So, FLPMA, itself, mandates meaningful public involvement374of state and local government officials in land use decisions.375And so, for that reason, in 2015, our state did what I think376was the first of its kind--the legislature asked all 29377counties to create a comprehensive county resource management378plan, and that plan was then used to create a state resource379management plan to manage our state's precious natural380resources. But that plan is largely useless if the regulatory381space doesn't have predictability or consistency. And so, while382cooperation and collaboration are critical to the process, the383language of FLPMA, as has already been mentioned, stops short384of giving states any real meaningful say in the process itself.385And so, often, the level of cooperation depends on the386political context.387    So, in my state, for instance, we have unfortunately seen388federal agencies simply ignore state-specific input and state-389specific science. One example of this was in 2015, when the390administration at that time just ignored the state-specific391information and ended up adopting sage grouse plans that were392inapplicable to Utah's unique environment. Another example393involves not just wildlife, but infrastructure--what we refer394to as the Northern Corridor. This is a highway project in395Washington County, Utah. It is designed to alleviate traffic396concerns and has been planned for over a decade now, and state,397county, and local stakeholders have largely been shut out of398the process entirely, and state-specific science involving the399Mojave Desert Tortoise was mostly ignored.400    Another example is where state and county officials in Utah401were largely denied any meaningful role in the development of402the final RMP for the Bears Ears National Monument. So, other403stakeholders, not necessarily the state and local officials,404had the benefit of countless coordination meetings where they405were provided meaningful opportunities to be involved in the406planning process. And one of the most well-known, that you may407be familiar with, is the TransWest Express transmission line.408This was a renewable energy project that was a priority for409multiple administrations, and it has taken over 18 years to go410simply from the application to the construction phase. So, this411creates a lack of predictability, which really hurts everyone.412    So, I guess the question is, what can be done? I believe413there are bipartisan solutions that can be had to change FLPMA.414As Utah's Attorney General, one of the things I do is, I look415to work with other attorneys general in other states, both red416and blue states, to identify long-term solutions to critical417problems. And generally, I start by finding issues on which we418can agree. One of the issues where I see there is a lot of419agreement in this area is the fact that there is a regulatory420whiplash every time an administration changes, throwing an RMP421back into question. And that not only doesn't achieve FLPMA's422goal of multiple use and sustained yield, but it's bad for the423land, all of the land, regardless of where it's located.424    So, ultimately, as a state, we want to be a partner, and425that was what was contemplated by FLPMA, and we want to create426an environment where there is more collaboration, more427cooperation, more consistency, and more predictability. And I428believe that result will create less friction with those429individuals who are closest to the land, and it will empower430states to make better long-term decisions preserving the land431for future generations.432    Thank you, and I look forward to any questions.433    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]434    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]435436    The Chairman. Thank you.437    Mr. Kenna.438439STATEMENT OF JIM KENNA, RETIRED STATE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND440                           MANAGEMENT441442    Mr. Kenna. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, members443of the Committee, I really appreciate an opportunity to talk a444little bit about what I think is a very important subject. I am445a retired BLM State Director with 40-plus years of public446service. My background includes experience in planning and447permitting, in project proposals and policy, and it crosses all448of the levels of the Bureau of Land Management, from the field449office to the Washington office.450    Land use planning is one of the most fundamental processes451to management because it really does three things that I think452are really important and critical: one, it integrates land use453decision-making across a broad landscape; two, it does that by454including public participation; and three, it applies the best455available information about the planning area itself. By456congressional design, federal land use planning is a457systematic, interdisciplinary approach. That means it is458required to integrate all of the conservation values with all459of the detailed expectations around coordination, with all of460the various uses that apply in that planning area. And land461management is the basis, basically, for all of BLM's work, and462it affects all of the multiple uses. And I appreciate the463Ranking Member's comment on that. It is just as much about oil464and gas as it is about hunting and fishing. Those are inside465the definition of multiple use.466    If there is one thing that Congress could do to really have467an impact on land use planning, it would be to pay more468attention to funding and staffing for that function because469that is where the on-the-ground work happens. There is no470substitute for the on-the-ground work. It is the meat and471potatoes of the process. And every planning area is different,472with different issues, and different alternatives to be473considered. A solid resource management plan incorporates and474addresses those differences. It doesn't start from some sort of475perceived starting point.476    There is also no substitute for involving the people with477the knowledge of the area. That is the local folks. And you478need to get there early and often. I appreciate that there have479been planning processes where things--and Chairman Lee, thank480you for mentioning this--that sometimes you have a dual problem481of outdated plans and then an attempt to come in and sort of482fix the process late. Those don't work very well. It is really483important when you initiate a process to pay close attention to484not only the formal level, which is all the state and local and485tribal officials, but also to all of the relevant community486interests from the very beginning, so, how you launch becomes487really important. The public participation that is out there488right now is really very sophisticated and well-informed. They489won't take anything but addressing the things that they raise490forthrightly and honestly. And that is, frankly, the best491approach. Public dialogue is your best anchor point for the492balancing discussion that FLPMA requires. The most valuable493lesson I learned in my 40 years is to invest in that on-the-494ground work--the local knowledge, the expertise in the planning495team, and the participation and the interfaces.496    If you look to some of the examples I cited in my written497testimony--Arizona's Restoration Design Energy Project and498California's Desert Renewable Energy and Conservation Plan--499those are very complex settings. One of them was statewide, the500other in an area with a whole slew of very complicated issues.501How you launch is really important. The California planning502process launched with an agreement between the Secretary and503the Governor. That was the beginning, and that framed how the504dialogue went back and forth. If I were to talk about a well-505managed process, what I would always look for is that very506characteristic. How did you launch? How did you structure all507the public participation? How did you make sure that the508dialogue was about the best information?509    Thank you for the opportunity to give my perspective on510this. I look forward to the conversation.511    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kenna follows:]512    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]513514    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kenna.515    Mr. Christensen.516517   STATEMENT OF MICAH CHRISTENSEN, NATURAL RESOURCE COUNSEL,518            WYOMING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION519520    Mr. Christensen. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich,521thank you for holding a hearing to discuss land management522planning under FLPMA and Wyoming's experience with ACECs under523the Rock Springs RMP.524    My name is Micah Christensen, and I serve as the Natural525Resource Counsel for the Wyoming County Commissioners526Association, a non-partisan, statewide association that527represents all 23 counties and their 93 elected commissioners.528Five counties are fortunate to call the lands of the Rock529Springs Field Office home. The Rock Springs RMP generated530substantial fervor, not only in Southwest Wyoming, but in many531states. The record of decision (ROD) was signed on December53220th, 2024, not in Wyoming by our field office manager or state533director, but by the Principal Deputy of the BLM. The ROD534designated 935,000 acres of ACECs with substantial use535restrictions. This represented a 226 percent increase over the536previous RMP and an 85 percent increase of ACEC designations537across the entire State of Wyoming.538    Admittedly, this data is not the easiest to come by. As the539Rock Springs ``no action alternative'' was over 100,000 acres540off from the BLM's ACEC database it maintains online. However,541calling the simple Excel sheet a database is likely542inappropriate. The BLM's system for conveying to the public,543local governments, and itself the ``what, where, how, and why''544ACECs exist is largely inadequate for the purpose. This harms545its proper utilization and enables a lack of compliance with546FLPMA's directive. Numerous RMPs share similar deficiencies.547Designations offer minimal information on relevant and548important values that ACECs are designed to protect. They often549include substantially more land than values exist, and the550restrictions are often general, instead of being specific to551prevent irreparable harm to identified values.552    For example, the South Bend River ACEC contains the553historic Buckskin Crossing Cemetery. The public and the BLM may554wish to establish an ACEC to protect this resource and could555prescribe, for example, a ``no surface occupancy'' restriction556for fluid mineral leasing as a reasonable buffer around the557area. However, closing 439 square miles of all fluid mineral558leasing is likely disproportionate, especially noting that most559of Wyoming's current oil and gas development occurs on two-mile560horizontal wells that are thousands of feet below the surface.561Congress did not give the BLM unilateral authority to establish562wilderness areas or national monuments. Instead, Congress563created a specific and narrowly tailored conservation tool564designed to protect important public land values within the565multiple-use, sustained-yield framework in full coordination566and cooperation with local governments.567    The Rock Springs RMP demonstrated how vulnerable ACEC568designations are to being shaped by broad political objectives569such as limiting fossil fuel development rather than the570carefully targeted measures FLPMA envisioned. Wyoming's571Counties support ACECs to protect unique and sensitive572resources, but their effectiveness and legitimacy