Congress advances resolutions to overturn three Bureau of Land Management resource management plans

Key Takeaways

On October 8 and 9, the U.S. Congress passed resolutions under Congressional Review Act authority expressing disapproval of three Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management plans covering public lands in Montana, Alaska and North Dakota. The resolutions repeal recently finalized resource management plans and revert the areas to prior land use plans.

How was the Congressional Review Act used?

Congress used the Congressional Review Act to pass three resolutions – H.J. Res. 104, H.J. Res. 105 and H.J. Res 106 – each repealing a resource management plan for a different region of BLM land.

BLM develops resource management plans (RMPs) as long term land management blueprints for federal land that it administers, including its plan to balance the agency’s multiple-use mandate under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (P.L. 94-579).  Complete revisions to entire RMPs or targeted amendments to parts of RMPs affect a wide range of stakeholders, including local governments, and the process often consists of years of negotiation and cooperation as well as substantial environment impact analysis.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) grants Congress the authority to disapprove of and invalidate federal agency rules through a majority vote in each house and signature by the President. The CRA is not fully retroactive, and disapproval resolutions generally must be introduced within 60 days of the rule’s publication. 

Since Congress enacted CRA authority in 1996, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) – which determines whether a federal action constitutes a “rule” and can be reviewed Congress – has consistently held that RMPs are federal rules and are subject to CRA oversight. Consequently, Congress may pass a CRA resolution disapproving and repealing RMPs, although the resolution still requires a presidential signature. No RMP has previously been repealed through the CRA process.  

What resource management plans were affected?

The vote expressed Congressional disapproval of three revised RMPs or RMP amendments that were finalized in late 2024 and early 2025. President Trump has not yet signed the resolutions repealing these RMPs.

• Amendments to the Miles City Field Office RMP covering 2.7 million surface acres and 12.4 million subsurface acres across 16 counties in eastern Montana
• Revised Central Yukon Field Office RMP covering 13.3 million acres of BLM land in central Alaska
• Revised North Dakota Field Office RMP covering 58,500 acres of surface land and more than 4 million acres of subsurface estate across North Dakota

In a floor speech after their passage, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, clarified that the three resolutions were only “disapproving the administrative decisions” made about access and land use in the RMPs, citing their restrictions on mineral development. He added that the Senate expected BLM to issue new RMPs for the affected areas.

What is the impact on counties ?

Although the process varies, counties can provide substantive input during the development of RMPs and related environmental analyses when they are engaged as cooperating agencies. Counties offer local expertise that helps align RMPs with county land use plans and community needs. NACo supports developing RMPs at the most local level of federal agencies.

More than 60 percent of counties have federal land within their borders, and, as the largest federal land management agency, BLM administers hundreds of millions of acres of surface and subsurface estate across the country. Other federal land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service develop similar plans to guide long-term management of their holdings. As full partners of federal land management agencies, counties are impacted by land management decisions on public lands within their borders.

What happens next?

President Trump has not yet signed the resolutions to repeal these three RMPs, although the administration has expressed its intent to do so. If they are repealed, management decisions will revert to the previously approved RMP for the region.

What the resolutions mean for any future land management plan for these areas is less clear. The CRA also contains a clause that prevents an agency from issuing a new rule that is “substantially the same” as a rule that has already been repealed by congressional resolution without express congressional authorization. In a letter to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Department of the Interior stated that it planned to issue new RMPs for the affected areas and considered changes in land use policies sufficient to differentiate new RMPs from the disapproved RMP. 

If President Trump signs the resolutions, the repeals would mark the first time Congress has overturned an RMP or a similar land management planning document, leaving no established precedent to guide implementation.

NACo will continue to monitor uses of the CRA for their impacts on public lands counties.