To prohibit the implementation of the Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management.
Summary
HB230 would bar the Secretary of the Interior from implementing, administering, or enforcing the Bureau of Land Management’s Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Buffalo Field Office in Wyoming. The bill targets a specific land-use planning action identified in a November 27, 2024 Federal Register notice and would effectively nullify that amendment at the federal level if enacted.
In practical terms, the measure is a congressional override of a BLM planning decision affecting federal lands managed by the Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office. Because resource management plans guide uses such as grazing, energy development, recreation, habitat protection, and other land uses, blocking the amendment could preserve the prior management framework and prevent the updated plan from taking effect.
Impact
If enacted, HB230 would change how federal public lands in the Buffalo Field Office area are managed by prohibiting federal officials from carrying out the newly approved resource management plan amendment. It would not directly amend state law, but it would constrain federal land-management authority in Wyoming and affect stakeholders such as ranchers, energy developers, conservation interests, recreation users, and local governments that rely on BLM planning decisions.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and its procedural posture, the bill appears to reflect opposition to the BLM’s approved amendment and support for blocking its implementation. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no documented bipartisan or opposing sentiment in the provided materials. The introduction and referral indicate the bill is at an early stage and has not yet been debated or voted on in the supplied record.
Contention
The likely point of contention is the underlying BLM resource management plan amendment itself: supporters of HB230 would generally argue that the amendment should not take effect, while opponents would likely defend the BLM’s authority and the policy choices embedded in the updated land-use plan. The dispute is therefore between congressional intervention and federal land-management discretion, with potential downstream disagreements over grazing, development, environmental protections, and local land-use priorities.