    [Senate Hearing 119-210]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 119-210

                   HOW THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LAND
                    USE PLANNING PROCESS UNDER THE FEDERAL
                    LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT AF-
                    FECTS PERMITTING FOR ENERGY, MINING,
                    GRAZING, AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
                    ON PUBLIC LANDS
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 19, 2025

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-932                     WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                            MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania        ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia      CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        ALEX PADILLA, California
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota

                      Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director
        Chris Prandoni, Majority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
           Sam Crofts, Majority Policy Director for Natural Resources
                     Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director
                     Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel
            Maya Hermann, Minority Natural Resources Policy Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Barrasso, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................     1
    Lee, Hon. Mike, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Utah............     2
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      New Mexico.....................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Brown, Hon. Derek, Attorney General, State of Utah...............     5
    Kenna, Jim, Retired State Director, Bureau of Land Management....    14
    Christensen, Micah, Natural Resource Counsel, Wyoming County
      Commissioners Association......................................    24
    Cramer, Adam, Chief Executive Officer, Outdoor Alliance..........    37
    Sheehan, Greg, President and CEO, Mule Deer Foundation...........    46

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Brown, Hon. Derek:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
        Written Testimony............................................     7
    Christensen, Micah:
        Opening Statement............................................    24
        Written Testimony............................................    26
    Cramer, Adam:
        Opening Statement............................................    37
        Written Testimony............................................    39
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    81
    Digital Power Network:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    93
    Grid Action:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   102
        Response to DOI Request for Information, dated June 20, 2025.   106
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
    Kenna, Jim:
        Opening Statement............................................    14
        Written Testimony............................................    16
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    74
    Lee, Hon. Mike:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
        Chart entitled ``Restrictive Land Designations''.............    51
        Statement for the Record.....................................    87
    Risch, Hon. James E.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    92
    Sheehan, Greg:
        Opening Statement............................................    46
        Written Testimony............................................    48
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    82
    Western Governors' Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   113
        Policy Resolution 2024-01....................................   114

     HOW THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS UNDER THE
     FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT AFFECTS PERMITTING FOR ENERGY,
          MINING, GRAZING, AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ON PUBLIC LANDS

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in Room
    SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman
    of the Committee, presiding.
        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Good
    morning and welcome to all of you.
        Today, we are holding a hearing on how, exactly, the Bureau
    of Land Management plans land use under the Federal Land Policy
    and Management Act, also known as FLPMA. More specifically, we
    will examine FLPMA's impact on how the Bureau--the BLM--issues
    public land permits for energy, mining, grazing, infrastructure
    projects, and other uses. We will be hearing from five
    witnesses today to consider how BLM's permitting process has
    become rigid, slow, and often detached from the intent Congress
    expressed in passing FLPMA of multiple use and sustained yield
    as those concepts are articulated in FLPMA itself.
        The witnesses include, first, the honorable Derek Brown,
    Attorney General of the State of Utah; second, Jim Kenna,
    retired California BLM State Director; third, Micah
    Christensen, who is Natural Resource Counsel for the Wyoming
    County Commissioners Association; fourth, Adam Cramer, CEO of
    the Outdoor Alliance; and finally, Greg Sheehan, former Utah
    BLM State Director, and current President and Chief Executive
    Officer of the Mule Deer Foundation.
        We are going to recognize Senator Barrasso for a moment to
    talk about one of these witnesses with whom he is familiar.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. And I
    do appreciate what you just said--rigid, slow, and often
    detached. And that has certainly been the experience that we
    have seen in Wyoming.
        And so, I am delighted that Micah Christensen is here
    today, and I am honored to introduce him to the Committee. He
    is Natural Resource Counsel for the Wyoming County
    Commissioners Association. He works closely with Wyoming's
    County Commissioners every day on federal natural resource
    issues. He is a seventh-generation member from Wyoming, grew up
    in the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming, and graduated from the
    University of Wyoming College of Law. Prior to joining the
    Wyoming County Commissioners Association, he served as
    Assistant Attorney General for the State of Wyoming. At that
    point, he represented the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation
    Commission. He now lives in Casper with his wife and his four
    children.
        Over the past few years, he has worked to defend and
    represent Wyoming's interests when it comes to federal land
    management. He has become a pivotal voice for Wyoming, and has
    seen firsthand the federal overreach from the previous
    administration. So, I am grateful that he has come here today
    to be with us to discuss the Federal Land Policy and Management
    Act, and I am thankful for all he does on behalf of Wyoming's
    County Commissioners and the people of our great state.
        Micah, thank you very much for joining us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this opportunity.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
                         U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

        When Congress first enacted FLPMA back in 1976, the idea
    was pretty straightforward. Federal agencies would manage
    public lands with a clear eye toward multiple use and sustained
    yield. States and counties would, of course, be partners in
    this. The planning process would be predictable and would be
    responsive to conditions on the ground, as expressed by those
    involved in the process. It's not always how the system
    functions today. Congress intended the resource management plan
    (RMP) to be flexible and that these processes would involve
    flexible instruments that could adapt with changing
    circumstances and according to local needs.
        But instead, they have often become these very large and,
    in fact, enormous static documents that take many, many years
    to write and even longer to revise. By the time an RMP is
    finalized, local conditions have often shifted, new technology
    may have emerged, and project needs may have changed
    substantially. The rigidity that we see in this process can end
    up affecting everything, from energy development, to grazing
    renewals, to recreational access. A project can satisfy federal
    law and environmental requirements, but if the plan that
    governs the landscape is outdated, the project may be stalled
    anyway, in which case, applicants are left waiting for permits
    that should be routine. Project proponents face uncertainty.
    Counties are forced to operate under assumptions that no longer
    match reality.
        The expanded use of restricted designations, like areas of
    critical environmental concern (ACECs) and wilderness study
    areas (WSAs), demonstrates how far the process has deviated.
    Congress intended these tools to protect specific resources.
    Over time, however, the BLM has applied these concepts to
    enormous tracts of land, often layered with other restrictions,
    and these things are rarely reviewed. Even before the Biden
    administration's abuse of the ACEC designations, as of 2021,
    over 20 million acres of BLM land were designated as areas of
    critical environmental concern. This designation limits active
    management and access for uses that Congress specifically
    drafted FLPMA to support.
        The Rock Springs RMP in Wyoming provides a pretty clear
    case study of this phenomenon. The Biden administration tagged
    more than a million acres with restricted designations, which
    had sweeping implications for communities that rely on public
    land. Wyoming counties raised concerns. The state raised
    concerns. The proposed plan moved forward anyway. Now,
    thankfully, in response to public outcry from local officials,
    the Trump administration reopened the plan. But that sequence
    of events reveals a process in which coordination with state
    and local governments is a courtesy, not an obligation.
        FLPMA requires the Secretary to coordinate with state and
    local governments, yet the statute gives that requirement no
    legal teeth. As a result, federal planners can move forward
    without the most current information available. States and
    counties have up-to-date data on wildlife migration, water
    availability, infrastructure, and emergency needs. That
    information should strengthen federal planning. Instead, it's
    often incorporated late in the process or incorporated not at
    all. Coordination, when done correctly, results in locally
    supported plans that are durable, leading to more certainty for
    projects on federal lands.
        We have an opportunity to explore ways we can improve the
    planning process. A functional system should allow for adaptive
    management. It should allow for timely adjustments and stable
    expectations for project sponsors. It should respect the
    knowledge of state and local governments that live with the
    practical consequences of these federal decisions. FLPMA rests
    on the idea that decisions made in Washington, DC, gain
    legitimacy only when they reflect the judgment of the people
    who have to live with the outcome. That assumption is as true
    today as it was in 1976, and it remains embedded within FLPMA
    today, as it was in 1976. The question before us is whether the
    Federal Government is meeting that obligation if what we want
    is a planning process worthy of the land that the process
    governs. Accountability cannot be merely symbolic. It must be
    real, it must be early, and it must include the states and
    local governments that know these landscapes the very best.
        With that, we will turn the time over to our Ranking Member
    on the Committee, Senator Heinrich.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    add my welcome to our witnesses here today to talk about how we
    decide what to do with our public lands.
        Talking about resource management plans might not be
    everyone's idea of a great way to spend their Wednesday
    morning, but personally, I am very glad that this Committee is
    looking at this important element of public land management.
    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, says
    something pretty simple: it says that the Bureau of Land
    Management should look at the lands it manages and decide how
    to manage those lands for multiple uses. The BLM has a
    complicated job--it has to figure out how to fit energy
    development and wilderness and grazing and wildlife habitat and
    mining and fishing and forestry and recreation and cultural
    resource preservation on the lands that it manages.
        One approach could be a free-for-all--whoever puts the land
    to use first gets to decide what happens there going forward.
    Our nation did that for a long time, giving away public land
    via homesteading and mining claims and granting lands to
    railroads to facilitate western expansion. But conservationists
    like Teddy Roosevelt began to recognize that if we kept going
    down that path, we would have no public lands left, which would
    mean most Americans would be locked out of the nation's open
    spaces.
        A few decades later, Congress passed FLPMA, and directed
    the BLM to keep public lands public and to manage public lands
    under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. To do
    that, it requires the BLM to periodically produce land use
    plans to guide its management decisions. Now, recognizing that
    multiple use doesn't--and frankly can't--mean every use on
    every acre, these land use plans ensure that all uses have some
    of those acres. Land use planning is a robustly public process,
    integrating information and priorities from local residents,
    from businesses, from tribes and local governments, and public
    land users from across the nation. Finding ways to accommodate
    the broad range of everything from wilderness to mining is not
    easy, but the planning process makes sure that all uses are
    considered and everyone's voices are heard.
        Now, unfortunately, these plans are updated far too
    infrequently--that is something that I think we all agree on--
    and are intended to be in place for about 20 years. The BLM has
    not been able to keep up with revisions to keep these plans
    aligned with today's priorities and technologies. Some plans in
    place now were written well before utility-scale solar was
    common, and few are ready to facilitate the increase in
    geothermal energy production that's on the horizon. Many
    current plans don't accommodate the explosion in outdoor
    recreation that our public lands now host. Recreation on public
    lands is now an economic powerhouse, generating $128 billion in
    economic activity every year and driving $6 billion in federal
    tax revenue. On BLM land alone, recreation supports 76,000 jobs
    and contributes to more than $12 billion in economic output.
