HB229 bars the Secretary of the Interior from implementing, administering, or enforcing the Rock Springs Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, published December 2024. The bill does not create a replacement plan or provide new funding; it simply halts the action in question and keeps the Rock Springs field office’s planning framework from moving forward.
Introduced by Representative Harriet Hageman on January 7, 2025, the measure was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources for consideration.
At a Glance
What It Does
Section 1 prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from implementing, administering, or enforcing the Rock Springs Field Office ROD and ARMP dated December 2024. The text directs that no actions under those documents may proceed.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Rock Springs Field Office lands and the BLM program decisions tied to those documents, and extends to entities with active or planned activities on those lands, including energy developers, ranchers, and outdoor recreation operators.
Why It Matters
This is a pause on a major land-use framework that could shape development, conservation, and multiple-use management in the Rock Springs area, with implications for federal land policy and local economic activity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill targets the Rock Springs Field Office, a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) unit, and the land-use framework it produced—the December 2024 Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. It explicitly prevents the Secretary of the Interior from implementing, administering, or enforcing those documents.
Because the legislation does not authorize an alternative plan or interim rules, the practical effect is to halt the decisions and actions that would have been carried out under the ROD/ARMP. The provision applies to the federal land management decisions for that field office and to the agencies and personnel responsible for carrying them out, notably the Interior Department and BLM staff in Rock Springs.
In practical terms, HB229 would leave the existing land-management posture in that region largely unchanged by the actions contemplated in the December 2024 ROD/ARMP. It does not provide funding, nor does it set out a replacement policy; instead, it freezes the current trajectory.
The bill’s sponsor frames the measure as a straightforward prohibition, introduced in the 119th Congress and referred to the Natural Resources Committee for potential action. Buyers of the bill—whether industry, local governments, or environmental groups—will now be awaiting committee movement and any constitutional or legal questions that could arise from halting a completed planning document.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 1 bans implementation, administration, and enforcement of the December 2024 Rock Springs ROD/ARMP.
No replacement land-use plan or interim framework is created by this bill.
Targets actions by the Secretary of the Interior and BLM within the Rock Springs Field Office.
Introduced January 7, 2025 by Rep. Harriet Hageman; referred to the Natural Resources Committee.
Current stage is Introduced; no funding or enforcement provisions are included.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition on Rock Springs ROD/ARMP implementation
Section 1 prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from implementing, administering, or enforcing the Rock Springs Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, dated December 2024. The section blocks all actions tied to those documents and prevents the Rock Springs Field Office from carrying out any planning or management steps established by the ROD/ARMP. This pause effectively freezes the land-use decisions that would have guided development, conservation, and multiple-use management in the field office’s jurisdiction.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Wyoming ranchers and agricultural operators within the Rock Springs Field Office area, who would face fewer land-use constraints under the halted plan.
- Energy developers and mineral exploration firms with projects in the Rock Springs Field Office region, seeking continued access to lands for development.
- Local businesses and contractors tied to resource development activity, which could benefit from a sustained level of land-use predictability and activity.
- Industry associations representing extractive sectors that prefer ongoing development pathways over newly revised land-use plans.
Who Bears the Cost
- Environmental groups seeking stronger habitat protections and conservation measures may view the prohibition as rolling back environmental safeguards.
- BLM and Interior Department staff who would otherwise implement, monitor, and enforce the ROD/ARMP, potentially increasing enforcement ambiguity and workload as actions stall.
- Local communities that value either protections for land and wildlife or the stability of managed land-use planning may experience uncertainty and delayed economic planning.
- Taxpayers could face indirect costs from legal challenges or delayed benefits associated with land-use planning efficiencies and environmental safeguards.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to pause a comprehensive land-use plan to protect certain development interests now, while potentially sacrificing environmental safeguards and longer-term land stewardship commitments that the ROD/ARMP would have codified.
The bill foregrounds a clash between advancing a land-use framework for a substantial federal land area and preserving the status quo that might allow more immediate access to resources or fewer regulatory constraints. By halting the Rock Springs ROD/ARMP, it shifts decision-making risk to later legislative or administrative action, potentially increasing uncertainty for businesses and communities that rely on predictable land management.
The lack of an alternative framework in HB229 raises questions about what would replace the halted plan, how ongoing projects would be affected, and whether existing statutes governing NEPA compliance and public comment would be invoked anew if a future plan is proposed.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.