In Wyoming, we know that good decisions take time. We measure commitment not in months or headlines, but in seasons, communities and the work it takes to get things right. That’s why the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan — finalized last year after 12 years of public process — deserves to stand.
Opinion
This plan, which determines the future uses of 3.6 million acres of public land, wasn’t rushed. It was shaped over more than a decade by ranchers, hunters, county officials, wildlife biologists, small businesses and community members with all types of backgrounds who care deeply about these public lands and how future generations will experience them. Public land owners from across the nation weighed in too; the Bureau of Land Management received more than 35,000 comments on the draft, and the overwhelming majority — 92% — supported a balance of conservation, access and responsible energy development.
And now, barely a year after that thoughtful, Wyoming-driven process wrapped up, the BLM is rewriting it.
For what reason? There’s no new science. No crisis. No failure of public involvement. Just politics.
The plan protects the places that define this part of the state — Greater Little Mountain, the Northern Red Desert, the Golden Triangle — while allowing for continued mineral development across more than two-thirds of the affected area. It supports Wyoming’s $1.5 billion outdoor recreation economy and safeguards critical habitat for mule deer, elk, pronghorn and sage grouse. Livestock grazing will continue across the region, as will public access — we can head down the same two-tracks in side-by-sides, on foot or on horseback as we have for decades. Notably, the plan reflects nearly all the recommendations of the governor’s own task force, which included representatives from local government, oil and gas, mining and grazing.
Some have claimed the plan is “too restrictive.” But that’s hard to believe, since 92% of BLM land in Wyoming is already open to oil and gas leasing. Nationally, it’s 81%. For this plan, it’s 70%.
The areas prioritized for conservation in this plan have very low potential for recoverable oil and gas, while sustaining our wildlife, hunting opportunities and the open spaces that anchor our local communities. Undermining those benefits based on the hopes of speculators or politicians is not responsible stewardship. It’s shortsighted.
The BLM has offered a comment period for rewriting the plan and says the changes will be finalized in a year. This kind of rushed amendment cannot substitute for the deep, deliberate process Wyoming already engaged in.
Adjusting oil and gas availability or altering areas of critical environmental concern affects the entire balance of the plan. That scale of change demands thorough public involvement and analysis. But let’s be honest: None of this reconsideration is necessary. The plan is working.
Oil production in the United States is at an all-time high. Natural gas production is breaking records. Wyoming continues to be a major contributor to national energy security. Undercutting a community-built plan in the name of an energy emergency that doesn’t exist is not good policy. It’s political theater.
The Rock Springs plan is more than a document. It is a commitment to stewardship, to wildlife, to local economies and to the Wyoming way of taking the long view for our future. It’s about the freedom to access public lands to hunt and fish, and to pass down open spaces to the next generation. Reopening the Rock Springs plan now would undermine the trust of the people who invested years of their time and experience into shaping it for the benefit of future generations.
Wyoming did the work. We showed up. We built a plan that reflects our values and our future. That work deserves respect. Tell our leaders to keep protections for the Northern Red Desert, Golden Triangle and Greater Little Mountain by submitting a comment to the BLM.
I keep saying it. Conservationists et al should conserve their use of energy and all of the other things the developers think we must have.
PS, great work and great writing daughter Julia!
Thank you for this informed summary of strong, cohesive work. Who is leveraging this rewrite within the politics?
Please keep up the great and hard work if 92% percent support this. I do also. I l love wyo and especially this part of wyo. I pride myself in being an independent thinker and usually like to think things 🤔 through carefully, but these are some of the things I love about wyominites. They care about our public lands, our environment and each other. If I could receive a copy of the purposely I would appreciate it.
I will go with the 92%
Keep up the good work.
Thanks 😊
i agree
thank you for your balanced, sober and civil discourse
Can we just send a copy of your column? Like so many Wyomingites, I wrote a comment in the past. Yours says everything. This is heartbreaking, like so many things that are happening in our country right now.
Well stated Julia.
As a former member of the staff and RMP team member in the Rock Springs Field Office I have been reluctant to say much. As Julie so ably said the current plan is balanced and the result of years of effort ( I retired in 2015).
Unlike so many of the plans’ critics I am intimately familiar with the entire RMP area. There are few places of ecological integrity left like the lands included within the Greater Red Creek ACEC.
One of the more pervasive and incorrect critisms of the plan are phantom restrictions on public access.
When I retired there were three large gas drilling proposals being analyzed; Hiawatha, Moxa and normally pressured Lance totaling nearly 20,000 wells. Most of the RMP area is already leased. Price of product constrains local drilling activity than does access.
I am personally proud to say I helped develope the Rock Springs RMP and agree it should notbe ammended.
As probably one of her most conservative friends, I’ve come to trust Julia’s judgment on environmental issues like these.
While we don’t see eye-to-eye on several issues (even on some environmental issues), I do believe her when she says 12 years of public input from all stakeholders regarding this particular Management Plan is likely enough.
I have not been convinced that there is anything missing or that wasn’t looked at seriously over those 12 years.
I say let this plan stand.
If conservation is wise use of natural resources, then responsible energy development IS conservation. Why is that so hard to understand?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of re-doing the RMP. But I do find it extremely frustrating that “conservation” has become a buzzword that it seems everyone talks about without understanding what it means. Without understanding the difference between conservation and preservation.
Wonderful words, Julia. My comments hinted at some of the same things, but were nowhere near as eloquent. The glasses in our house are clinking with gratitude for your writings.
Great work, Julia. This is the very heart of home for my family, and for thousands of others. We’ve traded away too many areas in our addiction to boom and bust. The Northern Red Desert, Golden Triangle and Greater Little Mountain areas are worth keeping intact for future generations.
As Julia points out; this is a very pragmatic plan that has countless hours of good local input. The only thing that can happen from a new review is D.C. directives that doesn’t align with Wyoming wants and needs.