depend on573agencies identifying values explicitly, demonstrating the574necessity of special management to prevent irreparable harm,575evaluating the tradeoffs, considering impacts to state and576private lands, and working collaboratively with local577governments, whose communities will live with the consequences.578These lands are the cultural and socio-economic lifeblood of579our rural communities, and our future is inextricably580intertwined with their proper conservation. But, as President581Theodore Roosevelt, the ``father of conservation,'' once said,582``Conservation means development as much as it means583protection.''584    Both sides of the aisle need to understand that top-down585edicts that weaken local engagement undermine the planning586process goals to balance conservation across all lands. As587energy security, water, catastrophic wildfire, and habitat588fragmentation continue to be important conservation589considerations, treating federal lands as if they exist in a590vacuum is not a winning strategy. These landscapes and591resources cannot be managed on four- or eight-year terms from592DC. They must transcend elections by being grounded in the593cooperative federalism principles that Congress envisioned and594FLPMA demands.595    There is a better way. We desperately need the Federal596Government to empower local land managers on the ground--597federal leaders who don't chafe under the cooperative ethos of598NEPA, but appreciate the inherent value of partnering with599state, local, and tribal governments, so that collectively we600can craft RMPs that address the great moral issue of601conservation for the betterment of our nation today, and future602generations of Americans tomorrow. In short, we need a cultural603shift in the nucleus of power from DC back to the people we604have entrusted to steward these lands. When local federal605leadership can embrace local governments as partners in the606planning process, we can achieve mutual benefits to federal607agency missions and for our communities.608    Thank you.609    [The prepared statement of Mr. Christensen follows:]610    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]611612    The Chairman. Thank you.613    Mr. Cramer.614615                   STATEMENT OF ADAM CRAMER,616           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OUTDOOR ALLIANCE617618    Mr. Cramer. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking619Member Heinrich, and Committee members for the opportunity to620speak with you all here today.621    My name is Adam Cramer, and I am the CEO at Outdoor622Alliance. Outdoor Alliance is a national coalition that unites623the voices of the human-powered outdoor recreation community to624conserve public lands and waters and ensure sustainable625management and recreation access for current and future626generations. We represent paddlers, climbers, mountain bikers,627backcountry skiers, surfers, and anyone who likes to get628outside and enjoy our country's public lands and waters. Our629nine member organizations include the Access Fund, American630Canoe Association, American Whitewater, International Mountain631Bicycling Association, Winter Wildlands Alliance, the632Mountaineers, the American Alpine Club, Colorado Mountain Club,633and Surfrider Foundation. Outdoor recreation is, these days,634the most common way Americans come to know their public lands635and waters and cultivate a stewardship ethic. It's also a636``principal or major'' use under FLPMA.637    So, the Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the638care of some of our country's most spectacular outdoor639recreation experiences, like mountain biking on Gooseberry Mesa640outside of Hurricane, Utah, paddling at New Mexico's Upper Taos641Box, or climbing at Red Rock Canyon outside of Las Vegas. And642these things are really just a drop in the bucket. The 245643million acres of public land under BLM's management contain644more than 10,000 miles of mountain bike trails, about 2,500645miles of whitewater paddling, and over 20,000 climbing routes646and bouldering problems. Cumulatively, these resources are the647literal infrastructure of the outdoor recreation economy,648which, as you all know, supports nearly $1.2 trillion in gross649economic output, about five million American jobs, and about6502.3 percent of our country's GDP, according to the Bureau of651Economic Analysis. And outdoor recreation helps support652vibrant, diversified local economies, particularly in public653lands communities, and it helps attract workers and businesses654across a range of industries because of the quality of life655benefits it brings to local communities.656    Now, outdoor recreation may be, these days, the most657economically significant and socially relevant use of our658country's public lands, but it's not the only use. The BLM has659a complicated job to implement its multiple-use, sustained-660yield mandate. It is a complex and consequential balancing act,661and planning is how BLM takes a ton of information from the662public to help strike a balance to create the ``harmonious and663coordinated management'' that FLPMA describes. Now, successful664and durable planning requires community engagement, especially665at the local level, with critical input from local communities,666their elected officials, as well as consultation with tribal667governments. The BLM also needs reliable and current668information. And to that end, I commend Congress, and this669Committee in particular, for the bipartisan work that led to670the unanimous passage of the EXPLORE Act last year, which671directs the BLM and other land management agencies to inventory672for recreation resources and values to support better agency673decision-making.674    Now, planning is essential for protecting and enhancing675public land and outdoor recreation opportunities. Plans lay out676what lands are open or closed for energy, mining, grazing, and677recreation; conditions and stipulations for development678activities; special designations; and of course, lands that are679eligible for disposal. Now, plans that are outdated and vague680are recipes for conflict, and planning is a huge and important681investment in the success of the permitted projects that682ultimately need to tier off of these plans. Clear plans, with683public support that comes from a sound and participatory684process, give communities and stakeholders the certainty that685they need to make investments in recreation infrastructure, in686businesses, as well as other public land uses. Importantly, and687maybe most importantly, planning is part of the democratic688management of our public lands, and part of what makes public689lands truly public. Sound planning is responsive to local and690national interests. It may not fully satisfy everyone, but at691its best, it reduces conflict and leads to compromise where692stakeholders feel heard and their communities' needs are693meaningfully reflected in the final plan.694    In closing, I want to be clear that the outdoor recreation695community strongly supports BLM's Public Lands Rule, which696helps to develop better information on landscape health to697support sound, sustainable management decisions. Thank you for698the opportunity to be here. I am truly grateful, and I look699forward to all of your questions and conversations.700    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cramer follows:]701    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]702703    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cramer.704    Mr. Sheehan.705706                  STATEMENT OF GREG SHEEHAN,707            PRESIDENT AND CEO, MULE DEER FOUNDATION708709    Mr. Sheehan. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and710members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to711testify today. My name is Greg Sheehan. I serve as the712President and CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation, a national713organization whose mission is to ensure the conservation of714mule deer, black-tailed deer, and their habitats. Further, our715interests include sportsman access in order to ethically hunt716these iconic species. Each year, we engage with more than717420,000 hunters, members, volunteers, and supporters. We speak718for the millions of sportsmen and women who depend on healthy719public lands, intact migration routes, and wild places.720    My testimony also reflects a lifetime in state, federal,721and nonprofit conservation service. I spent 25 years with the722Utah Department of Natural Resources, including five as the723Director of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. I later724served as Acting Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife725Service, and then as the Utah State Director for the Bureau of726Land Management under both the Trump and Biden administrations,727overseeing 22.8 million acres of federal land. That experience,728from energy and mineral development, to wildlife, recreation,729fires and fuels, grazing, and national monuments, gave me a730practical understanding of how planning decisions shaped day-731to-day management, and how essential strong partnerships with732states, tribes, local governments, industry, permittees, and733non-profit partners really are.734    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act provides the735framework for this stewardship. FLPMA's multiple-use and736sustained-yield principles recognize that conservation,737recreation, grazing, energy, mining, habitat, public access,738and the preservation of wild and undeveloped landscapes are all739legitimate uses of the land. As President Theodore Roosevelt740said, ``Conservation means development as much as it does741protection.'' To be clear, multiple use does not mean every use742everywhere, but it does require a planning system capable of743balancing these needs while keeping landscapes healthy for744future generations.745    Today, however, many of BLM's resource management plans,746some written in the 1980s on typewriters, no longer reflect747modern wildlife science, migration data, wildfire conditions,748recreation growth, energy and mineral needs, or other current749demands on the land. Updating these plans is essential for both750conservation and responsible use, but revising an RMP today751takes two to three years--sometimes even up to ten--and costs752$2 to $6 million. BLM has stated that 134 of its 169 plans are753outdated. Because funding does not meet all the planning needs,754only the most prioritized plans are updated, while many755landscapes continue to be managed under frameworks that no756longer match on-the-ground realities. Part of that challenge is757that FLPMA provides very limited direction on how BLM is758actually supposed to develop plans that meet the expectations759of Congress and the public.760    Let me give you an example. When I was kid, we liked to761play Monopoly. We didn't have phones to play on back then.762Imagine if the instructions simply said ``buy property, build763houses and hotels, make more money than the other players, and764if those instructions are not sufficient, then make up your own765rules.'' You can imagine that result. Players invent their own766rules and every game ends in an argument. FLPMA can feel a767little like that. It's 71 pages long, yet only about two pages768of Section 202 explain how to do land use planning for 245769million acres of public land. When the statute provides such770little direction, the BLM has to fill in the gaps with771regulations and policy, and states, tribes, counties, industry,772conservation groups, and all the public end up unhappy with773some part of the outcome. If Congress has clear expectations,774updating those few planning