Click here to watch Sen. Barrasso’s Remarks.
WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining, delivered the following opening statement at the subcommittee hearing on the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Planning 2.0 initiative.
The hearing featured testimony from BLM Director Neil Kornze; Wyoming Stock Growers Association Executive Vice President Jim Magagna; Western Governors’ Association Executive Director James Ogsbury; Western Energy Alliance Vice President of Government and Public Affairs Kathleen Sgamma; and University of Colorado Law School Professor of Law Mark Squillace.
Click here for more information on their testimonies.
Senator Barrasso’s opening statement:
“It’s going to be an interesting hearing, because the BLM has been describing this Planning 2.0 as a simple initiative to ‘increase public involvement and incorporate the most current data and technology into [its] land use planning.’
“There is no doubt that the BLM’s current planning process is often cumbersome, it’s inefficient. I am concerned that instead of actually increasing public involvement and streamlining the planning process, that this Planning 2.0 will be less efficient, will be more costly, will marginalize experts who are integral to public land management. Those are concerns, I hear them in Wyoming.
“The agency seems to think that the proposed rule is a simple clarification of the planning process, but this is not the case.
“What Planning 2.0 proposes would fundamentally alter the way the state, the local and the tribal governments, stakeholders, and the general public engage in the public land management planning process.
“As written, Planning 2.0 will effectively ignore expert knowledge in both local agency offices – and among local land users – and I believe compromise the ability of state and local governments to represent the people and resources in their own districts.
“In an effort to make its goal of a transition to what’s called ‘landscape-scale’ planning, BLM proposes to shift authority from local and district offices to Washington, D.C.
“Now I appreciate that the BLM wants to make management plans more cohesive among local offices, but developing sweeping, landscape-scale plans from the director’s office in Washington, D.C., I believe, will result in the failure to use invaluable, localized knowledge of ecosystems and resources.
“This change would result in plans that don’t reflect on-the-ground realities and ultimately,
will disenfranchise knowledgeable local agency employees.
“And it won’t just be agency personnel who are overlooked. I believe in the proposed rule, BLM seems to recognize the need for improved stakeholder involvement in the planning process.
“But unfortunately, the proposed changes will in my mind decrease stakeholder involvement at crucial points in the planning process and will further extend plan development times that are already in my opinion, much too long.
“The BLM seems to think that the addition of the ‘Planning Assessment’ period at the beginning of the planning process would help agency officials understand how the public feels.
“What the agency clearly fails to realize, however, is that if planning is kept at the local and the state offices level, then officials developing the plans should already be aware of public opinion before the process even begins.
“Formalizing this preemptive ‘Planning Assessment’ period seems to be a justification for regional or federal agency employees to implement a top-down land management agenda.
“Introduction of public comment on ‘Preliminary Alternatives’ before a draft Resource Management Plan is published will only increase the time it takes to complete a resource management plan and, in my view, will provide no added benefit.
“So how can the public, or any relevant stakeholder, be expected to comment on proposed alternatives when the details of the plan have yet to be determined?
“Before turning to our first witness, I’d like to take a moment to thank my friend, Jim Magagna for being here today.
“A native of Rock Springs, Wyoming, Jim has served as the Executive Director of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association since 1998. He is veteran witness before Congressional committees. He provides an invaluable perspective on all things related to agriculture and public land management. So I’m happy Jim, that you could join us today to share your thoughts with us and with the rest of the panel.”
###