    Those numbers are very different than they were 30 or 40 years
    ago, when many BLM land use plans were actually written, and in
    fact, we weren't even keeping track of recreation statistics
    when many of these plans were written.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we
    can make the planning process more efficient and more
    responsive to changes in how we use our public lands while
    making sure that our public lands continue to serve the public
    for generations to come.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Heinrich.
        We will now begin hearing from each of our witnesses, and
    we will start with Attorney General Brown and then move over
    from there. Each of you will have five minutes.
        As we do so, I want to briefly introduce Attorney General
    Brown. Derek and I have known each other for most of our lives
    now, going back 30-plus years, ever since college. We have
    worked together on four or five separate occasions, working at
    the same location. He has been a member of my team in the past.
    We practiced at the same law firm, and he and his wife Emilie
    are good friends of ours.
        So, I welcome our state's esteemed Attorney General, The
    honorable Derek Brown.
        Mr. Brown, you may proceed.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DEREK BROWN,
                    ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Brown. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of
    the Committee. As the Chairman said, I am the Utah Attorney
    General, Derek Brown, and I appreciate the opportunity today to
    speak with you about an issue that is critical, not just to my
    home State of Utah, but to the entire American West, and that
    is effective public land management.
        Now, in Utah, the Federal Government controls the
    overwhelming majority of our state, roughly 68 percent of our
    landmass. So, because the Federal Government controls virtually
    two out of every three acres in our state, it's critical for
    our environmental, economic, and social well-being to have a
    functioning system of what we often call ``cooperative
    federalism,'' where we work together. And the nature is what
    are really the ``3 C's'' of public land management--
    coordination, cooperation, and consistency in mandating the
    multiple use and sustained yield that is part of FLPMA.
        So, FLPMA, itself, mandates meaningful public involvement
    of state and local government officials in land use decisions.
    And so, for that reason, in 2015, our state did what I think
    was the first of its kind--the legislature asked all 29
    counties to create a comprehensive county resource management
    plan, and that plan was then used to create a state resource
    management plan to manage our state's precious natural
    resources. But that plan is largely useless if the regulatory
    space doesn't have predictability or consistency. And so, while
    cooperation and collaboration are critical to the process, the
    language of FLPMA, as has already been mentioned, stops short
    of giving states any real meaningful say in the process itself.
    And so, often, the level of cooperation depends on the
    political context.
        So, in my state, for instance, we have unfortunately seen
    federal agencies simply ignore state-specific input and state-
    specific science. One example of this was in 2015, when the
    administration at that time just ignored the state-specific
    information and ended up adopting sage grouse plans that were
    inapplicable to Utah's unique environment. Another example
    involves not just wildlife, but infrastructure--what we refer
    to as the Northern Corridor. This is a highway project in
    Washington County, Utah. It is designed to alleviate traffic
    concerns and has been planned for over a decade now, and state,
    county, and local stakeholders have largely been shut out of
    the process entirely, and state-specific science involving the
    Mojave Desert Tortoise was mostly ignored.
        Another example is where state and county officials in Utah
    were largely denied any meaningful role in the development of
    the final RMP for the Bears Ears National Monument. So, other
    stakeholders, not necessarily the state and local officials,
    had the benefit of countless coordination meetings where they
    were provided meaningful opportunities to be involved in the
    planning process. And one of the most well-known, that you may
    be familiar with, is the TransWest Express transmission line.
    This was a renewable energy project that was a priority for
    multiple administrations, and it has taken over 18 years to go
    simply from the application to the construction phase. So, this
    creates a lack of predictability, which really hurts everyone.
        So, I guess the question is, what can be done? I believe
    there are bipartisan solutions that can be had to change FLPMA.
    As Utah's Attorney General, one of the things I do is, I look
    to work with other attorneys general in other states, both red
    and blue states, to identify long-term solutions to critical
    problems. And generally, I start by finding issues on which we
    can agree. One of the issues where I see there is a lot of
    agreement in this area is the fact that there is a regulatory
    whiplash every time an administration changes, throwing an RMP
    back into question. And that not only doesn't achieve FLPMA's
    goal of multiple use and sustained yield, but it's bad for the
    land, all of the land, regardless of where it's located.
        So, ultimately, as a state, we want to be a partner, and
    that was what was contemplated by FLPMA, and we want to create
    an environment where there is more collaboration, more
    cooperation, more consistency, and more predictability. And I
    believe that result will create less friction with those
    individuals who are closest to the land, and it will empower
    states to make better long-term decisions preserving the land
    for future generations.
        Thank you, and I look forward to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Kenna.

    STATEMENT OF JIM KENNA, RETIRED STATE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
                               MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Kenna. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, members
    of the Committee, I really appreciate an opportunity to talk a
    little bit about what I think is a very important subject. I am
    a retired BLM State Director with 40-plus years of public
    service. My background includes experience in planning and
    permitting, in project proposals and policy, and it crosses all
    of the levels of the Bureau of Land Management, from the field
    office to the Washington office.
        Land use planning is one of the most fundamental processes
    to management because it really does three things that I think
    are really important and critical: one, it integrates land use
    decision-making across a broad landscape; two, it does that by
    including public participation; and three, it applies the best
    available information about the planning area itself. By
    congressional design, federal land use planning is a
    systematic, interdisciplinary approach. That means it is
    required to integrate all of the conservation values with all
    of the detailed expectations around coordination, with all of
    the various uses that apply in that planning area. And land
    management is the basis, basically, for all of BLM's work, and
    it affects all of the multiple uses. And I appreciate the
    Ranking Member's comment on that. It is just as much about oil
    and gas as it is about hunting and fishing. Those are inside
    the definition of multiple use.
        If there is one thing that Congress could do to really have
    an impact on land use planning, it would be to pay more
    attention to funding and staffing for that function because
    that is where the on-the-ground work happens. There is no
    substitute for the on-the-ground work. It is the meat and
    potatoes of the process. And every planning area is different,
    with different issues, and different alternatives to be
    considered. A solid resource management plan incorporates and
    addresses those differences. It doesn't start from some sort of
    perceived starting point.
        There is also no substitute for involving the people with
    the knowledge of the area. That is the local folks. And you
    need to get there early and often. I appreciate that there have
    been planning processes where things--and Chairman Lee, thank
    you for mentioning this--that sometimes you have a dual problem
    of outdated plans and then an attempt to come in and sort of
    fix the process late. Those don't work very well. It is really
    important when you initiate a process to pay close attention to
    not only the formal level, which is all the state and local and
    tribal officials, but also to all of the relevant community
    interests from the very beginning, so, how you launch becomes
    really important. The public participation that is out there
    right now is really very sophisticated and well-informed. They
    won't take anything but addressing the things that they raise
    forthrightly and honestly. And that is, frankly, the best
    approach. Public dialogue is your best anchor point for the
    balancing discussion that FLPMA requires. The most valuable
    lesson I learned in my 40 years is to invest in that on-the-
    ground work--the local knowledge, the expertise in the planning
    team, and the participation and the interfaces.
        If you look to some of the examples I cited in my written
    testimony--Arizona's Restoration Design Energy Project and
    California's Desert Renewable Energy and Conservation Plan--
    those are very complex settings. One of them was statewide, the
    other in an area with a whole slew of very complicated issues.
    How you launch is really important. The California planning
    process launched with an agreement between the Secretary and
    the Governor. That was the beginning, and that framed how the
    dialogue went back and forth. If I were to talk about a well-
    managed process, what I would always look for is that very
    characteristic. How did you launch? How did you structure all
    the public participation? How did you make sure that the
    dialogue was about the best information?
        Thank you for the opportunity to give my perspective on
    this. I look forward to the conversation.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kenna follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kenna.
        Mr. Christensen.

       STATEMENT OF MICAH CHRISTENSEN, NATURAL RESOURCE COUNSEL,
                WYOMING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Christensen. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich,
    thank you for holding a hearing to discuss land management
    planning under FLPMA and Wyoming's experience with ACECs under
    the Rock Springs RMP.
        My name is Micah Christensen, and I serve as the Natural
    Resource Counsel for the Wyoming County Commissioners
    Association, a non-partisan, statewide association that
    represents all 23 counties and their 93 elected commissioners.
    Five counties are fortunate to call the lands of the Rock
    Springs Field Office home. The Rock Springs RMP generated
    substantial fervor, not only in Southwest Wyoming, but in many
    states. The record of decision (ROD) was signed on December
    20th, 2024, not in Wyoming by our field office manager or state
    director, but by the Principal Deputy of the BLM. The ROD
    designated 935,000 acres of ACECs with substantial use
    restrictions. This represented a 226 percent increase over the
    previous RMP and an 85 percent increase of ACEC designations
    across the entire State of Wyoming.
        Admittedly, this data is not the easiest to come by. As the
    Rock Springs ``no action alternative'' was over 100,000 acres
    off from the BLM's ACEC database it maintains online. However,
    calling the simple Excel sheet a database is likely
    inappropriate. The BLM's system for conveying to the public,
    local governments, and itself the ``what, where, how, and why''
    ACECs exist is largely inadequate for the purpose. This harms
    its proper utilization and enables a lack of compliance with
    FLPMA's directive. Numerous RMPs share similar deficiencies.
    Designations offer minimal information on relevant and
    important values that ACECs are designed to protect. They often
    include substantially more land than values exist, and the
    restrictions are often general, instead of being specific to
    prevent irreparable harm to identified values.
        For example, the South Bend River ACEC contains the
    historic Buckskin Crossing Cemetery. The public and the BLM may
    wish to establish an ACEC to protect this resource and could
    prescribe, for example, a ``no surface occupancy'' restriction
    for fluid mineral leasing as a reasonable buffer around the
    area. However, closing 439 square miles of all fluid mineral
    leasing is likely disproportionate, especially noting that most
    of Wyoming's current oil and gas development occurs on two-mile
    horizontal wells that are thousands of feet below the surface.