pages would be very helpful,775especially for the BLM.776    Another factor is the cumulative use of administrative777designations. BLM has more than two dozen planning and778management tools, from wilderness study areas and ACECs, to779lands with wilderness characteristics and visual resource780management classes. Each can serve a purpose, but when layered781together, or left in place indefinitely, they can limit782flexibility to manage habitat, address wildfire risk, support783communities, and maintain access. At the same time, society784increasingly depends on BLM lands for energy production,785critical minerals, transmission lines, recreation, and786solitude. Planning has to be thoughtful enough to allow for787those needs while still protecting wildlife habitat and788migration routes. I also want to share that my experience,789working side-by- side with BLM staff, is that they are790dedicated, hardworking, and committed to fulfilling all791elements of FLPMA and other governing acts.792    Finally, I want to emphasize that land stewardship matters793deeply to America's hunters and anglers. Protecting wild794places, migration corridors, watersheds, and healthy habitat is795fundamental to our mission at the Mule Deer Foundation. A796planning system that is timely, collaborative, science-based,797and flexible will better support wildlife, rural communities,798and the other diverse uses Congress intended under FLPMA. Thank799you for this opportunity to testify, and I would be pleased to800answer any questions from the Committee.801    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sheehan follows:]802    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]803804    The Chairman. Thanks so much, Mr. Sheehan.805    We will now begin our five-minute rounds of questions. I806will go first, followed by Ranking Member Heinrich. We will807then alternate between Republicans and Democrats, each with808five-minute rounds in order of seniority, subject to the early-809bird rule.810     Attorney General Brown, I would like to start with you. I811have a chart here that shows two maps of BLM-managed land812within Utah.813    [The chart referred to follows:]814    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]815816    The Chairman. The map on the left shows all the BLM land in817Utah that was open for multiple use in 1976 upon the enactment818of FLPMA. And then the map on the right shows those same lands819today, now plastered with a lot of restrictive designations820pursuant to FLPMA. Now, comparing these two maps, what does the821increase in restrictive designations over the last 49 years822since FLPMA's enactment--what does that mean for the rural823economies in the State of Utah, especially those that depend on824access to these lands, and how does it affect the ability to825permit projects like transmission lines, wildfire mitigation,826grazing, basic rights-of-way, and so forth?827    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.828    I think, first of all, if you look at that map, the purple829also represents what are effectively single uses. And the830reality is, under FLPMA, the dual mandate, obviously, is831multiple use and sustained yield. You mentioned these rural832communities. One of them--I spend a lot of time in Garfield833County, for instance. I have a father-in-law that lives there.834We love it. I love the mountain biking there. It is roughly 93835percent owned and controlled by the Federal Government. So, you836literally can't take any action without implicating the Federal837Government. And by the way, you mentioned the economic impact.838Imagine trying to run and fund a county on what is effectively839three to four percent of the land being able to tax. And so,840things like hospitals or schools, I mean, so when I talk to841commissioners, for instance, in Garfield County, they are very842passionate about this issue.843    And so, I think ultimately one of the things that we need844to do is have what is mentioned, I think, by every testimony845here today, which is meaningful involvement of the people who846are local and who are most directly affected by these847designations. And I think that will make a huge impact on how848it is that we address these issues.849    The Chairman. Right. That makes things very difficult. You850mentioned the 93 percent ownership--the fact that that's all851owned by the Federal Government makes a lot of things more852difficult, including building up their own tax base.853    Now, can we talk for a moment about the TransWest Express854transmission line? You spoke about that and the fact that it855took more than 18 years to move from application to856construction of the project. That's a long time. It took that857long in large part because the project had to navigate multiple858outdated or ever-shifting federal planning documents. And it859spanned the creation and revision of two separate sage grouse860plans, each with different requirements. So the ground was861shifting throughout the duration of that because of these862multiple governing documents.863    What does that experience tell us about how rigid and864sometimes outdated RMPs affect transmission permitting, and865what would need to change in the planning process in order to866ensure that projects like that aren't stuck perpetually in867limbo?868    Mr. Brown. Well, FLPMA was passed over 50 years ago, and I869think those who voted for it at the time wouldn't recognize870what it looks like at this point in time. And I think one of871the things we need to do is rethink the rigidity of the872process, because it's not good for anyone and it's not good for873permitting projects. I mean, you mentioned this TransWest874Express, I mean, this transmission line was a renewable project875that was a priority for multiple administrations. So everyone876wanted it to happen. And so, you can imagine, if you have a877project that everyone wants to happen and it still takes 18878years, I mean, clearly, the process itself is broken.879    Now, admittedly, this was a very complicated project,880spanning multiple states, starting in Wyoming, delivering power881to California, but that being said, we have got to be able to882rethink the process if it takes that long.883    The Chairman. Indeed. And that's for, as you say, a884relatively non-controversial project.885    Mr. Sheehan, you noted that BLM now uses more than 26886different administrative designations that can be layered,887often one on top of the other, compounding the complexity of888it. What happens on the ground when these designations are889layered over the exact same landscape, and how does that affect890BLM's ability to carry out habitat work, fuels treatments, or891even maintain existing infrastructure on those lands?892    Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Chairman Lee.893    Certainly, when we have this multitude of layers--some of894those were identified on that map you showed a moment ago--it895can restrict even our ability to help, in many cases, wildlife896and those needs. Wildlife do need our help. We have changing897and evolving landscapes. We have fire regimes. We have drought898situations that occur. And it's really important that we can899get in for the benefit of wildlife and do water structures and900developments and projects, do habitat restoration to help901reduce the impact of non-native invasive plants that come into902our landscapes. We do need to get into these areas to address903fire rehabilitation after they occur. And you know, at times,904some of these designations will preclude us from being able to905get in and adequately help wildlife and their needs.906    The Chairman. Thank you.907    My time is expired. We will turn to Senator Heinrich now.908    Senator Heinrich. Actually, Chairman, I know both of my909down-the-dais members have a meeting to get to, so I am going910to defer to them.911    The Chairman. Great. Who has the more pressing----912    Senator King. She was here before.913    The Chairman. Roger that. We will go to Senator Cortez914Masto. Thank you.915    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.916    Senator King. Early-bird rule.917    The Chairman. Early-bird rule, thank you, Senator King.918    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the919Ranking Member, and thank you to the panelists for being here.920This is a great conversation.921    I am from Nevada, and similar to Utah, most of our land is922owned by the Federal Government--over 84 percent. Just about 63923percent is managed by the BLM. So, I appreciate all of the924conversation about how we have to find that balance and manage925this public land for use, not only those individuals who live926in the state, but those who want to come and engage in tourism927and transportation and then be stewards of federal land as928well.929    Let me ask you this, and let me start with Mr. Kenna. I930appreciated your comment about Congress needing to pay more931attention to funding and staffing at the BLM level, because I932couldn't agree more. What we have right now, I am very933concerned that the current administration is taking actions934that will only exacerbate the BLM's backlog in resource935planning. We have identified today that 134 out of the 164 RMPs936are outdated. And if we don't have the staff and we don't have937the resources to even look at how we need to update, I am very938concerned.939    Can you talk a little bit about the importance of the940staffing levels and what role they play? And let me just touch941on this--every single one of us has worked with our local BLMs.942We know who they are. They are in our states. They live there.943They have worked with the local jurisdictions. They understand944better than anybody in Washington. And I will call out folks in945Washington under both administrations that are playing946politics. And we need people driven from the ground up--I could947not agree more, General Brown--that are focused on how we948manage the land to the benefit of the people that live there949and recreate there. But I am concerned about the staffing950levels under this administration. How much more is that going951to set us back in trying to address the issues we are talking952about today?953    Mr. Kenna. Let me start by sort of taking the perspective954of a field manager--so, the manager of an office at the ground955level. And one of the things that it calls for in a plan or in956a project is, you've got to have access to an interdisciplinary957staff. You need to have a wildlife biologist. You need to have958an archeologist. You need to have those specialists that have959expertise that are unique. And that's a lot of the processes960that are underneath that, like the SHPO process--State Historic961Preservation process. They help manage that. They help bird-dog962all of the details of what goes on.963    So I share your concern as I see that some of these field964offices are losing key bits of expertise. We have had times in965my career at the BLM when, for example, there was a shortage of966wildlife biologists. If you have to do Section 7 consultations967under the Endangered Species Act, you've got to have one. So,968if you don't have one in the office, you've got to find one.969It's not really a discretionary thing. You've got to have that970expertise.971    So, I think if I were to try to put a fine point on it,972imagine that happening in every single field office. As you973lose people, and if you have a vacancy in a key position, what974are you left to do? You are out there trying to cast around975with your neighbor offices to see if you can find the right976expertise in order to assemble what needs to be done.977    Senator Cortez Masto. Yes.978    Mr. Kenna. So, I