Stakeholders Say ‘Yes’ to Overturning BLM’s Flawed Planning 2.0 Rule

Today, the Senate will continue debate on a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Planning 2.0 Rule, which was finalized in a parting shot by the Obama administration on December 12, 2016. BLM’s rule is a significant departure from how the federal agency is required, under federal law, to partner with state and local governments in land management planning for grazing, energy and mineral development, and recreational use of federal lands in western states.

Last month, the House of Representatives passed H.J. Res. 44 on a bipartisan basis with 234 votes. The Senate version of the resolution has 18 sponsors, including every Republican from a western state with BLM lands within its borders. They’re joined by nearly 90 stakeholder organizations – representing millions of local voices from Alaska and the west – who have voiced their criticisms of the rule:


  •  “RDC asserts this one-size fits all approach does not address Alaska’s unique qualities and resources. It ignores the characteristics of Alaska to be self-sufficient and to responsibly develop our natural resources for the betterment of all Alaskans and the nation as well.” (Resource Development Council)

  • “Planning 2.0 was purported by the agency to fix the broken land management and planning process. It did exactly the opposite.” (Alaska Miners Association)

  • “This new set of planning regulations undermines local input, takes away the public planning process at a local level, puts control of planning to managers outside of Alaska and employs a method of landscape planning.” (Fortymile Mining District)

Western State and National Stakeholders

  • “Many provisions of BLM’s Planning 2.0 rule are contrary to and/or exceed BLM’s statutory authority under FLPMA. The rule redefines the concept of multiple-use, prioritizes preservation and conservation over sustained yield of natural resources, relegates governors, county commissioners and other elected officials to a secondary role, and limits public involvement.” (American Exploration & Mining Association)

  • “Congress, through the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, recognizes the importance of the public domain to the future of the western states. Through defined multiple use principles, Congress has mandated that these lands be used to meet “the nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, energy, food, timber and fiber from public lands.” BLM Planning 2.0 runs counter to these national interests.” (American Farm Bureau Federation)

  •  “Planning 2.0 provides no certainty for land users and instead creates ambiguity in the planning process.” (Independent Petroleum Association of America)

  • “We believe the final rule still front loads public comments, which could give people outside the planning area more opportunities to influence planning documents, restricts consistency reviews with state, local plans, policies and programs. Also, the final rule replaces decision authority at the ‘state director and field manager’ with the ‘BLM’ in general.” (Montana Electric Cooperatives’ Association)

  • “As partners with the federal government, we continue to encourage the BLM to engage in meaningful collaboration with local stakeholders during the development of policies and guidelines. And despite representations by the BLM to do just that, we remain unconvinced that Planning 2.0 in its final form does much to satisfy the objective of meaningful collaboration and consultation with non-federal governmental entities.” (National Association of Counties)

  • “Public meetings were not held in the rural areas or communities where the impacts would be most heavily felt. Instead, they were held in downtown Sacramento, CA and downtown Denver, CO, where attendance was overwhelmingly urban dwellers without livelihoods or homes at stake, or any real knowledge of the impacts on the people and businesses that exist in the impacted areas. This led to biased and inaccurate public sentiment.” (Public Lands Council)

  • “Besides delaying oil and natural gas development indefinitely, Planning 2.0 would prevent ranching, mining, timber harvesting and other productive uses of the West’s working landscapes that sustain rural communities and livelihoods.” (Western Energy Alliance)

Related Issues: Energy