    Congress did not give the BLM unilateral authority to establish
    wilderness areas or national monuments. Instead, Congress
    created a specific and narrowly tailored conservation tool
    designed to protect important public land values within the
    multiple-use, sustained-yield framework in full coordination
    and cooperation with local governments.
        The Rock Springs RMP demonstrated how vulnerable ACEC
    designations are to being shaped by broad political objectives
    such as limiting fossil fuel development rather than the
    carefully targeted measures FLPMA envisioned. Wyoming's
    Counties support ACECs to protect unique and sensitive
    resources, but their effectiveness and legitimacy depend on
    agencies identifying values explicitly, demonstrating the
    necessity of special management to prevent irreparable harm,
    evaluating the tradeoffs, considering impacts to state and
    private lands, and working collaboratively with local
    governments, whose communities will live with the consequences.
    These lands are the cultural and socio-economic lifeblood of
    our rural communities, and our future is inextricably
    intertwined with their proper conservation. But, as President
    Theodore Roosevelt, the ``father of conservation,'' once said,
    ``Conservation means development as much as it means
    protection.''
        Both sides of the aisle need to understand that top-down
    edicts that weaken local engagement undermine the planning
    process goals to balance conservation across all lands. As
    energy security, water, catastrophic wildfire, and habitat
    fragmentation continue to be important conservation
    considerations, treating federal lands as if they exist in a
    vacuum is not a winning strategy. These landscapes and
    resources cannot be managed on four- or eight-year terms from
    DC. They must transcend elections by being grounded in the
    cooperative federalism principles that Congress envisioned and
    FLPMA demands.
        There is a better way. We desperately need the Federal
    Government to empower local land managers on the ground--
    federal leaders who don't chafe under the cooperative ethos of
    NEPA, but appreciate the inherent value of partnering with
    state, local, and tribal governments, so that collectively we
    can craft RMPs that address the great moral issue of
    conservation for the betterment of our nation today, and future
    generations of Americans tomorrow. In short, we need a cultural
    shift in the nucleus of power from DC back to the people we
    have entrusted to steward these lands. When local federal
    leadership can embrace local governments as partners in the
    planning process, we can achieve mutual benefits to federal
    agency missions and for our communities.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Christensen follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Cramer.

                       STATEMENT OF ADAM CRAMER,
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OUTDOOR ALLIANCE

        Mr. Cramer. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking
    Member Heinrich, and Committee members for the opportunity to
    speak with you all here today.
        My name is Adam Cramer, and I am the CEO at Outdoor
    Alliance. Outdoor Alliance is a national coalition that unites
    the voices of the human-powered outdoor recreation community to
    conserve public lands and waters and ensure sustainable
    management and recreation access for current and future
    generations. We represent paddlers, climbers, mountain bikers,
    backcountry skiers, surfers, and anyone who likes to get
    outside and enjoy our country's public lands and waters. Our
    nine member organizations include the Access Fund, American
    Canoe Association, American Whitewater, International Mountain
    Bicycling Association, Winter Wildlands Alliance, the
    Mountaineers, the American Alpine Club, Colorado Mountain Club,
    and Surfrider Foundation. Outdoor recreation is, these days,
    the most common way Americans come to know their public lands
    and waters and cultivate a stewardship ethic. It's also a
    ``principal or major'' use under FLPMA.
        So, the Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the
    care of some of our country's most spectacular outdoor
    recreation experiences, like mountain biking on Gooseberry Mesa
    outside of Hurricane, Utah, paddling at New Mexico's Upper Taos
    Box, or climbing at Red Rock Canyon outside of Las Vegas. And
    these things are really just a drop in the bucket. The 245
    million acres of public land under BLM's management contain
    more than 10,000 miles of mountain bike trails, about 2,500
    miles of whitewater paddling, and over 20,000 climbing routes
    and bouldering problems. Cumulatively, these resources are the
    literal infrastructure of the outdoor recreation economy,
    which, as you all know, supports nearly $1.2 trillion in gross
    economic output, about five million American jobs, and about
    2.3 percent of our country's GDP, according to the Bureau of
    Economic Analysis. And outdoor recreation helps support
    vibrant, diversified local economies, particularly in public
    lands communities, and it helps attract workers and businesses
    across a range of industries because of the quality of life
    benefits it brings to local communities.
        Now, outdoor recreation may be, these days, the most
    economically significant and socially relevant use of our
    country's public lands, but it's not the only use. The BLM has
    a complicated job to implement its multiple-use, sustained-
    yield mandate. It is a complex and consequential balancing act,
    and planning is how BLM takes a ton of information from the
    public to help strike a balance to create the ``harmonious and
    coordinated management'' that FLPMA describes. Now, successful
    and durable planning requires community engagement, especially
    at the local level, with critical input from local communities,
    their elected officials, as well as consultation with tribal
    governments. The BLM also needs reliable and current
    information. And to that end, I commend Congress, and this
    Committee in particular, for the bipartisan work that led to
    the unanimous passage of the EXPLORE Act last year, which
    directs the BLM and other land management agencies to inventory
    for recreation resources and values to support better agency
    decision-making.
        Now, planning is essential for protecting and enhancing
    public land and outdoor recreation opportunities. Plans lay out
    what lands are open or closed for energy, mining, grazing, and
    recreation; conditions and stipulations for development
    activities; special designations; and of course, lands that are
    eligible for disposal. Now, plans that are outdated and vague
    are recipes for conflict, and planning is a huge and important
    investment in the success of the permitted projects that
    ultimately need to tier off of these plans. Clear plans, with
    public support that comes from a sound and participatory
    process, give communities and stakeholders the certainty that
    they need to make investments in recreation infrastructure, in
    businesses, as well as other public land uses. Importantly, and
    maybe most importantly, planning is part of the democratic
    management of our public lands, and part of what makes public
    lands truly public. Sound planning is responsive to local and
    national interests. It may not fully satisfy everyone, but at
    its best, it reduces conflict and leads to compromise where
    stakeholders feel heard and their communities' needs are
    meaningfully reflected in the final plan.
        In closing, I want to be clear that the outdoor recreation
    community strongly supports BLM's Public Lands Rule, which
    helps to develop better information on landscape health to
    support sound, sustainable management decisions. Thank you for
    the opportunity to be here. I am truly grateful, and I look
    forward to all of your questions and conversations.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cramer follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cramer.
        Mr. Sheehan.

                      STATEMENT OF GREG SHEEHAN,
                PRESIDENT AND CEO, MULE DEER FOUNDATION

        Mr. Sheehan. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and
    members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. My name is Greg Sheehan. I serve as the
    President and CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation, a national
    organization whose mission is to ensure the conservation of
    mule deer, black-tailed deer, and their habitats. Further, our
    interests include sportsman access in order to ethically hunt
    these iconic species. Each year, we engage with more than
    420,000 hunters, members, volunteers, and supporters. We speak
    for the millions of sportsmen and women who depend on healthy
    public lands, intact migration routes, and wild places.
        My testimony also reflects a lifetime in state, federal,
    and nonprofit conservation service. I spent 25 years with the
    Utah Department of Natural Resources, including five as the
    Director of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. I later
    served as Acting Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, and then as the Utah State Director for the Bureau of
    Land Management under both the Trump and Biden administrations,
    overseeing 22.8 million acres of federal land. That experience,
    from energy and mineral development, to wildlife, recreation,
    fires and fuels, grazing, and national monuments, gave me a
    practical understanding of how planning decisions shaped day-
    to-day management, and how essential strong partnerships with
    states, tribes, local governments, industry, permittees, and
    non-profit partners really are.
        The Federal Land Policy and Management Act provides the
    framework for this stewardship. FLPMA's multiple-use and
    sustained-yield principles recognize that conservation,
    recreation, grazing, energy, mining, habitat, public access,
    and the preservation of wild and undeveloped landscapes are all
    legitimate uses of the land. As President Theodore Roosevelt
    said, ``Conservation means development as much as it does
    protection.'' To be clear, multiple use does not mean every use
    everywhere, but it does require a planning system capable of
    balancing these needs while keeping landscapes healthy for
    future generations.
        Today, however, many of BLM's resource management plans,
    some written in the 1980s on typewriters, no longer reflect
    modern wildlife science, migration data, wildfire conditions,
    recreation growth, energy and mineral needs, or other current
    demands on the land. Updating these plans is essential for both
    conservation and responsible use, but revising an RMP today
    takes two to three years--sometimes even up to ten--and costs
    $2 to $6 million. BLM has stated that 134 of its 169 plans are
    outdated. Because funding does not meet all the planning needs,
    only the most prioritized plans are updated, while many
    landscapes continue to be managed under frameworks that no
    longer match on-the-ground realities. Part of that challenge is
    that FLPMA provides very limited direction on how BLM is
    actually supposed to develop plans that meet the expectations
    of Congress and the public.
        Let me give you an example. When I was kid, we liked to
    play Monopoly. We didn't have phones to play on back then.
    Imagine if the instructions simply said ``buy property, build
    houses and hotels, make more money than the other players, and
    if those instructions are not sufficient, then make up your own
    rules.'' You can imagine that result. Players invent their own
    rules and every game ends in an argument. FLPMA can feel a
    little like that. It's 71 pages long, yet only about two pages
    of Section 202 explain how to do land use planning for 245
    million acres of public land. When the statute provides such
    little direction, the BLM has to fill in the gaps with
    regulations and policy, and states, tribes, counties, industry,
    conservation groups, and all the public end up unhappy with
    some part of the outcome. If Congress has clear expectations,
    updating those few planning pages would be very helpful,
    especially for the BLM.
        Another factor is the cumulative use of administrative
    designations. BLM has more than two dozen planning and
    management tools, from wilderness study areas and ACECs, to
    lands with wilderness characteristics and visual resource
    management classes. Each can serve a purpose, but when layered
    together, or left in place indefinitely, they can limit
    flexibility to manage habitat, address wildfire risk, support
    communities, and maintain access. At the same time, society
    increasingly depends on BLM lands for energy production,
    critical minerals, transmission lines, recreation, and
    solitude. Planning has to be thoughtful enough to allow for
    those needs while still protecting wildlife habitat and
    migration routes. I also want to share that my experience,
    working side-by- side with BLM staff, is that they are
    dedicated, hardworking, and committed to fulfilling all
    elements of FLPMA and other governing acts.