think that's essentially the crux of it,979you've got to have that interdisciplinary mix in there, or some980very specific pieces of expertise that are essential.981    Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, I appreciate that.982    My time is running out, but let me touch on one other983thing. Early this year, Congress took the unprecedented step in984using the Congressional Review Act to reverse three separate985resource management plans that were approved under the previous986administration. That's the first time. And there is an987argument--a legal argument to be made whether they are actually988rulemaking or not. But the question I have is, I am concerned,989if a land use plan is now considered to be a regulation that990Congress can overturn, how does this bode for other existing or991future land use plans? I mean, again, isn't this--the concern992we are all talking about is top-down, right? Driven from993Washington dictating what happens, and we are still doing it.994How is that going to impact any resource planning that you plan995in the future, and then all of a sudden, Congress can come996along and use the CRA to overturn it? Wouldn't that frustrate997the process moving forward?998    I am going to just open that up to anyone.999    Mr. Kenna. Senator, I don't see how it can't help but1000undermine it. I think it's going to create a mess.1001    Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, I appreciate it. Thank you. I1002know my time is up.1003    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.1004    Senator Barrasso would otherwise be next. He has graciously1005deferred to Senator King, who has a time commitment elsewhere.1006    Senator King, go ahead.1007    Senator King. Thank you very much.1008    One specific question, Attorney General Brown--timing. Are1009there any limits on this process? Are there any time limits? Is1010that something we should be discussing here? Because you talk1011about the 18-year transmission line. That's unacceptable,1012particularly in this day and age. Should we be talking about1013perhaps putting limits on times and steps so that there is a1014foreseeable end to the process?1015    Mr. Brown. I think that's definitely something that we1016ought to look at. When you look at FLPMA Section 202, as was1017already mentioned, when it comes to things like land swaps, it1018is very prescriptive, but Section 202 is not. And there is not1019a whole lot of language and yet, it is a very impactful section1020of code. And so, those kinds of limits might make sense. I1021think it also might make sense to figure out how it is we can1022get meaningful involvement, as has already been said, with1023those on the ground. And maybe that's the answer to--if there1024is currently a lack of staffing, maybe we can look at those1025folks with the local interest.1026    Senator King. Well, work tends to expand to fill the time1027available, and if the time available is unlimited, it is going1028to be a long process. So, I hope you would provide some1029suggestions to the Committee on where we might be able to look1030for some time limitations that would improve this--the1031uncertainty surrounding the process.1032    Mr. Sheehan, you used an important term, and I think this1033is sort of an undercurrent of this hearing--``regulatory1034whiplash.'' And part of the problem is that the Congress is not1035being very specific about what it wants. And therefore, it1036leaves tremendous discretion to whatever administration it is,1037and you go from one to the other and the whole world turns1038upside down. Is one way that we can address this by being more1039specific in terms of FLPMA and what the criteria are so1040Congress isn't basically abdicating its entire responsibility1041in this area to the executive?1042    Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Senator King.1043    Certainly, it's worth considering. I think that's why1044Chairman Lee asked for this hearing today--do we need to do1045more? Attorney General Brown mentioned a moment ago, but when1046we look at Section 202, I mentioned in my remarks that it's1047only about two pages of guidance for 245 million acres of land.1048There is a little bit more in there. It talks about a1049congressional process and how they could look at amending these1050actions, but essentially 202 says three things: it says1051coordinate with state, local, and tribal governments; try to1052use their planning efforts where you can; and prioritize areas1053of critical environmental concern. That's the guidance from1054Congress in a nutshell in Section 202 of a 71-page law. And1055everything beyond that has been crafted through rules,1056everything's been crafted through internal guidance policy1057handbooks by the BLM, and we get where we get.1058    Senator King. And that leads to the problem of executive1059overreach because there are no boundaries. So, again, I would1060ask all of you for some homework to suggest to us how Section1061202 could be amended to narrow what the criteria are and what1062the specifics are so that we could get policy on a more timely1063basis that is more predictable and more resilient. I think one1064of the problems you have all identified is uncertainty. And it1065takes so long and you don't know what the result is going to1066be. So I would ask you to provide us with some suggestion as1067to--that is the business we are in here is lawmaking--as to how1068this law could be more definitive in order to provide better1069guidance to the process, which will hopefully produce a better1070and more resilient result so that we don't have what you1071characterized, I think quite accurately, as regulatory1072whiplash.1073    My final comment, Mr. Sheehan, is, I was concerned that our1074white-tailed deer don't seem to be among your constituents--of1075the deer species that you mentioned, and I----1076    Mr. Sheehan. Everyone in the East can have the white-tail,1077we will take our mule deer in the West.1078    Senator King. All right, that's fine.1079    [Laughter.]1080    Mr. Sheehan. See how it all works out? But thank you for1081that comment.1082    Senator King. And I come at this as someone who has no BLM1083land in their state. And so, I am looking at it just from the1084point of view of good policy going forward, and I hope that you1085can help us with that. Thank you all for your testimony.1086    Thank you, Senator Barrasso.1087    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.1088    Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.1089    Mr. Christensen, I want to just talk about what we have1090seen under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, because1091there are many tools there that are designed to uphold multiple1092use, the mandate that we have. But one tool is a special land1093use designation known as areas of environmental concern--ACECs.1094Those designations have been used in the federal land1095management process since this law passed 50 years ago. The1096original intent was to provide flexibility and locally led1097protections, but what we have seen in Wyoming in the last1098decade has been a substantial use increase in these1099designations that seemed to me to limit use, to use these in1100ways to make non-use a use. And I am just wondering if you1101could explain the increase in what we have seen in Wyoming in1102the last few years of this designation being used in a way that1103we never anticipated it being used.1104    Mr. Christensen. Chairman Lee, Senator Barrasso, we have1105seen a substantial increase in ACEC acreage since our most1106recent planning efforts, and that is the Rock Springs RMP. It's1107good to note that RMP took place after the BLM's Conservation1108and Landscape Health Rule. And so, we certainly didn't see that1109rule fix our problem, which is that the BLM is utilizing the1110ACEC as a tool for large swaths of land, not identifying unique1111resources for protection, but hundreds of thousands of acres,1112often, and really combining them with all sorts of things that1113we care about, like wildlife habitat and historic places, but1114doing so in a way that's really hard to untangle and understand1115what we are actually trying to protect. It's unclear because we1116have numerous uses.1117    So, we have seen a huge increase of ACECs in Wyoming. I1118think in my testimony I said an 85 percent increase in a single1119RMP, and that RMP is only one of seven field offices that we1120have--so, a large increase.1121    Senator Barrasso. So, are these designations really being1122driven by local folks, or does it seem like it's more the1123Federal Government getting involved?1124    Mr. Christensen. Senator Barrasso, interesting question.1125It's hard to tell. Again, back to BLM's ability to track, we1126don't actually know often in our resource management plans who1127is nominating these parcels. There are two ways--the public can1128nominate, and also the BLM can internally nominate. But, for1129example, on the Rock Springs RMP, I don't believe, you know,1130anywhere is it stated. So we have seen certain nominations like1131the Sagebrush Sea nomination, with 19 NGOs supporting that--481132million acres. We at least know the NGOs that supported it, but1133for the Rock Springs RMP, it's really hard to tell where those1134nominations came from.1135    Senator Barrasso. So the Biden administration's BLM1136finalized the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan in December11372024 as that administration was on the way out the door. And I1138have worked closely with the county commissioners to ensure1139that Wyoming stakeholders are included. I am grateful to1140President Trump and Secretary Burgum for announcing an1141amendment process for the Rock Springs RMP. Can you talk a1142little bit about the socio-economic impacts that communities in1143the West are seeing, especially Wyoming, or how they are1144impacted by some of these federal land management programs?1145    Mr. Christensen. Yes, I think it's easy to think of public1146lands as sort of being isolated out in the middle of nowhere.1147However, as you know, Senator Barrasso, our lands are often1148intertwined and intermixed, so we have different surface1149ownership maybe than mineral ownership. We also have inholdings1150inside of some of these areas. So, anytime that the Federal1151Government, through an RMP or another rule, restricts some sort1152of use on federal land, there is often a restriction that also1153occurs on state and private land as well, further limiting our1154ability to develop resources, to access certain lands, and so,1155there is a big impact.1156    The Rock Springs RMP estimated, you know, based on their1157preferred alternative, was roughly, you know, $14 million a1158year in losses to county government, county services, including1159the school districts. So we're not talking about1160inconsequential numbers--a fairly significant impact.1161    Senator Barrasso. So, in terms of the land management and1162what I see as federal overreach, particularly in land1163management across Wyoming, it seems ultimately so many of the1164final decisions aren't made locally, but they are made in1165Washington, DC. How can we improve upon the land management1166process?1167    Mr. Christensen. That's a great question, and I think one1168of the first things I would start with is that we have this1169idea of consistency, coordination, and cooperation, but we do1170things sort of out of order. So, the BLM could propose a land1171management plan with multiple alternatives, but maybe one or1172even none of those alternatives are consistent with state and1173local plans. How can we-- you know, we could really prioritize1174plans