Heinrich Questions Experts on Resource Management Plans, and Dangerous Impact of Recently Passed Legislation that Limits Public Input
WASHINGTON — During a U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing to examine how the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land use planning process under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) affects permitting for energy, mining, grazing, and infrastructure projects on public lands, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Committee, questioned Jim Kenna, retired California State Director for the BLM, Greg Sheehan, President and CEO of Mule Deer Foundation, and Adam Cramer, Chief Executive Officer of Outdoor Alliance, about considering public input and the economic activity outdoor recreation industry generates when creating resource management plans (RMPs). Heinrich also highlighted the disastrous impact recently passed Congressional resolutions of disapproval have on this process.
On Considering Public Input for Resource Management Plans
Senator Heinrich began his questioning by asking about the importance of public input in creating resource management plans, “Mr. Kenna, how critical is it for the public to guide the direction of a land use plan for that plan to be effective and successful?”
Mr. Kenna answered, “I think it's very important. And I would highlight the fact that planning processes, particularly if they're of any size or duration, create a record, and it's a public record, and that public record underpins all of the decision-making that happens in the plan. So it essentially is the balancing dialog around the FLPMA questions and so you can't sidestep that, and you need to make sure that the local knowledge is integrated, and not just the social preferences, those are very important, but also the -- where is the mule deer winter range? Where are the cultural resources and cultural properties? Where are the things that we care about? Where are the trails that get a lot of recreation, where all of those things are very local, right, and they're very specific.”
Heinrich followed, “And how does the Congressional Review Act incorporate the public input and the creation of that record?”
Mr. Kenna answered, “Well, my concern is that it's the exact opposite. If you think about the perspective of the person who participated in a plan they just invested years to get to that kind of endpoint where everybody kind of got together and whatever the deal was, the deal was the deal. And now the Congressional Review Act has sort of taken a political process and put it over the top of that and vacated that.”
Heinrich continued, “And with no public – there's no mechanism for public input in the Congressional Review Act. And I want to, I want to get at some of the unintended consequences that that might create. Mr. Sheehan, you know, with Congress recently overturning a number of RMPs through the Congressional Review Act. One of the limitations under the CRA is that it means that the BLM under the statute can never issue a quote substantially similar plan to those areas. Is that correct?”
Mr. Sheehan answered, “Yes, I believe that’s accurate.”
On CRAs Overturning RMP Plans
Heinrich continued, “I'm wondering if a plan, if a RMP plan allowed for development of oil and gas, development of mining and grazing, hunting in the planning area, and the plan is overturned by the CRA, could BLM ever issue a new plan that allowed those same uses in the same areas?”
Mr. Sheehan answered, “Senator Heinrich, I believe that, and I’m not a lawyer here, and there’s lots of lawyers in the room, there’s one right to your left.”
Heinrich answered, “I’m not either.”
Mr. Sheehan continued, “But if we, if we work under that premise, that a CRA pulls this plan back and that a new plan could not be substantially similar, and it would certainly lean into the state, you know, a set of facts around you can't go back and do the same thing again until Congress says you can go do it again now. But what it does do is you pull it back, is it reverts back to prior plan that's sitting there, which, and if that allowed for some of those uses, of course.”
Heinrich followed, “It could be 40 years old and that plan may not, may not actually address the uses that are most pressing today, correct?”
Mr. Sheehan answered, “Yeah, absolutely. I, when we talk about planning, and I wrote down a comment that Senator or Chairman Lee mentioned in his opening comments, has adapted changing circumstances. And I thought for a moment, what happens over these 40 years, 45 years, and some of these plans that have sat there, and, you know, within with it, with the new technologies that have come about, I look at what do we know different about wildlife management and movements and how we can restore habitats? We've got wild horses and burros, and in some of these areas that we have plans for, we don't necessarily want to manage for wild horses and burros in those areas anymore.”
Heinrich responded, “We also know where corridors are, where the mule deer corridors were, where the pronghorn corridors were, and so that doesn’t get managed for if we’re dealing with a 40-year-old plant.”
Mr. Sheehan followed, “Exactly. I guess my hope is a former land manager is, if the CRAs are going to be a thing that gets used, let's try to avoid that to any extent.”
Senator Heinrich pointed out, “Why not just redo the plan? And avoid all those unintended consequences?”
Mr. Sheehan answered, “Absolutely. And I think if the plans can be done initially, and make sure we do that coordination, cooperation, do all of the efforts we need to so that we get a better, higher level of buy-in, I would hope Congress does not need to step in on these because, to your earlier point, I don't know what kind of certainty there is for future planning in these areas, and I hope that that's not confounded.”
Heinrich followed, “I think one of the things that I'm concerned about is the opening for litigation, because the statute is so vague about what a substantially similar plan would look like, is that you could literally see every permit, whether that permit is for outdoor recreation that Mr. Kramer represents, whether that permit is for oil and gas, whether that permit is for grazing, called into question because of some of these CRA activities. And I think that's something that everybody ought to be considering before using such a blunt tool.”
On Outdoor Recreation Being Considered in Resource Management Plans
Heinrich asked, “Mr. Kramer, there was recently a new report that came out that looked at outdoor recreation on public lands and the scale of the economic impact of that was estimated at over $350 million per day. That's at a scale bigger than logging and mining taken together, and certainly has been, had a huge impact in my state on a lot of gateway communities to these public lands, but many of the plans that are on the books right now were written at a time when that scale was much smaller and when it was sometimes not even considered. Do you think, in your experience, do land managers actually know all of the places and mechanisms that people use to recreate on the public lands that they manage and for your typical BLM district manager, do they know all the places that people hike and climb and hunt or bike, or do they need a public process to understand where those things occur and where conflicts might occur?”
Mr. Kramer answered, “Great question, Senator Heinrich, I think they know a lot because they're there, and in some cases, they might know almost all of them. But like, why not check? Why not double-check? I mean, as you point out, there's so much desire to be outside, and the economic activity that tears off of that desire is substantial. And if we don't inventory where these places are or where they could be, we're just leaving a ton on the table in terms of economic activity. In some cases , it's not, they might, you might want to develop recreational infrastructure where there isn't recreation infrastructure to make sure there's more equitable access, more people, they’re closer to places where people live. So data about this stuff, is very liberating, and it's available and accessible, you know, through my organization, Outdoor Alliance. And there are a lot of, you know, companies that have got a tremendous amount of data, and they're very generous about it. So we get to a better place with this information, for sure.”
Senator Heinrich followed, “As most folks in this room are aware, New Mexico produces a lot of oil and gas, but we have a lot of public lands. We value those public lands, and we also rely on outdoor recreation, hunting and fishing, other things to generate economic activity in our state. And so the balance of those things is really important to us. You know, the budget bill this summer elevated oil and gas leasing above other uses on public lands by literally requiring the BLM to offer any parcel for leasing if it's open for oil and gas development in an RMB resource management plan. Now, before that change, the BLM would first look and consider oil and gas development and whether it was the best use for a parcel before offering the lease. And now oil and gas gets preferential treatment over those other uses. So Mr. Kramer, for people who like to recreate on public lands, what are the consequences of saying things are multiple use, but then elevating certain uses above others?”
Mr. Kramer answered, “Just setting things up for more conflict and slowing things down? You know, it's really, as a lot of the witnesses have shared, it's a composition of all these elements, and you need to allow that composition to be composed in a way that's in everybody's best interest.”
###