        Finally, I want to emphasize that land stewardship matters
    deeply to America's hunters and anglers. Protecting wild
    places, migration corridors, watersheds, and healthy habitat is
    fundamental to our mission at the Mule Deer Foundation. A
    planning system that is timely, collaborative, science-based,
    and flexible will better support wildlife, rural communities,
    and the other diverse uses Congress intended under FLPMA. Thank
    you for this opportunity to testify, and I would be pleased to
    answer any questions from the Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sheehan follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thanks so much, Mr. Sheehan.
        We will now begin our five-minute rounds of questions. I
    will go first, followed by Ranking Member Heinrich. We will
    then alternate between Republicans and Democrats, each with
    five-minute rounds in order of seniority, subject to the early-
    bird rule.
         Attorney General Brown, I would like to start with you. I
    have a chart here that shows two maps of BLM-managed land
    within Utah.
        [The chart referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. The map on the left shows all the BLM land in
    Utah that was open for multiple use in 1976 upon the enactment
    of FLPMA. And then the map on the right shows those same lands
    today, now plastered with a lot of restrictive designations
    pursuant to FLPMA. Now, comparing these two maps, what does the
    increase in restrictive designations over the last 49 years
    since FLPMA's enactment--what does that mean for the rural
    economies in the State of Utah, especially those that depend on
    access to these lands, and how does it affect the ability to
    permit projects like transmission lines, wildfire mitigation,
    grazing, basic rights-of-way, and so forth?
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think, first of all, if you look at that map, the purple
    also represents what are effectively single uses. And the
    reality is, under FLPMA, the dual mandate, obviously, is
    multiple use and sustained yield. You mentioned these rural
    communities. One of them--I spend a lot of time in Garfield
    County, for instance. I have a father-in-law that lives there.
    We love it. I love the mountain biking there. It is roughly 93
    percent owned and controlled by the Federal Government. So, you
    literally can't take any action without implicating the Federal
    Government. And by the way, you mentioned the economic impact.
    Imagine trying to run and fund a county on what is effectively
    three to four percent of the land being able to tax. And so,
    things like hospitals or schools, I mean, so when I talk to
    commissioners, for instance, in Garfield County, they are very
    passionate about this issue.
        And so, I think ultimately one of the things that we need
    to do is have what is mentioned, I think, by every testimony
    here today, which is meaningful involvement of the people who
    are local and who are most directly affected by these
    designations. And I think that will make a huge impact on how
    it is that we address these issues.
        The Chairman. Right. That makes things very difficult. You
    mentioned the 93 percent ownership--the fact that that's all
    owned by the Federal Government makes a lot of things more
    difficult, including building up their own tax base.
        Now, can we talk for a moment about the TransWest Express
    transmission line? You spoke about that and the fact that it
    took more than 18 years to move from application to
    construction of the project. That's a long time. It took that
    long in large part because the project had to navigate multiple
    outdated or ever-shifting federal planning documents. And it
    spanned the creation and revision of two separate sage grouse
    plans, each with different requirements. So the ground was
    shifting throughout the duration of that because of these
    multiple governing documents.
        What does that experience tell us about how rigid and
    sometimes outdated RMPs affect transmission permitting, and
    what would need to change in the planning process in order to
    ensure that projects like that aren't stuck perpetually in
    limbo?
        Mr. Brown. Well, FLPMA was passed over 50 years ago, and I
    think those who voted for it at the time wouldn't recognize
    what it looks like at this point in time. And I think one of
    the things we need to do is rethink the rigidity of the
    process, because it's not good for anyone and it's not good for
    permitting projects. I mean, you mentioned this TransWest
    Express, I mean, this transmission line was a renewable project
    that was a priority for multiple administrations. So everyone
    wanted it to happen. And so, you can imagine, if you have a
    project that everyone wants to happen and it still takes 18
    years, I mean, clearly, the process itself is broken.
        Now, admittedly, this was a very complicated project,
    spanning multiple states, starting in Wyoming, delivering power
    to California, but that being said, we have got to be able to
    rethink the process if it takes that long.
        The Chairman. Indeed. And that's for, as you say, a
    relatively non-controversial project.
        Mr. Sheehan, you noted that BLM now uses more than 26
    different administrative designations that can be layered,
    often one on top of the other, compounding the complexity of
    it. What happens on the ground when these designations are
    layered over the exact same landscape, and how does that affect
    BLM's ability to carry out habitat work, fuels treatments, or
    even maintain existing infrastructure on those lands?
        Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Chairman Lee.
        Certainly, when we have this multitude of layers--some of
    those were identified on that map you showed a moment ago--it
    can restrict even our ability to help, in many cases, wildlife
    and those needs. Wildlife do need our help. We have changing
    and evolving landscapes. We have fire regimes. We have drought
    situations that occur. And it's really important that we can
    get in for the benefit of wildlife and do water structures and
    developments and projects, do habitat restoration to help
    reduce the impact of non-native invasive plants that come into
    our landscapes. We do need to get into these areas to address
    fire rehabilitation after they occur. And you know, at times,
    some of these designations will preclude us from being able to
    get in and adequately help wildlife and their needs.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        My time is expired. We will turn to Senator Heinrich now.
        Senator Heinrich. Actually, Chairman, I know both of my
    down-the-dais members have a meeting to get to, so I am going
    to defer to them.
        The Chairman. Great. Who has the more pressing----
        Senator King. She was here before.
        The Chairman. Roger that. We will go to Senator Cortez
    Masto. Thank you.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Senator King. Early-bird rule.
        The Chairman. Early-bird rule, thank you, Senator King.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the
    Ranking Member, and thank you to the panelists for being here.
    This is a great conversation.
        I am from Nevada, and similar to Utah, most of our land is
    owned by the Federal Government--over 84 percent. Just about 63
    percent is managed by the BLM. So, I appreciate all of the
    conversation about how we have to find that balance and manage
    this public land for use, not only those individuals who live
    in the state, but those who want to come and engage in tourism
    and transportation and then be stewards of federal land as
    well.
        Let me ask you this, and let me start with Mr. Kenna. I
    appreciated your comment about Congress needing to pay more
    attention to funding and staffing at the BLM level, because I
    couldn't agree more. What we have right now, I am very
    concerned that the current administration is taking actions
    that will only exacerbate the BLM's backlog in resource
    planning. We have identified today that 134 out of the 164 RMPs
    are outdated. And if we don't have the staff and we don't have
    the resources to even look at how we need to update, I am very
    concerned.
        Can you talk a little bit about the importance of the
    staffing levels and what role they play? And let me just touch
    on this--every single one of us has worked with our local BLMs.
    We know who they are. They are in our states. They live there.
    They have worked with the local jurisdictions. They understand
    better than anybody in Washington. And I will call out folks in
    Washington under both administrations that are playing
    politics. And we need people driven from the ground up--I could
    not agree more, General Brown--that are focused on how we
    manage the land to the benefit of the people that live there
    and recreate there. But I am concerned about the staffing
    levels under this administration. How much more is that going
    to set us back in trying to address the issues we are talking
    about today?
        Mr. Kenna. Let me start by sort of taking the perspective
    of a field manager--so, the manager of an office at the ground
    level. And one of the things that it calls for in a plan or in
    a project is, you've got to have access to an interdisciplinary
    staff. You need to have a wildlife biologist. You need to have
    an archeologist. You need to have those specialists that have
    expertise that are unique. And that's a lot of the processes
    that are underneath that, like the SHPO process--State Historic
    Preservation process. They help manage that. They help bird-dog
    all of the details of what goes on.
        So I share your concern as I see that some of these field
    offices are losing key bits of expertise. We have had times in
    my career at the BLM when, for example, there was a shortage of
    wildlife biologists. If you have to do Section 7 consultations
    under the Endangered Species Act, you've got to have one. So,
    if you don't have one in the office, you've got to find one.
    It's not really a discretionary thing. You've got to have that
    expertise.
        So, I think if I were to try to put a fine point on it,
    imagine that happening in every single field office. As you
    lose people, and if you have a vacancy in a key position, what
    are you left to do? You are out there trying to cast around
    with your neighbor offices to see if you can find the right
    expertise in order to assemble what needs to be done.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes.
        Mr. Kenna. So, I think that's essentially the crux of it,
    you've got to have that interdisciplinary mix in there, or some
    very specific pieces of expertise that are essential.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, I appreciate that.
        My time is running out, but let me touch on one other
    thing. Early this year, Congress took the unprecedented step in
    using the Congressional Review Act to reverse three separate
    resource management plans that were approved under the previous
    administration. That's the first time. And there is an
    argument--a legal argument to be made whether they are actually
    rulemaking or not. But the question I have is, I am concerned,
    if a land use plan is now considered to be a regulation that
    Congress can overturn, how does this bode for other existing or
    future land use plans? I mean, again, isn't this--the concern
    we are all talking about is top-down, right? Driven from
    Washington dictating what happens, and we are still doing it.
    How is that going to impact any resource planning that you plan
    in the future, and then all of a sudden, Congress can come
    along and use the CRA to overturn it? Wouldn't that frustrate
    the process moving forward?
        I am going to just open that up to anyone.
        Mr. Kenna. Senator, I don't see how it can't help but
    undermine it. I think it's going to create a mess.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, I appreciate it. Thank you. I
    know my time is up.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Barrasso would otherwise be next. He has graciously
    deferred to Senator King, who has a time commitment elsewhere.
        Senator King, go ahead.
        Senator King. Thank you very much.
        One specific question, Attorney General Brown--timing. Are
    there any limits on this process? Are there any time limits? Is
    that something we should be discussing here? Because you talk
    about the 18-year transmission line. That's unacceptable,
    particularly in this day and age. Should we be talking about
    perhaps putting limits on times and steps so that there is a
    foreseeable end to the process?