to have consistency done up front, allow for that1175building, so that you're not doing the check-the-box at the1176very end.1177    Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thanks for1178coming back to testify, appreciate it.1179    The Chairman. Senator Heinrich.1180    Senator Heinrich. Mr. Kenna, how critical is it for the1181public to guide the direction of the land use plan for that1182plan to be effective and successful?1183    Mr. Kenna. I think it's very important, and I would1184highlight the fact that planning processes, particularly if1185they are of any size or duration, create a record, and it's a1186public record, and that public record underpins all of the1187decision-making that happens in the plan. So it essentially is1188the balancing dialogue around the FLPMA questions. And so, you1189can't sidestep that, and you need to make sure that the local1190knowledge is integrated, and not just the social preferences.1191Those are very important, but also, where is the mule deer1192winter range? Where are the cultural resources and cultural1193properties? Where are the things that we care about? Where are1194the trails that get a lot of recreation? All of those things1195are very local.1196    Senator Heinrich. Right.1197    Mr. Kenna. And they are very specific.1198    Senator Heinrich. And how does the Congressional Review Act1199incorporate the public input and the creation of that record?1200    Mr. Kenna. Well, my concern is that it is the exact1201opposite. If you think about the perspective of the person who1202participated in a plan, they have just invested years to get to1203that kind of endpoint where everybody kind of got together, and1204whatever the deal was, the deal was the deal.1205    Senator Heinrich. Yes.1206    Mr. Kenna. And now, the Congressional Review Act is sort of1207taking a political process and putting it over the top of that1208and vacated that.1209    Senator Heinrich. And with no public--there is no mechanism1210for public input in the Congressional Review Act. And I want to1211get at some of the unintended consequences that might create.1212    Mr. Sheehan, you know, with Congress recently overturning a1213number of RMPs through the Congressional Review Act, one of the1214limitations under the CRA is that it means that the BLM, under1215the statute, can never issue a ``substantially similar'' plan1216for those areas. Is that correct?1217    Mr. Sheehan. Yes, I believe that's accurate, Senator.1218    Senator Heinrich. So, I am wondering if a plan, if an RMP1219plan allowed for development of oil and gas, development of1220mining and grazing, hunting in the planning area, and the plan1221is overturned by the CRA, could BLM ever issue a new plan that1222allowed those same uses in the same areas?1223    Mr. Sheehan. Senator Heinrich, I believe that--and I am not1224a lawyer here, and there are lots of lawyers in the room. There1225is one right to your left.1226    Senator Heinrich. I am not either, but let's take the1227verbiage at its----1228    Mr. Sheehan. If we work under that premise that a CRA pulls1229this plan back and then a new plan could not be substantially1230similar, then it would certainly lean into a set of facts1231around you can't go back and do the same thing again until1232Congress says you can do it again. But what it does do, as you1233pull it back, is it reverts back to----1234    Senator Heinrich. The previous plan.1235    Mr. Sheehan [continuing]. The prior plan that's sitting1236there. And if that allowed for some of those uses, of course,1237those----1238    Senator Heinrich. It could be 40 years old and that plan1239may not actually address the uses that are most pressing today,1240correct?1241    Mr. Sheehan. Yes, absolutely. When we talk about planning,1242and I wrote down a comment that Chairman Lee mentioned in his1243opening comments, which is, adapt to changing circumstances.1244And I thought for a moment, what happens over these 40 years,124545 years in some of these plans that have sat there, and, you1246know, with the new technologies that have come about, I look at1247what do we know different about wildlife management and1248movements and how we can restore habitats. We have got wild1249horses and burros, and in some of these areas that we have1250plans for, we don't necessarily want to manage for wild horses1251and burros in those areas anymore.1252    Senator Heinrich. We also know where corridors are that, in12531986----1254    Mr. Sheehan. Exactly, we have that technology, absolutely.1255It has taught us that. Renewable energy.1256    Senator Heinrich [continuing]. Nobody knew where the Mule1257deer corridors were, where the Pronghorn corridors were, and1258so, that doesn't get managed for, if we are dealing with a 40-1259year-old plan.1260    Mr. Sheehan. Exactly. So, I guess my hope is, as a former1261land manager, if the CRAs are going to be a thing that gets1262used, let us try to avoid that to any extent possible.1263    Senator Heinrich. Why not just redo the plan?1264    Mr. Sheehan. A plan can be----1265    Senator Heinrich. And avoid all those unintended1266consequences?1267    Mr. Sheehan. Yes, absolutely. And I think if the plans can1268be done initially and make sure we do that coordination and1269cooperation, do all of the efforts we need to so that we get a1270better, higher level of buy-in, and I would hope Congress does1271not need to step in on these because, to your earlier point, I1272don't know what kind of certainty there is for future planning1273in these areas, and I hope that that's not compounded.1274    Senator Heinrich. I think one of the things that I am1275concerned about is the opening for litigation, because the1276statute is so vague about what a substantially similar plan1277would look like, is that you could literally see every permit--1278whether that permit is for outdoor recreation, like Mr. Cramer1279represents, whether that permit is for oil and gas, whether1280that permit is for grazing--called into question because of1281some of these CRA activities. And I think that's something that1282everybody ought to be considering before using such a blunt1283tool.1284    Thank you, Mr. Chair.1285    The Chairman. Thank you.1286    Senator Daines.1287    Senator Daines. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Heinrich,1288thank you.1289    Last month, Congress acted to right a wrong and repeal the1290violation of the multiple use and public engagement principles1291enshrined in FLPMA. The Biden BLM land use planning process was1292weaponized to push radical anti-energy policies in states like1293Montana, like Wyoming, like North Dakota and Alaska, despite1294significant opposition from the states. Thankfully, Congress1295acted and they passed my bill to repeal the anti-coal Miles1296City Resource Management Plan Amendment, and I look forward to1297President Trump signing it into law very soon.1298    I want to focus my question on a specific violation of1299FLPMA in Montana that was prevalent under Biden, and that's the1300disregard of the views and the input of the local counties,1301elected officials, and specifically, the governor of the state.1302The Miles City RMPA was strongly opposed by those living,1303working, and representing the lands affected, and despite this1304opposition, Biden's BLM ignored local feedback and they pushed1305forward with this harmful effort. It is so frustrating to see1306the disconnect between federal bureaucrats here in Washington,1307who had a very strong agenda, and local elected officials on1308the ground in Montana. And during the official governor's1309consistency review, after multiple official protests, and an1310appeal from Governor Gianforte, the BLM decided to, ``reject1311the Governor's recommendations.'' This is shameful and we need1312to ensure the voice of those closest to the land are not1313ignored or just rejected.1314    My question for Attorney General Brown and Mr. Christensen:1315what actions should Congress take to ensure that local, state,1316and local statewide elected officials and those most affected1317by BLM's actions do not have their voices literally shut out of1318the planning process?1319    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Senator Daines, I appreciate that.1320And we have seen that as well in our state where you get to the1321place where you have the governor's consistency review and then1322it is effectively overruled. So, I think one of the things that1323I think this body could do is look at meaningful changes to1324FLPMA such that there is meaningful involvement that is more1325than just sort of a pat on the head to the states because, as1326we mentioned, we need consistency, coordination, and1327collaboration. But we also need the states to have some sort of1328meaningful input so that they can effectively be co-sovereigns1329over these lands where they have jurisdiction. And I think the1330consistency review is one specific example where, I think, if1331there were maybe a little more teeth to that, where they could1332be meaningful partners rather than just pro forma partners,1333that would solve, I think, a lot of the issues we have in the1334local areas in Utah and in places like Montana.1335    Senator Daines. Thank you.1336    Mr. Christensen.1337    Mr. Christensen. Senator Daines, it's a great question. I1338agree with the idea of increasing the teeth, if you will, of1339consistency review, but really, I speak more of a cultural1340shift. I mean, we heard earlier about the impact of having not1341enough planning employees at the BLM. This is a real concern.1342But one way to fix that lack of employment at the BLM for1343planning is to utilize state and county resources, so, utilize1344state wildlife agencies to help you with developing your sage1345grouse plan instead of working against those plans. So1346incorporating state and local knowledge meaningfully in the1347planning process by authorizing those individuals who sit on ID1348teams, on planning teams, and really utilize the science and1349data that they provide.1350    And as far as the rejection letter, I think our governor1351got a few of the same letters, so we've got some government1352efficiency there. But it is a problem. It is a problem that1353after the entire process, a 13-year planning process, the Rock1354Springs RMP ends with a whimper. Your recommendations are1355rejected. And it certainly isn't the way that you would like to1356see a planning process be working to unite forces, states,1357local governments, and the federal agencies to really manage1358these lands for all of America. Thanks.1359    Senator Daines. Thank you.1360    I want to shift gears to forestry and transmission. In1361order for electric utilities and our rural co-ops in Montana to1362be able to provide energy in an efficient way, we've got to get1363the transmission lines in place crossing a patchwork of1364private, state, and federal lands. To protect these power lines1365and communities from devastating wildfires, electric utilities1366develop and retain authorized vegetation management plans to1367cut and remove dangerous trees on public lands. However, they1368cannot protect and power communities if land management1369agencies are not responsive or cooperative when utilities are1370managing the rights-of-way. Recently, the Vigilante Electric1371Cooperative from Dillon, Montana, was slapped with a $5 million1372fine from the Forest Service because a tree outside of their1373right-of-way caught on fire. Any attempt from Vigilante to1374remove the tree would have been illegal, yet they were held1375liable for the fire.1376    In 2018, FLPMA was amended to include a strict liability1377cap of $500,000 for electric utilities, which expires in 2028.1378The $5 million dollar Vigilante fire was far beyond the1379$500,000 limit, and one that's nearly impossible for a small,1380rural electric co-op to pay. It literally can put them out of1381business. It is common sense that no entity should be fined1382without proven negligence or non-compliance, and the status quo1383is not providing enough certainty on it.1384    Last, quick question, Mr. Brown. The Utah and Montana state1385legislatures have both recently passed legislation to address1386these liability problems and the unique burden placed on1387electricity providers. What still needs to be changed at the1388federal level to replicate the success we are seeing in our1389states?1390    Mr. Brown. Well, and I think this is something this body1391should look at in terms of caps and liabilities and frankly, I1392think a lot of what you are talking about in terms of, you1393mentioned sort of the catch-22--they really need to do1394something, but they are disempowered from doing it in the first1395place. And I think having more meaningful involvement with the1396folks on the ground who recognize the problems involved with1397the rights-of-way is something that should be addressed. And I1398think changing, as Mr. Christensen said, that cultural shift as1399well, I think, could be helpful, but I think this body ought to1400look at things such as those caps and then how that can be1401addressed.1402    Senator Daines. Thank you.1403    The Chairman. Senator Padilla.1404    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to1405all of you.1406    I want to begin by noting Mr. Kenna's long and1407distinguished career in public service, which includes more1408than 40 years in his role as BLM Director for the State of1409California. So, I want to thank you for your service, for your1410dedication to protecting our cherished public lands, not just1411in California, but especially in California. There are a number1412of great examples from your time there of successful resource1413management plan development. We successfully brought thousands1414of stakeholders together to establish the Desert Renewable1415Energy Conservation Plan. I know you are more than intimately1416familiar with this, the DRECP, which focuses on 10.8 million1417acres of public lands across seven counties in California. The1418DRECP is a landscape-level plan that streamlines renewable1419energy development while conserving unique and valuable desert1420ecosystems. The DRECP is a success story on incorporating1421robust public and tribal participation into land use planning,1422and it's a great example of working collaboratively to ensure1423that all stakeholders benefit from BLM's multiple-use mandate.1424    So, I share all that not just to thank you, and to point1425out a success story, but to ask you, Mr. Kenna, can you discuss1426how the energy permitting landscape looked in the California1427desert before successful implementation of the DRECP and how1428the plan actually helped provide the certainty, the1429transparency, and the efficiency for the energy industry after1430it was adopted?1431    Mr. Kenna. Thank you, Senator, for your comments.1432    I think this is a really important thing, to be clear. One1433of the characterizations we have heard so far is that land use1434planning is sort of a combative or adversarial relationship1435between the state and the Federal Government. That was1436certainly not my experience in California. It started with a1437Republican Governor and a Secretary of Interior and a1438Democratic administration setting up an agreement that was the1439umbrella to the entire process. In terms of what things were1440like when we started, nobody really anticipated the flood of1441applications that happened with renewable energy. We had 15 to144220 coming in the door at a time. There were 6 to 10 that were1443active. And they were all in different stages and frankly, with1444very different applicants. We had everything from Florida Power1445and Light, a very sophisticated operator that operates1446globally, to startups that had ideas about where they wanted to1447put a wind farm. So, that is a variable that is really1448important and has a lot of impact and control on the timeline--1449is the applicant itself.1450    But there are also the things we have talked about before,1451like capacity to do the work. And then, you have to go to the1452issues and let that steer the process because the content of1453what's going on. In the case of the DRECP that you mentioned,1454you are in a national conservation area that was1455congressionally designated in 1976. So, as a starting point,1456you've got to have a robust, reliable, conservation design. And1457the governor and the secretary agreed on that. But then you1458also have a very complex system that you are overlaying and1459working with. You have interstate transmission of power, how1460California fits to the grid, how things move across, and then1461how that all fits together with transmission and generation.1462    So, it's a complex process and there are a lot of people1463who have unique information that you need to get from Point A1464to Point B at the end of the process. So, hopefully that's1465responsive to your question, Senator.1466    Senator Padilla. Yes, I appreciate how you began your1467response by saying this process isn't meant to be a barrier, an1468obstacle, necessarily. To the contrary, I mean, I have used in1469this Committee and in other hearings the concerns of the1470carpenter's rule, right--measure twice, you cut once. If you do1471the appropriate engagement--including by the way, I want to put1472an emphasis on tribal consultation, genuine tribal1473consultation, not just box-checking--you get the information1474you need to be thoughtful on the front end, whether you are in1475the development of a plan or in the context of, you know,1476national monuments, for example, just the designation of the1477exact perimeters, you can better protect ecosystems that are1478worth protecting and establishing clear energy development1479opportunities, renewable or otherwise, because you are informed1480on the front end. And I think it does save you time on the back1481end, whether it's through litigation, whether it's revisiting1482plans or boundaries, et cetera, but it takes the1483thoughtfulness, open-mindedness, and due diligence on the front1484end. That's the point that we are trying to make.1485    So thank you for your response. Thank you all for your1486testimony.1487    Mr. Kenna. Absolutely, Senator.1488    The Chairman. Senator Gallego.1489    Senator Gallego. Mr. Kenna, welcome back, and thank you,1490Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich. I am glad to see that1491we have representation from Mr. Kenna, who used to be the1492Arizona State Director for BLM also. So, you have a very long1493and rich career. I am glad you started at the rookie State of1494California and then graduated to Arizona. So, your insight will1495be very key as we talk about something that is at heart about--1496which is public land use and planning.1497    Arizona has 12.1 million acres of BLM land and over 171498million subsurface acres. These lands are home to some of1499Arizona's most important resources, including sacred tribal1500sites, 45 miles of the Arizona Scenic Trail, and over 55,0001501mining claims. And we will get to some of the questions about1502Arizona specifically, but first I want to point out an1503underlying challenge that impacts every potential use of public1504lands, which is staffing. We talked about that earlier.1505Regardless of what you would like to see on lands, to do or1506use, we need BLM staff to get it approved, and 15 to 20 percent1507of BLM staff have been fired or forced to retire since the1508beginning of this year, not including layoff plans that are1509currently on hold. That just doesn't make sense, and I just1510urge the administration to reverse course.1511    Turning to Mr. Kenna, in your testimony you mentioned that1512when you were Arizona State Director, you worked on a plan1513called the Restoration Design Energy Project. That plan1514provided opportunities for renewable energy development while1515taking advantage of hardrock mine reclamation sites. Can you1516talk about how you approached development of the plan, and how1517did you balance the multiple-use requirement, including clean1518energy deployment?1519    Mr. Kenna. Yes, as I mentioned earlier, none of the states1520or the land use plans that were in place at the time were1521prepared for renewable energy when it hit. And so, there was a1522lot of figuring it out on the fly that had to happen. That was1523also true in Arizona. And one of the goals is to get to1524something that is practical, and transmission aligned for the,1525basically, public interest reasons so that it makes sense with1526the grid. So, there are some technical issues that sort of1527overlay everything that you have to do, but doing a statewide1528plan requires sort of a unique mindset. And one is that you1529have to be willing to go where the people are and figure out1530what the issues are.1531    So, the point I would emphasize, again, is one I made1532earlier, that there is no substitute for the on-the-ground1533knowledge and the on-the-ground information when you are doing1534land use planning. And each plan in each area is going to be1535different and unique. And that was true in the Restoration1536Design Energy Project. The reason I mentioned the mining1537situation is there is a fair amount of hardrock mining in1538Arizona, as you know, and when a mine is decommissioned, mines1539generally are big consumers of power. And so, the1540decommissioning, historically, had been, you know, reclaim the1541site and take out the power line. Well, if you have an already1542disturbed site that has been flattened and has power access1543into the grid, why not take advantage of that? So that was the1544concept behind it.1545    Senator Gallego. And you kind of talked about this, which1546is also very important for Arizona because we have 22 federally1547recognized tribes, that there is no substitute for engaging1548with tribes and public and local leaders. Can you elaborate on1549your experience with tribal consultation and why a transparent1550local engagement process is important and how it improves1551project stability?1552    Mr. Kenna. Yes, it's easy to talk about it in an1553oversimplified way, but the way I sometimes think about it is1554sort of as a nested process. There is a lot that has to happen1555in a very personal way and on a face-to-face kind of1556relationship, and so, getting with tribal councils and tribal1557preservation officers and that really individual conversation.1558And then there is a second sort of tier that has to happen. As1559you know, you would not expect the perspectives to be exactly1560the same for the Tohono O'odham as they are with the Hopi or1561the Navajo or someone up to the North. So, you have to have1562some way to assemble those points of view, and in Arizona, the1563magic of that was the Inter Tribal Council.1564    Senator Gallego. Thank you. I yield back.1565    The Chairman. Senator Hoeven.1566    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, although I should1567defer to my colleague, Senator Hickenlooper, because I was1568supposed to link up with him last night on some work, so I am1569going to offer him the chance to go first, as a--all right,1570thanks Governor, appreciate you.1571    Thanks, Mr. Chair.1572    Mr. Christensen, in North Dakota and Wyoming, we both have1573split estates where you have got federal, state, and privately1574owned minerals that are co-located. And