        Mr. Brown. I think that's definitely something that we
    ought to look at. When you look at FLPMA Section 202, as was
    already mentioned, when it comes to things like land swaps, it
    is very prescriptive, but Section 202 is not. And there is not
    a whole lot of language and yet, it is a very impactful section
    of code. And so, those kinds of limits might make sense. I
    think it also might make sense to figure out how it is we can
    get meaningful involvement, as has already been said, with
    those on the ground. And maybe that's the answer to--if there
    is currently a lack of staffing, maybe we can look at those
    folks with the local interest.
        Senator King. Well, work tends to expand to fill the time
    available, and if the time available is unlimited, it is going
    to be a long process. So, I hope you would provide some
    suggestions to the Committee on where we might be able to look
    for some time limitations that would improve this--the
    uncertainty surrounding the process.
        Mr. Sheehan, you used an important term, and I think this
    is sort of an undercurrent of this hearing--``regulatory
    whiplash.'' And part of the problem is that the Congress is not
    being very specific about what it wants. And therefore, it
    leaves tremendous discretion to whatever administration it is,
    and you go from one to the other and the whole world turns
    upside down. Is one way that we can address this by being more
    specific in terms of FLPMA and what the criteria are so
    Congress isn't basically abdicating its entire responsibility
    in this area to the executive?
        Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Senator King.
        Certainly, it's worth considering. I think that's why
    Chairman Lee asked for this hearing today--do we need to do
    more? Attorney General Brown mentioned a moment ago, but when
    we look at Section 202, I mentioned in my remarks that it's
    only about two pages of guidance for 245 million acres of land.
    There is a little bit more in there. It talks about a
    congressional process and how they could look at amending these
    actions, but essentially 202 says three things: it says
    coordinate with state, local, and tribal governments; try to
    use their planning efforts where you can; and prioritize areas
    of critical environmental concern. That's the guidance from
    Congress in a nutshell in Section 202 of a 71-page law. And
    everything beyond that has been crafted through rules,
    everything's been crafted through internal guidance policy
    handbooks by the BLM, and we get where we get.
        Senator King. And that leads to the problem of executive
    overreach because there are no boundaries. So, again, I would
    ask all of you for some homework to suggest to us how Section
    202 could be amended to narrow what the criteria are and what
    the specifics are so that we could get policy on a more timely
    basis that is more predictable and more resilient. I think one
    of the problems you have all identified is uncertainty. And it
    takes so long and you don't know what the result is going to
    be. So I would ask you to provide us with some suggestion as
    to--that is the business we are in here is lawmaking--as to how
    this law could be more definitive in order to provide better
    guidance to the process, which will hopefully produce a better
    and more resilient result so that we don't have what you
    characterized, I think quite accurately, as regulatory
    whiplash.
        My final comment, Mr. Sheehan, is, I was concerned that our
    white-tailed deer don't seem to be among your constituents--of
    the deer species that you mentioned, and I----
        Mr. Sheehan. Everyone in the East can have the white-tail,
    we will take our mule deer in the West.
        Senator King. All right, that's fine.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Sheehan. See how it all works out? But thank you for
    that comment.
        Senator King. And I come at this as someone who has no BLM
    land in their state. And so, I am looking at it just from the
    point of view of good policy going forward, and I hope that you
    can help us with that. Thank you all for your testimony.
        Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Christensen, I want to just talk about what we have
    seen under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, because
    there are many tools there that are designed to uphold multiple
    use, the mandate that we have. But one tool is a special land
    use designation known as areas of environmental concern--ACECs.
    Those designations have been used in the federal land
    management process since this law passed 50 years ago. The
    original intent was to provide flexibility and locally led
    protections, but what we have seen in Wyoming in the last
    decade has been a substantial use increase in these
    designations that seemed to me to limit use, to use these in
    ways to make non-use a use. And I am just wondering if you
    could explain the increase in what we have seen in Wyoming in
    the last few years of this designation being used in a way that
    we never anticipated it being used.
        Mr. Christensen. Chairman Lee, Senator Barrasso, we have
    seen a substantial increase in ACEC acreage since our most
    recent planning efforts, and that is the Rock Springs RMP. It's
    good to note that RMP took place after the BLM's Conservation
    and Landscape Health Rule. And so, we certainly didn't see that
    rule fix our problem, which is that the BLM is utilizing the
    ACEC as a tool for large swaths of land, not identifying unique
    resources for protection, but hundreds of thousands of acres,
    often, and really combining them with all sorts of things that
    we care about, like wildlife habitat and historic places, but
    doing so in a way that's really hard to untangle and understand
    what we are actually trying to protect. It's unclear because we
    have numerous uses.
        So, we have seen a huge increase of ACECs in Wyoming. I
    think in my testimony I said an 85 percent increase in a single
    RMP, and that RMP is only one of seven field offices that we
    have--so, a large increase.
        Senator Barrasso. So, are these designations really being
    driven by local folks, or does it seem like it's more the
    Federal Government getting involved?
        Mr. Christensen. Senator Barrasso, interesting question.
    It's hard to tell. Again, back to BLM's ability to track, we
    don't actually know often in our resource management plans who
    is nominating these parcels. There are two ways--the public can
    nominate, and also the BLM can internally nominate. But, for
    example, on the Rock Springs RMP, I don't believe, you know,
    anywhere is it stated. So we have seen certain nominations like
    the Sagebrush Sea nomination, with 19 NGOs supporting that--48
    million acres. We at least know the NGOs that supported it, but
    for the Rock Springs RMP, it's really hard to tell where those
    nominations came from.
        Senator Barrasso. So the Biden administration's BLM
    finalized the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan in December
    2024 as that administration was on the way out the door. And I
    have worked closely with the county commissioners to ensure
    that Wyoming stakeholders are included. I am grateful to
    President Trump and Secretary Burgum for announcing an
    amendment process for the Rock Springs RMP. Can you talk a
    little bit about the socio-economic impacts that communities in
    the West are seeing, especially Wyoming, or how they are
    impacted by some of these federal land management programs?
        Mr. Christensen. Yes, I think it's easy to think of public
    lands as sort of being isolated out in the middle of nowhere.
    However, as you know, Senator Barrasso, our lands are often
    intertwined and intermixed, so we have different surface
    ownership maybe than mineral ownership. We also have inholdings
    inside of some of these areas. So, anytime that the Federal
    Government, through an RMP or another rule, restricts some sort
    of use on federal land, there is often a restriction that also
    occurs on state and private land as well, further limiting our
    ability to develop resources, to access certain lands, and so,
    there is a big impact.
        The Rock Springs RMP estimated, you know, based on their
    preferred alternative, was roughly, you know, $14 million a
    year in losses to county government, county services, including
    the school districts. So we're not talking about
    inconsequential numbers--a fairly significant impact.
        Senator Barrasso. So, in terms of the land management and
    what I see as federal overreach, particularly in land
    management across Wyoming, it seems ultimately so many of the
    final decisions aren't made locally, but they are made in
    Washington, DC. How can we improve upon the land management
    process?
        Mr. Christensen. That's a great question, and I think one
    of the first things I would start with is that we have this
    idea of consistency, coordination, and cooperation, but we do
    things sort of out of order. So, the BLM could propose a land
    management plan with multiple alternatives, but maybe one or
    even none of those alternatives are consistent with state and
    local plans. How can we-- you know, we could really prioritize
    plans to have consistency done up front, allow for that
    building, so that you're not doing the check-the-box at the
    very end.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
    coming back to testify, appreciate it.
        The Chairman. Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Mr. Kenna, how critical is it for the
    public to guide the direction of the land use plan for that
    plan to be effective and successful?
        Mr. Kenna. I think it's very important, and I would
    highlight the fact that planning processes, particularly if
    they are 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 dialogue 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, 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? All of those things
    are very local.
        Senator Heinrich. Right.
        Mr. Kenna. And they are very specific.
        Senator Heinrich. And how does the Congressional Review Act
    incorporate the public input and the creation of that record?
        Mr. Kenna. Well, my concern is that it is the exact
    opposite. If you think about the perspective of the person who
    participated in a plan, they have 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.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes.
        Mr. Kenna. And now, the Congressional Review Act is sort of
    taking a political process and putting it over the top of that
    and vacated that.
        Senator Heinrich. And with no public--there is no mechanism
    for public input in the Congressional Review Act. And I want to
    get at some of the unintended consequences 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 ``substantially similar'' plan
    for those areas. Is that correct?
        Mr. Sheehan. Yes, I believe that's accurate, Senator.
        Senator Heinrich. So, I am wondering if a plan, if an 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. Senator Heinrich, I believe that--and I am not
    a lawyer here, and there are lots of lawyers in the room. There
    is one right to your left.
        Senator Heinrich. I am not either, but let's take the
    verbiage at its----
        Mr. Sheehan. If we work under that premise that a CRA pulls
    this plan back and then a new plan could not be substantially
    similar, then it would certainly lean into a set of facts
    around you can't go back and do the same thing again until
    Congress says you can do it again. But what it does do, as you
    pull it back, is it reverts back to----
        Senator Heinrich. The previous plan.
        Mr. Sheehan [continuing]. The prior plan that's sitting
    there. And if that allowed for some of those uses, of course,
    those----
        Senator Heinrich. It could be 40 years old and that plan
    may not actually address the uses that are most pressing today,
    correct?
        Mr. Sheehan. Yes, absolutely. When we talk about planning,
    and I wrote down a comment that Chairman Lee mentioned in his
    opening comments, which is, adapt to changing circumstances.
    And I thought for a moment, what happens over these 40 years,
    45 years in some of these plans that have sat there, and, you
    know, 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 have 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.
        Senator Heinrich. We also know where corridors are that, in
    1986----
        Mr. Sheehan. Exactly, we have that technology, absolutely.
    It has taught us that. Renewable energy.
        Senator Heinrich [continuing]. Nobody knew where the Mule
    deer corridors were, where the Pronghorn corridors were, and
    so, that doesn't get managed for, if we are dealing with a 40-
    year-old plan.