in some instances, the1575federal minerals have no surface acreage. So, I have1576legislation in that I call the BLM Mineral Spacing Act, where1577the Federal Government has--BLM has no federal acreage so you1578avoid duplicate permitting when you are trying to drill for oil1579and gas. Does that make some sense to you, and protect private1580property rights while helping our country develop more energy?1581    Mr. Christensen. Yeah, that's certainly a great idea. I1582think the split estate----1583    Senator Hoeven. Would you encourage the Chair and the1584Ranking Member of this Committee, strongly, to advance that1585legislation so that we can pass it on the floor?1586    Mr. Christensen. If Senator Barrasso is for it, I think we1587are for it too.1588    Senator Hoeven. Okay. He is for it.1589    Mr. Christensen. Great.1590    Senator Hoeven. He is probably on it. Thanks.1591    Did you want to add anything?1592    Mr. Christensen. Well, just on the split estate issue. It1593is unique that you have federal regulations that can control1594surface use, pipelines, rights-of-way, roads, when you are1595dealing with something that is owned underneath the ground. And1596so, there is sort of a complicated maze here. And again, I said1597it earlier--our states don't just have giant blocks of BLM1598land. We have checkerboarded. We have state lands all in1599between. And so, it's not a one size fits all. There are a lot1600of places that could see development that simply can't because1601federal lands might restrict right-of-way access. And so, they1602have no takeaway--things like that. So, it is a complex issue1603that should be looked into.1604    Senator Hoeven. Yeah, thank you.1605    And then, for Mr. Brown, Mr. Christensen, and Mr. Sheehan--1606the BLM resource management plan put forward by the Biden1607administration for our state would have closed off 45 percent1608of our oil and gas to development and 99 percent of the federal1609coal acreage. I'm not sure why they left one percent available.1610I'm not sure what the point of that was, but they closed off 991611percent. Do each of you agree that an expanded federal1612regulatory approach like that is absolutely a problem if we are1613going to follow the law, which is multiple use on federal1614lands, meaning producing energy, you know, farming and1615ranching, tourism, and something that Senator Heinrich and I1616enjoy very much, which is hunting? So, fire away guys, starting1617with Mr. Brown.1618    Mr. Brown. I would agree, and I think if you look at the1619map that Chairman Lee put up, it shows the transition from1620multiple-use lands to single-designation lands in my state,1621which are millions and millions of acres since FLPMA was1622passed. And so, I think it's all the more important that1623there's some sort of collaboration between the Federal1624Government and the state so you don't see those kinds of1625overreaches.1626    Senator Hoeven. Yeah, it's hardly multiple use when you1627close off--I guess the one-percent was to maintain though.1628    Mr. Brown. There is the multiple use, right?1629    Senator Hoeven. Right, I mean, come on.1630    Okay, who's next? Mr. Christensen.1631    Mr. Christensen. Senator Hoeven----1632    Senator Hoeven. And by the way, don't take any more of our1633football coaches, all right?1634    Mr. Christensen. We miss him already.1635    Senator Hoeven. I know, he's a good one.1636    Mr. Christensen. So, I think one thing that is interesting,1637when we talk about areas being closed, or just because an area1638is open for coal leasing does not necessarily mean it's going1639to be leased. It does not mean that we are going to have big1640mines there. It means that we have the opportunity to look into1641it or to invest in that if we need it. So reopening lands does1642not inherently change the landscape. There is still a1643permitting process. There is still infrastructure that needs to1644be built. So, closing lands seems so simple and so easy.1645Opening them should be the same way, but there is really a lot1646more to it than just opening and closing. There is an industry1647component.1648    Senator Hoeven. Right on.1649    Mr. Sheehan.1650    Mr. Sheehan. Yeah, certainly I think what Mr. Christensen1651said is accurate. Having lands open for any of these extractive1652uses still requires mining plans, still requires reclamation1653planning, still requires evaluation of multiple resource uses,1654as well as Endangered Species Act, as well as National1655Historical Preservation Act, all that. So, I think when you1656have these open, there is still a lot of work ahead, but I1657don't know the exact, specific details in the North Dakota1658plan, but certainly, I am a proponent of multiple-use,1659sustained-yield. That's the tenet of----1660    Senator Hoeven. Well, I have got to get one hunting1661question in.1662    Mr. Sheehan. Okay, get that in, yes.1663    Senator Hoeven. I am sure the Ranking Member has worked you1664over on the hunting issues, but you know, any thoughts you have1665on what Congress can do to streamline the BLM planning and1666process and improve coordination within the state and the1667Federal Government as far as hunting issues? Any big1668recommendations?1669    Mr. Sheehan. Well, you know, we obviously recognize that1670the states have that authority of wildlife management, but it's1671very important to a lot of these species. Senator Heinrich1672mentioned, you know, migratory corridors and things. We have1673learned a lot, even in the last ten years, about wildlife, and1674wildlife are struggling. Mule deer populations are down roughly167560 percent since the 1960s, and they continue to decline across1676the West. So, we care about that. And I think, you know, as we1677undergo planning or we work together with states and listen and1678coordinate with state fish and game agencies and do our1679planning work, that we take those factors into consideration1680and try to keep those species around----1681    Senator Hoeven. Yeah, it's actually the hunters that do a1682lot for livestock.1683    Mr. Sheehan. Absolutely. Hunters help----1684    Senator Hoeven. And try to protect against disease and all1685those kinds of things.1686    Mr. Sheehan. Yes, there are lots of challenges out there,1687but I appreciate your support and all of the hunters here on1688the Committee and in the room who support mule deer.1689    Senator Hoeven. And yours. Thank you.1690    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1691    Senator Heinrich. Senator Hoeven, Senator King took issue1692with Mr. Sheehan because he doesn't represent white-tails, but1693as you know, the best states have both white-tails and mule1694deer, and the best state has white-tails, mule deer, and Coues1695deer, which is a very special white-tail.1696    Mr. Sheehan. You might be the only state. I would have to1697look----1698    Senator Hoeven. Yeah, I was going to say.1699    The Chairman. Which state could that be?1700    [Laughter.]1701    Senator Hoeven. Yeah, can't guess which state, but right1702on.1703    Senator Hickenlooper. I think there might be two states1704with all three.1705    Mr. Sheehan. Maybe Texas and maybe Arizona, probably Texas.1706    The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.1707    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to1708all of you for your work.1709    Obviously, Coloradans cherish their public lands. When1710there were threats to sell public lands, there was an outrage,1711a giant pushback on that. And we have seen a lot of energy1712around how do we increase protections for public land, as well1713as seeking opportunities to enhance conservation through things1714like the Public Lands Rule, which we are still working on.1715    Mr. Cramer, I will start with you. How does the health of1716our public lands, how does that really impact recreation?1717    Mr. Cramer. Thanks for the question, Senator Hickenlooper.1718They are connected. I mean, you can't really have outdoor1719recreation without a setting. It does not mean anything. I1720mean, you need a place to paddle or to ride your bike or to go1721ski, so the setting--the place--is foundational for these1722pursuits to take place. And then, for the--these places are1723meaningful to individuals, to how they contribute to local1724economies, and the broader outdoor recreation industry. Place1725is essential.1726    Senator Hickenlooper. Yeah, well, and we have seen that,1727you know, the value of outdoor recreation across the West is1728crazy. I mean, it's $17 billion just in Colorado and across the1729West. Just on BLM lands, we see somewhere like $6 to $71730billion. These are enormous sums. These are annualized numbers.1731    Mr. Sheehan, I wanted to ask you also, just your take on1732FLPMA and how it helps provide a framework for conservation on1733our public lands. Are there some common-sense ways we can make1734that better?1735    Mr. Sheehan. Yes, I think, you know, as we look at all the1736values--thank you, Senator Hickenlooper, for that question--you1737know, wildlife don't have much of a voice for themselves, so we1738have to look out for them, but I think what is critical is1739that--let's identify the areas that are most important and make1740sure we protect those, but let's, you know, we may not need to1741protect at a high level every inch of publicly managed land to1742help protect the wildlife that rely on those landscapes. So, I1743think through any of these planning processes or any of the1744work that happens within the planning processes, once they are1745implemented, we need to use the best current knowledge, best1746information, and make sure that we give this wildlife an1747opportunity to persist in the efforts that we undertake.1748    Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.1749    Mr. Sheehan. Thank you.1750    Senator Hickenlooper. Give them at least a fair shot. I1751spent a--I guess I did seven hunts when I was Governor, up in1752Lander, Wyoming, for the one-shot antelope hunt, which is1753always--for those of us who aren't terribly good shots, was1754always a struggle because you only get one shot, but we did, my1755last year, Governor Matt Mead was sadly disappointed when our1756team won the whole shebang.1757    Let me go back, Mr. Kenna, Congress amended FLPMA in 20181758to require BLM to issue regulations for transmission rights-of-1759way. The final rule directs BLM to enhance the reliability of1760the grid and reduce the threat of wildfire damage to1761transmission lines, which, all across the West, has become a1762huge issue. The cost of insurance right now, the rising cost of1763utilities having to rebuild that infrastructure after these1764fires is enormous, as wildfire risk is such a major priority,1765and we have a bill, the Fix Our Forests Act, which I think will1766help reduce fire risk in transmission corridors and in high-1767risk areas more broadly.1768    How could we use the planning process to not just prevent1769the wildfires, but also enhance grid reliability?1770    Mr. Kenna. Interesting question, Senator, thank you for1771that. One of the things that I have found in my career with1772planning is that there are two things to sort of pay attention1773to in any given planning area. And what you have when you talk1774about the grid in the West is a whole bunch of regional issues1775that are overlaid. It's different in the Bonneville Power1776region, for example, than it is in California, than it is in1777Arizona and so forth. So, the complexity is very, very real.1778    But the things that I concentrate on are, what do you need1779to do in terms of the speed of trust? If you set the process up1780front, you have got to make