        Mr. Sheehan. Exactly. So, I guess my hope is, as a former
    land manager, if the CRAs are going to be a thing that gets
    used, let us try to avoid that to any extent possible.
        Senator Heinrich. Why not just redo the plan?
        Mr. Sheehan. A plan can be----
        Senator Heinrich. And avoid all those unintended
    consequences?
        Mr. Sheehan. Yes, absolutely. And I think if the plans can
    be done initially and make sure we do that coordination and
    cooperation, do all of the efforts we need to so that we get a
    better, higher level of buy-in, and 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 compounded.
        Senator Heinrich. I think one of the things that I am
    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, like Mr. Cramer
    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.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Heinrich,
    thank you.
        Last month, Congress acted to right a wrong and repeal the
    violation of the multiple use and public engagement principles
    enshrined in FLPMA. The Biden BLM land use planning process was
    weaponized to push radical anti-energy policies in states like
    Montana, like Wyoming, like North Dakota and Alaska, despite
    significant opposition from the states. Thankfully, Congress
    acted and they passed my bill to repeal the anti-coal Miles
    City Resource Management Plan Amendment, and I look forward to
    President Trump signing it into law very soon.
        I want to focus my question on a specific violation of
    FLPMA in Montana that was prevalent under Biden, and that's the
    disregard of the views and the input of the local counties,
    elected officials, and specifically, the governor of the state.
    The Miles City RMPA was strongly opposed by those living,
    working, and representing the lands affected, and despite this
    opposition, Biden's BLM ignored local feedback and they pushed
    forward with this harmful effort. It is so frustrating to see
    the disconnect between federal bureaucrats here in Washington,
    who had a very strong agenda, and local elected officials on
    the ground in Montana. And during the official governor's
    consistency review, after multiple official protests, and an
    appeal from Governor Gianforte, the BLM decided to, ``reject
    the Governor's recommendations.'' This is shameful and we need
    to ensure the voice of those closest to the land are not
    ignored or just rejected.
        My question for Attorney General Brown and Mr. Christensen:
    what actions should Congress take to ensure that local, state,
    and local statewide elected officials and those most affected
    by BLM's actions do not have their voices literally shut out of
    the planning process?
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Senator Daines, I appreciate that.
    And we have seen that as well in our state where you get to the
    place where you have the governor's consistency review and then
    it is effectively overruled. So, I think one of the things that
    I think this body could do is look at meaningful changes to
    FLPMA such that there is meaningful involvement that is more
    than just sort of a pat on the head to the states because, as
    we mentioned, we need consistency, coordination, and
    collaboration. But we also need the states to have some sort of
    meaningful input so that they can effectively be co-sovereigns
    over these lands where they have jurisdiction. And I think the
    consistency review is one specific example where, I think, if
    there were maybe a little more teeth to that, where they could
    be meaningful partners rather than just pro forma partners,
    that would solve, I think, a lot of the issues we have in the
    local areas in Utah and in places like Montana.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        Mr. Christensen.
        Mr. Christensen. Senator Daines, it's a great question. I
    agree with the idea of increasing the teeth, if you will, of
    consistency review, but really, I speak more of a cultural
    shift. I mean, we heard earlier about the impact of having not
    enough planning employees at the BLM. This is a real concern.
    But one way to fix that lack of employment at the BLM for
    planning is to utilize state and county resources, so, utilize
    state wildlife agencies to help you with developing your sage
    grouse plan instead of working against those plans. So
    incorporating state and local knowledge meaningfully in the
    planning process by authorizing those individuals who sit on ID
    teams, on planning teams, and really utilize the science and
    data that they provide.
        And as far as the rejection letter, I think our governor
    got a few of the same letters, so we've got some government
    efficiency there. But it is a problem. It is a problem that
    after the entire process, a 13-year planning process, the Rock
    Springs RMP ends with a whimper. Your recommendations are
    rejected. And it certainly isn't the way that you would like to
    see a planning process be working to unite forces, states,
    local governments, and the federal agencies to really manage
    these lands for all of America. Thanks.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        I want to shift gears to forestry and transmission. In
    order for electric utilities and our rural co-ops in Montana to
    be able to provide energy in an efficient way, we've got to get
    the transmission lines in place crossing a patchwork of
    private, state, and federal lands. To protect these power lines
    and communities from devastating wildfires, electric utilities
    develop and retain authorized vegetation management plans to
    cut and remove dangerous trees on public lands. However, they
    cannot protect and power communities if land management
    agencies are not responsive or cooperative when utilities are
    managing the rights-of-way. Recently, the Vigilante Electric
    Cooperative from Dillon, Montana, was slapped with a $5 million
    fine from the Forest Service because a tree outside of their
    right-of-way caught on fire. Any attempt from Vigilante to
    remove the tree would have been illegal, yet they were held
    liable for the fire.
        In 2018, FLPMA was amended to include a strict liability
    cap of $500,000 for electric utilities, which expires in 2028.
    The $5 million dollar Vigilante fire was far beyond the
    $500,000 limit, and one that's nearly impossible for a small,
    rural electric co-op to pay. It literally can put them out of
    business. It is common sense that no entity should be fined
    without proven negligence or non-compliance, and the status quo
    is not providing enough certainty on it.
        Last, quick question, Mr. Brown. The Utah and Montana state
    legislatures have both recently passed legislation to address
    these liability problems and the unique burden placed on
    electricity providers. What still needs to be changed at the
    federal level to replicate the success we are seeing in our
    states?
        Mr. Brown. Well, and I think this is something this body
    should look at in terms of caps and liabilities and frankly, I
    think a lot of what you are talking about in terms of, you
    mentioned sort of the catch-22--they really need to do
    something, but they are disempowered from doing it in the first
    place. And I think having more meaningful involvement with the
    folks on the ground who recognize the problems involved with
    the rights-of-way is something that should be addressed. And I
    think changing, as Mr. Christensen said, that cultural shift as
    well, I think, could be helpful, but I think this body ought to
    look at things such as those caps and then how that can be
    addressed.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to
    all of you.
        I want to begin by noting Mr. Kenna's long and
    distinguished career in public service, which includes more
    than 40 years in his role as BLM Director for the State of
    California. So, I want to thank you for your service, for your
    dedication to protecting our cherished public lands, not just
    in California, but especially in California. There are a number
    of great examples from your time there of successful resource
    management plan development. We successfully brought thousands
    of stakeholders together to establish the Desert Renewable
    Energy Conservation Plan. I know you are more than intimately
    familiar with this, the DRECP, which focuses on 10.8 million
    acres of public lands across seven counties in California. The
    DRECP is a landscape-level plan that streamlines renewable
    energy development while conserving unique and valuable desert
    ecosystems. The DRECP is a success story on incorporating
    robust public and tribal participation into land use planning,
    and it's a great example of working collaboratively to ensure
    that all stakeholders benefit from BLM's multiple-use mandate.
        So, I share all that not just to thank you, and to point
    out a success story, but to ask you, Mr. Kenna, can you discuss
    how the energy permitting landscape looked in the California
    desert before successful implementation of the DRECP and how
    the plan actually helped provide the certainty, the
    transparency, and the efficiency for the energy industry after
    it was adopted?
        Mr. Kenna. Thank you, Senator, for your comments.
        I think this is a really important thing, to be clear. One
    of the characterizations we have heard so far is that land use
    planning is sort of a combative or adversarial relationship
    between the state and the Federal Government. That was
    certainly not my experience in California. It started with a
    Republican Governor and a Secretary of Interior and a
    Democratic administration setting up an agreement that was the
    umbrella to the entire process. In terms of what things were
    like when we started, nobody really anticipated the flood of
    applications that happened with renewable energy. We had 15 to
    20 coming in the door at a time. There were 6 to 10 that were
    active. And they were all in different stages and frankly, with
    very different applicants. We had everything from Florida Power
    and Light, a very sophisticated operator that operates
    globally, to startups that had ideas about where they wanted to
    put a wind farm. So, that is a variable that is really
    important and has a lot of impact and control on the timeline--
    is the applicant itself.
        But there are also the things we have talked about before,
    like capacity to do the work. And then, you have to go to the
    issues and let that steer the process because the content of
    what's going on. In the case of the DRECP that you mentioned,
    you are in a national conservation area that was
    congressionally designated in 1976. So, as a starting point,
    you've got to have a robust, reliable, conservation design. And
    the governor and the secretary agreed on that. But then you
    also have a very complex system that you are overlaying and
    working with. You have interstate transmission of power, how
    California fits to the grid, how things move across, and then
    how that all fits together with transmission and generation.
        So, it's a complex process and there are a lot of people
    who have unique information that you need to get from Point A
    to Point B at the end of the process. So, hopefully that's
    responsive to your question, Senator.
        Senator Padilla. Yes, I appreciate how you began your
    response by saying this process isn't meant to be a barrier, an
    obstacle, necessarily. To the contrary, I mean, I have used in
    this Committee and in other hearings the concerns of the
    carpenter's rule, right--measure twice, you cut once. If you do
    the appropriate engagement--including by the way, I want to put
    an emphasis on tribal consultation, genuine tribal
    consultation, not just box-checking--you get the information
    you need to be thoughtful on the front end, whether you are in
    the development of a plan or in the context of, you know,
    national monuments, for example, just the designation of the
    exact perimeters, you can better protect ecosystems that are
    worth protecting and establishing clear energy development
    opportunities, renewable or otherwise, because you are informed
    on the front end. And I think it does save you time on the back
    end, whether it's through litigation, whether it's revisiting
    plans or boundaries, et cetera, but it takes the
    thoughtfulness, open-mindedness, and due diligence on the front
    end. That's the point that we are trying to make.
        So thank you for your response. Thank you all for your
    testimony.
        Mr. Kenna. Absolutely, Senator.
        The Chairman. Senator Gallego.
        Senator Gallego. Mr. Kenna, welcome back, and thank you,
    Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich. I am glad to see that
    we have representation from Mr. Kenna, who used to be the
    Arizona State Director for BLM also. So, you have a very long
    and rich career. I am glad you started at the rookie State of
    California and then graduated to Arizona. So, your insight will
    be very key as we talk about something that is at heart about--
    which is public land use and planning.