sure that you don't try to go so1781fast that you don't keep everybody with you. And in each of1782those different regions, I think, what I--and this is probably1783not good wording--but what I have traditionally called the1784``honesty habit.'' Some different areas have different capacity1785to tackle things like the wildlife trends that we heard1786discussed earlier where you see wildlife is declining. So, what1787is our issue here--or the fire with transmission issue, same1788thing. You have to be able to directly address the issue1789forthrightly and honestly with a whole range of constituencies.1790And when you are talking about a west-wide grid, that's a very1791complex undertaking.1792    Senator Hickenlooper. Right, I appreciate that.1793    Thank you all. I yield back to the Chair.1794    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Hickenlooper.1795    All right, before we adjourn, I think Senator Henrich and I1796have just a couple of follow-up questions.1797    Mr. Sheehan, let's go back to you for a moment.1798    A lot of the BLM plans that are still in effect in Utah1799today were written in the early 1980s. So, we are talking, you1800know, 40 to 45 years ago. How realistic is it for BLM to manage1801fire, habitat, recreation, and energy projects and so forth1802under plans that were written before modern data, modern1803modeling techniques, or current demands even existed? And also,1804can you help us understand why it is that some of these plans,180540 to 45 years old, haven't been updated in that time period?1806    Mr. Sheehan. Sure, thank you, Chairman Lee.1807    First of all, it is vital, right? Changing circumstances--1808your words, right? What do we know differently than we knew in18091983? A lot of the people in this room weren't born in 1983.1810And I was, unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, but you know,1811we have got to look at how has the world changed? What do we1812know now? What do we know about rare earth minerals that we1813didn't know then and maybe where they are? What do we know1814about some of these habitats that are shared by wildlife and1815wild horses and livestock communities? Do we need to revisit1816that? What do we know that's different now about uses that, you1817know, many have interest in putting renewable energy on public1818lands, you know, how has recreation changed? You look at the1819vehicle, in 1983 you didn't have side-by-sides and maybe not1820even Harley four-wheelers, right? And now they are quite1821prevalent.1822    So, if we can't address the, you know, updating these plans1823on some regular basis, it's going to be very, very difficult to1824move forward. And it just makes sense, I think we all try to,1825you know, reevaluate our lives from time to time and you know,1826what has happened different than what we knew, as far as, you1827know, what's it going to take to get us there? You know, some1828of these plans I look at--Cedar City, Utah, you know, the1829southern Utah plan, you know, that started a dozen years ago.1830And it really still hasn't gone anywhere. When we initially--1831you know, an early part of planning is scoping. We go out and1832say, what are the situations out here? What do we need to know?1833And we do an analysis of management situations and we say, how1834has the world changed? And maybe we just need to make sure that1835we continue to evaluate those top priorities.1836    When I served in BLM, we had lists, and I am sure they1837would be happy to give you that. What are the top priority1838plans? Cedar City is one of the top on the list that, you know,1839as administrations change, priorities change, some of these1840plans continue, you know, to be redone, and it leaves a lot of1841these things on the sidelines. But if we are going to manage1842public lands, I think it's vital, as you point out, that we1843have to get this planning work done or we're not in a good1844place.1845    The Chairman. It's a good point. As someone mentioned1846earlier today, typewriters were still in wide use. Some of1847these probably----1848    Mr. Sheehan. We have one. I have one.1849    The Chairman. In many cases, the Commodore 64 was still an1850emerging technology. Great computer though, and some good1851gaming opportunities when I was in grade school.1852    [Laughter.]1853    The Chairman. All right, shifting gears for a moment. Under1854Section 603(c) of FLPMA, the Secretary of the Interior, for1855BLM, was given the task of designating wilderness study areas,1856and under Section 603(c), once the wilderness study area has1857been designated, only Congress can release the WSA, and the1858WSA, unless or until such time as Congress releases it, has to1859manage it as if were wilderness, designated as such by1860Congress. History has shown that these releases rarely occur,1861and so, this allows many millions of acres to be managed as de1862facto wilderness without ever specifically having been1863designated as such by Congress.1864    So, how workable a system is that where one agency can1865unilaterally designate a WSA, and it can't be unlocked except1866by an act of Congress? I have been wracking my brain over the1867last couple of days trying to find any parallel to this. The1868U.S. code is replete with instances in which we delegated1869significant authority to an executive branch agency, but I am1870not aware of any other circumstance like this one where the1871authorization for an agency to exercise administrative1872authority becomes a complete one-way ratchet. It takes on some1873of the trappings of a statute and can't be revisited later in1874light of a subsequent finding that either the original decision1875was wrong or it has become outdated or otherwise.1876    So, just tell us about how workable that sort of thing is,1877and how that may make things difficult for land managers.1878    Mr. Sheehan. Yes, certainly, in these planning processes,1879as you point out, the BLM has authority to designate a1880wilderness study area. They can take an area of land and say,1881you know, in their opinion, in that planning opinion, that1882should be a wilderness study area. And further to your point,1883you acknowledge that only Congress can undo that. A future1884executive administration cannot undo what is done in that plan.1885And so, I can't say there are no other instances in Federal1886Government that allow, sort of, an agency or bureau to create1887an action that really elevates itself instantly to a1888congressional action that can't be undone, even in the future1889by the executive side.1890    So, I, you know, whether it's a major problem or not, I am1891not certain how many of those WSAs are being designated now,1892but it's certainly curious that, you know, we have an ability1893to--in this case, the Bureau of Land Management--designate1894something. That has sort of a de facto effect of permanency1895behind it.1896    The Chairman. Thank you.1897    Senator Heinrich.1898    Senator Heinrich. Mr. Cramer, there was recently a new1899report that came out that looked at outdoor recreation on1900public lands, and the scale of the economic impact of that was1901estimated at over $350 million per day. That's at a scale1902bigger than logging and mining taken together, and certainly1903has had a huge impact in my state on a lot of gateway1904communities to these public lands. But many of the plans that1905are on the books right now were written at a time when that1906scale was much smaller, and when it was sometimes not even1907considered. Do you think, in your experience, do land managers1908actually know all of the places and mechanisms that people use1909to recreate on the public lands that they manage, and for your1910typical BLM District Manager, do they know all the places that1911people hike, and climb, and hunt, or bike, or do they need a1912public process to understand where those things occur, and1913where conflicts might occur?1914    Mr. Cramer. Great question, Senator Heinrich. I think they1915know a lot because they are there, and in some cases they might1916know almost all of them, but why not check? Why not double1917check? I mean, as you point out, there is so much desire to be1918outside, and the economic activity that tiers off of that1919desire is substantial. And if we don't inventory where these1920places are, where they could be, we are just leaving a ton on1921the table in terms of economic activity. In some cases, it's1922not--you might want to develop recreation infrastructure where1923there isn't recreation infrastructure to make sure there is1924equitable access for more people and it's closer to places1925where people live.1926    So, data about this stuff is very liberating and it's1927available and accessible, you know, through my organization,1928Outdoor Alliance, and through a lot of companies that have a1929tremendous amount of data, and they are very generous about it.1930So, we get to a better place with this information, for sure.1931    Senator Heinrich. As most folks in this room are aware, New1932Mexico produces a lot of oil and gas, but we have a lot of1933public lands. We value those public lands and we also rely on1934outdoor recreation, hunting and fishing, and other things to1935generate economic activity in our state. And so, the balance of1936those things is really important to us. You know, the budget1937bill this summer elevated oil and gas leasing above other uses1938on public lands by literally requiring the BLM to offer any1939parcel for leasing if it's open for oil and gas development in1940an RMP--a resource management plan. Now, before that change,1941the BLM would first look and consider oil and gas development1942and whether it was the best use for a parcel before offering1943the lease. And now, oil and gas gets preferential treatment1944over those other uses.1945    So, Mr. Cramer, for people who like to recreate on public1946lands, what are the consequences of saying things are multiple1947use but then elevating certain uses above others?1948    Mr. Cramer. Just setting things up for more conflict and1949slowing things down. You know, it's really, as a lot of the1950witnesses have shared, it's a composition of all these1951elements, and you need to allow that composition to be composed1952in a way that's in everybody's best interest.1953    Senator Heinrich. Yes.1954    Mr. Chairman, I think I am done.1955    The Chairman. Thank you so much.1956    Well, I want to thank each of you for being here today. You1957have all brought unique expertise to the table, and we have1958learned a lot from this. And so, this will conclude today's1959hearing. I want to thank my colleagues for participating, and1960especially our witnesses for being here.1961    Any member of the Committee who wishes to submit questions1962for the record, any additional questions that haven't been1963asked today, may do so. The deadline for submitting those will1964be 6:00 p.m. tomorrow, Thursday, November 20th.1965    Senators also have until 6:00 p.m. this coming Wednesday,1966November 26th, to add statements for the record of today's1967hearing.1968    We received one of those from Senator Risch already today.1969He had to run to a Foreign Relations hearing that he was1970chairing, but that will be added without objection.1971    So, thanks again for being here, for your testimony, and1972for answering our questions.1973    The Committee stands adjourned. Thanks.1974    [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]19751976                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED19771978                              ----------19791980[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]19811982                                 [all]