        Arizona has 12.1 million acres of BLM land and over 17
    million subsurface acres. These lands are home to some of
    Arizona's most important resources, including sacred tribal
    sites, 45 miles of the Arizona Scenic Trail, and over 55,000
    mining claims. And we will get to some of the questions about
    Arizona specifically, but first I want to point out an
    underlying challenge that impacts every potential use of public
    lands, which is staffing. We talked about that earlier.
    Regardless of what you would like to see on lands, to do or
    use, we need BLM staff to get it approved, and 15 to 20 percent
    of BLM staff have been fired or forced to retire since the
    beginning of this year, not including layoff plans that are
    currently on hold. That just doesn't make sense, and I just
    urge the administration to reverse course.
        Turning to Mr. Kenna, in your testimony you mentioned that
    when you were Arizona State Director, you worked on a plan
    called the Restoration Design Energy Project. That plan
    provided opportunities for renewable energy development while
    taking advantage of hardrock mine reclamation sites. Can you
    talk about how you approached development of the plan, and how
    did you balance the multiple-use requirement, including clean
    energy deployment?
        Mr. Kenna. Yes, as I mentioned earlier, none of the states
    or the land use plans that were in place at the time were
    prepared for renewable energy when it hit. And so, there was a
    lot of figuring it out on the fly that had to happen. That was
    also true in Arizona. And one of the goals is to get to
    something that is practical, and transmission aligned for the,
    basically, public interest reasons so that it makes sense with
    the grid. So, there are some technical issues that sort of
    overlay everything that you have to do, but doing a statewide
    plan requires sort of a unique mindset. And one is that you
    have to be willing to go where the people are and figure out
    what the issues are.
        So, the point I would emphasize, again, is one I made
    earlier, that there is no substitute for the on-the-ground
    knowledge and the on-the-ground information when you are doing
    land use planning. And each plan in each area is going to be
    different and unique. And that was true in the Restoration
    Design Energy Project. The reason I mentioned the mining
    situation is there is a fair amount of hardrock mining in
    Arizona, as you know, and when a mine is decommissioned, mines
    generally are big consumers of power. And so, the
    decommissioning, historically, had been, you know, reclaim the
    site and take out the power line. Well, if you have an already
    disturbed site that has been flattened and has power access
    into the grid, why not take advantage of that? So that was the
    concept behind it.
        Senator Gallego. And you kind of talked about this, which
    is also very important for Arizona because we have 22 federally
    recognized tribes, that there is no substitute for engaging
    with tribes and public and local leaders. Can you elaborate on
    your experience with tribal consultation and why a transparent
    local engagement process is important and how it improves
    project stability?
        Mr. Kenna. Yes, it's easy to talk about it in an
    oversimplified way, but the way I sometimes think about it is
    sort of as a nested process. There is a lot that has to happen
    in a very personal way and on a face-to-face kind of
    relationship, and so, getting with tribal councils and tribal
    preservation officers and that really individual conversation.
    And then there is a second sort of tier that has to happen. As
    you know, you would not expect the perspectives to be exactly
    the same for the Tohono O'odham as they are with the Hopi or
    the Navajo or someone up to the North. So, you have to have
    some way to assemble those points of view, and in Arizona, the
    magic of that was the Inter Tribal Council.
        Senator Gallego. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, although I should
    defer to my colleague, Senator Hickenlooper, because I was
    supposed to link up with him last night on some work, so I am
    going to offer him the chance to go first, as a--all right,
    thanks Governor, appreciate you.
        Thanks, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Christensen, in North Dakota and Wyoming, we both have
    split estates where you have got federal, state, and privately
    owned minerals that are co-located. And in some instances, the
    federal minerals have no surface acreage. So, I have
    legislation in that I call the BLM Mineral Spacing Act, where
    the Federal Government has--BLM has no federal acreage so you
    avoid duplicate permitting when you are trying to drill for oil
    and gas. Does that make some sense to you, and protect private
    property rights while helping our country develop more energy?
        Mr. Christensen. Yeah, that's certainly a great idea. I
    think the split estate----
        Senator Hoeven. Would you encourage the Chair and the
    Ranking Member of this Committee, strongly, to advance that
    legislation so that we can pass it on the floor?
        Mr. Christensen. If Senator Barrasso is for it, I think we
    are for it too.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. He is for it.
        Mr. Christensen. Great.
        Senator Hoeven. He is probably on it. Thanks.
        Did you want to add anything?
        Mr. Christensen. Well, just on the split estate issue. It
    is unique that you have federal regulations that can control
    surface use, pipelines, rights-of-way, roads, when you are
    dealing with something that is owned underneath the ground. And
    so, there is sort of a complicated maze here. And again, I said
    it earlier--our states don't just have giant blocks of BLM
    land. We have checkerboarded. We have state lands all in
    between. And so, it's not a one size fits all. There are a lot
    of places that could see development that simply can't because
    federal lands might restrict right-of-way access. And so, they
    have no takeaway--things like that. So, it is a complex issue
    that should be looked into.
        Senator Hoeven. Yeah, thank you.
        And then, for Mr. Brown, Mr. Christensen, and Mr. Sheehan--
    the BLM resource management plan put forward by the Biden
    administration for our state would have closed off 45 percent
    of our oil and gas to development and 99 percent of the federal
    coal acreage. I'm not sure why they left one percent available.
    I'm not sure what the point of that was, but they closed off 99
    percent. Do each of you agree that an expanded federal
    regulatory approach like that is absolutely a problem if we are
    going to follow the law, which is multiple use on federal
    lands, meaning producing energy, you know, farming and
    ranching, tourism, and something that Senator Heinrich and I
    enjoy very much, which is hunting? So, fire away guys, starting
    with Mr. Brown.
        Mr. Brown. I would agree, and I think if you look at the
    map that Chairman Lee put up, it shows the transition from
    multiple-use lands to single-designation lands in my state,
    which are millions and millions of acres since FLPMA was
    passed. And so, I think it's all the more important that
    there's some sort of collaboration between the Federal
    Government and the state so you don't see those kinds of
    overreaches.
        Senator Hoeven. Yeah, it's hardly multiple use when you
    close off--I guess the one-percent was to maintain though.
        Mr. Brown. There is the multiple use, right?
        Senator Hoeven. Right, I mean, come on.
        Okay, who's next? Mr. Christensen.
        Mr. Christensen. Senator Hoeven----
        Senator Hoeven. And by the way, don't take any more of our
    football coaches, all right?
        Mr. Christensen. We miss him already.
        Senator Hoeven. I know, he's a good one.
        Mr. Christensen. So, I think one thing that is interesting,
    when we talk about areas being closed, or just because an area
    is open for coal leasing does not necessarily mean it's going
    to be leased. It does not mean that we are going to have big
    mines there. It means that we have the opportunity to look into
    it or to invest in that if we need it. So reopening lands does
    not inherently change the landscape. There is still a
    permitting process. There is still infrastructure that needs to
    be built. So, closing lands seems so simple and so easy.
    Opening them should be the same way, but there is really a lot
    more to it than just opening and closing. There is an industry
    component.
        Senator Hoeven. Right on.
        Mr. Sheehan.
        Mr. Sheehan. Yeah, certainly I think what Mr. Christensen
    said is accurate. Having lands open for any of these extractive
    uses still requires mining plans, still requires reclamation
    planning, still requires evaluation of multiple resource uses,
    as well as Endangered Species Act, as well as National
    Historical Preservation Act, all that. So, I think when you
    have these open, there is still a lot of work ahead, but I
    don't know the exact, specific details in the North Dakota
    plan, but certainly, I am a proponent of multiple-use,
    sustained-yield. That's the tenet of----
        Senator Hoeven. Well, I have got to get one hunting
    question in.
        Mr. Sheehan. Okay, get that in, yes.
        Senator Hoeven. I am sure the Ranking Member has worked you
    over on the hunting issues, but you know, any thoughts you have
    on what Congress can do to streamline the BLM planning and
    process and improve coordination within the state and the
    Federal Government as far as hunting issues? Any big
    recommendations?
        Mr. Sheehan. Well, you know, we obviously recognize that
    the states have that authority of wildlife management, but it's
    very important to a lot of these species. Senator Heinrich
    mentioned, you know, migratory corridors and things. We have
    learned a lot, even in the last ten years, about wildlife, and
    wildlife are struggling. Mule deer populations are down roughly
    60 percent since the 1960s, and they continue to decline across
    the West. So, we care about that. And I think, you know, as we
    undergo planning or we work together with states and listen and
    coordinate with state fish and game agencies and do our
    planning work, that we take those factors into consideration
    and try to keep those species around----
        Senator Hoeven. Yeah, it's actually the hunters that do a
    lot for livestock.
        Mr. Sheehan. Absolutely. Hunters help----
        Senator Hoeven. And try to protect against disease and all
    those kinds of things.
        Mr. Sheehan. Yes, there are lots of challenges out there,
    but I appreciate your support and all of the hunters here on
    the Committee and in the room who support mule deer.
        Senator Hoeven. And yours. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Heinrich. Senator Hoeven, Senator King took issue
    with Mr. Sheehan because he doesn't represent white-tails, but
    as you know, the best states have both white-tails and mule
    deer, and the best state has white-tails, mule deer, and Coues
    deer, which is a very special white-tail.
        Mr. Sheehan. You might be the only state. I would have to
    look----
        Senator Hoeven. Yeah, I was going to say.
        The Chairman. Which state could that be?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hoeven. Yeah, can't guess which state, but right
    on.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I think there might be two states
    with all three.
        Mr. Sheehan. Maybe Texas and maybe Arizona, probably Texas.
        The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to
    all of you for your work.
        Obviously, Coloradans cherish their public lands. When
    there were threats to sell public lands, there was an outrage,
    a giant pushback on that. And we have seen a lot of energy
    around how do we increase protections for public land, as well
    as seeking opportunities to enhance conservation through things
    like the Public Lands Rule, which we are still working on.
        Mr. Cramer, I will start with you. How does the health of
    our public lands, how does that really impact recreation?
        Mr. Cramer. Thanks for the question, Senator Hickenlooper.
    They are connected. I mean, you can't really have outdoor
    recreation without a setting. It does not mean anything. I
    mean, you need a place to paddle or to ride your bike or to go
    ski, so the setting--the place--is foundational for these
    pursuits to take place. And then, for the--these places are
    meaningful to individuals, to how they contribute to local
    economies, and the broader outdoor recreation industry. Place
    is essential.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yeah, well, and we have seen that,
    you know, the value of outdoor recreation across the West is
    crazy. I mean, it's $17 billion just in Colorado and across the
    West. Just on BLM lands, we see somewhere like $6 to $7
    billion. These are enormous sums. These are annualized numbers.
        Mr. Sheehan, I wanted to ask you also, just your take on
    FLPMA and how it helps provide a framework for conservation on
    our public lands. Are there some common-sense ways we can make
    that better?
        Mr. Sheehan. Yes, I think, you know, as we look at all the
    values--thank you, Senator Hickenlooper, for that question--you
    know, wildlife don't have much of a voice for themselves, so we
    have to look out for them, but I think what is critical is
    that--let's identify the areas that are most important and make
    sure we protect those, but let's, you know, we may not need to
    protect at a high level every inch of publicly managed land to
    help protect the wildlife that rely on those landscapes. So, I
    think through any of these planning processes or any of the
    work that happens within the planning processes, once they are
    implemented, we need to use the best current knowledge, best
    information, and make sure that we give this wildlife an
    opportunity to persist in the efforts that we undertake.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
        Mr. Sheehan. Thank you.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Give them at least a fair shot. I
    spent a--I guess I did seven hunts when I was Governor, up in
    Lander, Wyoming, for the one-shot antelope hunt, which is
    always--for those of us who aren't terribly good shots, was
    always a struggle because you only get one shot, but we did, my
    last year, Governor Matt Mead was sadly disappointed when our
    team won the whole shebang.
        Let me go back, Mr. Kenna, Congress amended FLPMA in 2018
    to require BLM to issue regulations for transmission rights-of-
    way. The final rule directs BLM to enhance the reliability of
    the grid and reduce the threat of wildfire damage to
    transmission lines, which, all across the West, has become a
    huge issue. The cost of insurance right now, the rising cost of
    utilities having to rebuild that infrastructure after these
    fires is enormous, as wildfire risk is such a major priority,
    and we have a bill, the Fix Our Forests Act, which I think will
    help reduce fire risk in transmission corridors and in high-
    risk areas more broadly.
        How could we use the planning process to not just prevent
    the wildfires, but also enhance grid reliability?
        Mr. Kenna. Interesting question, Senator, thank you for
    that. One of the things that I have found in my career with
    planning is that there are two things to sort of pay attention
    to in any given planning area. And what you have when you talk
    about the grid in the West is a whole bunch of regional issues
    that are overlaid. It's different in the Bonneville Power
    region, for example, than it is in California, than it is in
    Arizona and so forth. So, the complexity is very, very real.
        But the things that I concentrate on are, what do you need
    to do in terms of the speed of trust? If you set the process up
    front, you have got to make sure that you don't try to go so
    fast that you don't keep everybody with you. And in each of
    those different regions, I think, what I--and this is probably
    not good wording--but what I have traditionally called the
    ``honesty habit.'' Some different areas have different capacity
    to tackle things like the wildlife trends that we heard
    discussed earlier where you see wildlife is declining. So, what
    is our issue here--or the fire with transmission issue, same
    thing. You have to be able to directly address the issue
    forthrightly and honestly with a whole range of constituencies.
    And when you are talking about a west-wide grid, that's a very
    complex undertaking.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right, I appreciate that.
        Thank you all. I yield back to the Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Hickenlooper.
        All right, before we adjourn, I think Senator Henrich and I
    have just a couple of follow-up questions.
        Mr. Sheehan, let's go back to you for a moment.
        A lot of the BLM plans that are still in effect in Utah
    today were written in the early 1980s. So, we are talking, you
    know, 40 to 45 years ago. How realistic is it for BLM to manage
    fire, habitat, recreation, and energy projects and so forth
    under plans that were written before modern data, modern
    modeling techniques, or current demands even existed? And also,
    can you help us understand why it is that some of these plans,
    40 to 45 years old, haven't been updated in that time period?
        Mr. Sheehan. Sure, thank you, Chairman Lee.
        First of all, it is vital, right? Changing circumstances--
    your words, right? What do we know differently than we knew in
    1983? A lot of the people in this room weren't born in 1983.
    And I was, unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, but you know,
    we have got to look at how has the world changed? What do we
    know now? What do we know about rare earth minerals that we
    didn't know then and maybe where they are? What do we know
    about some of these habitats that are shared by wildlife and
    wild horses and livestock communities? Do we need to revisit
    that? What do we know that's different now about uses that, you
    know, many have interest in putting renewable energy on public
    lands, you know, how has recreation changed? You look at the
    vehicle, in 1983 you didn't have side-by-sides and maybe not
    even Harley four-wheelers, right? And now they are quite
    prevalent.
        So, if we can't address the, you know, updating these plans
    on some regular basis, it's going to be very, very difficult to
    move forward. And it just makes sense, I think we all try to,
    you know, reevaluate our lives from time to time and you know,
    what has happened different than what we knew, as far as, you
    know, what's it going to take to get us there? You know, some
    of these plans I look at--Cedar City, Utah, you know, the
    southern Utah plan, you know, that started a dozen years ago.
    And it really still hasn't gone anywhere. When we initially--
    you know, an early part of planning is scoping. We go out and
    say, what are the situations out here? What do we need to know?
    And we do an analysis of management situations and we say, how
    has the world changed? And maybe we just need to make sure that
    we continue to evaluate those top priorities.
        When I served in BLM, we had lists, and I am sure they
    would be happy to give you that. What are the top priority
    plans? Cedar City is one of the top on the list that, you know,
    as administrations change, priorities change, some of these
    plans continue, you know, to be redone, and it leaves a lot of
    these things on the sidelines. But if we are going to manage
    public lands, I think it's vital, as you point out, that we
    have to get this planning work done or we're not in a good
    place.
        The Chairman. It's a good point. As someone mentioned
    earlier today, typewriters were still in wide use. Some of
    these probably----
        Mr. Sheehan. We have one. I have one.
        The Chairman. In many cases, the Commodore 64 was still an
    emerging technology. Great computer though, and some good
    gaming opportunities when I was in grade school.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. All right, shifting gears for a moment. Under
    Section 603(c) of FLPMA, the Secretary of the Interior, for
    BLM, was given the task of designating wilderness study areas,
    and under Section 603(c), once the wilderness study area has
    been designated, only Congress can release the WSA, and the
    WSA, unless or until such time as Congress releases it, has to
    manage it as if were wilderness, designated as such by
    Congress. History has shown that these releases rarely occur,
    and so, this allows many millions of acres to be managed as de
    facto wilderness without ever specifically having been
    designated as such by Congress.
        So, how workable a system is that where one agency can
    unilaterally designate a WSA, and it can't be unlocked except
    by an act of Congress? I have been wracking my brain over the
    last couple of days trying to find any parallel to this. The
    U.S. code is replete with instances in which we delegated
    significant authority to an executive branch agency, but I am
    not aware of any other circumstance like this one where the
    authorization for an agency to exercise administrative
    authority becomes a complete one-way ratchet. It takes on some
    of the trappings of a statute and can't be revisited later in
    light of a subsequent finding that either the original decision
    was wrong or it has become outdated or otherwise.
        So, just tell us about how workable that sort of thing is,
    and how that may make things difficult for land managers.
        Mr. Sheehan. Yes, certainly, in these planning processes,
    as you point out, the BLM has authority to designate a
    wilderness study area. They can take an area of land and say,
    you know, in their opinion, in that planning opinion, that
    should be a wilderness study area. And further to your point,
    you acknowledge that only Congress can undo that. A future
    executive administration cannot undo what is done in that plan.
    And so, I can't say there are no other instances in Federal
    Government that allow, sort of, an agency or bureau to create
    an action that really elevates itself instantly to a
    congressional action that can't be undone, even in the future
    by the executive side.
        So, I, you know, whether it's a major problem or not, I am
    not certain how many of those WSAs are being designated now,
    but it's certainly curious that, you know, we have an ability
    to--in this case, the Bureau of Land Management--designate
    something. That has sort of a de facto effect of permanency
    behind it.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Mr. Cramer, 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 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. Cramer. Great question, Senator Heinrich. I think they
    know a lot because they are there, and in some cases they might
    know almost all of them, but why not check? Why not double
    check? I mean, as you point out, there is so much desire to be
    outside, and the economic activity that tiers off of that
    desire is substantial. And if we don't inventory where these
    places are, where they could be, we are just leaving a ton on
    the table in terms of economic activity. In some cases, it's
    not--you might want to develop recreation infrastructure where
    there isn't recreation infrastructure to make sure there is
    equitable access for more people and it's 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 through a lot of companies that have a
    tremendous amount of data, and they are very generous about it.
    So, we get to a better place with this information, for sure.
        Senator Heinrich. 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, and 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 RMP--a 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. Cramer, 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. Cramer. 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.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes.
        Mr. Chairman, I think I am done.
        The Chairman. Thank you so much.
        Well, I want to thank each of you for being here today. You
    have all brought unique expertise to the table, and we have
    learned a lot from this. And so, this will conclude today's
    hearing. I want to thank my colleagues for participating, and
    especially our witnesses for being here.
        Any member of the Committee who wishes to submit questions
    for the record, any additional questions that haven't been
    asked today, may do so. The deadline for submitting those will
    be 6:00 p.m. tomorrow, Thursday, November 20th.
        Senators also have until 6:00 p.m. this coming Wednesday,
    November 26th, to add statements for the record of today's
    hearing.
        We received one of those from Senator Risch already today.
    He had to run to a Foreign Relations hearing that he was
    chairing, but that will be added without objection.
        So, thanks again for being here, for your testimony, and
    for answering our questions.
        The Committee stands adjourned. Thanks.
        [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]