HB230 would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from implementing, administering, or enforcing the Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. The measure ties its prohibition to the ARMP Amendment publicly referenced in the Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2024.
Introduced at the start of the 119th Congress, this bill takes a narrow, location-specific approach to land-use planning, blocking a single amendment rather than altering broader agency processes.
If enacted, the bill would effectively keep the Buffalo Field Office’s land-use regime at status quo with respect to the ARMP Amendment, at least in relation to the referenced plan change. This is a precise statutory intervention that signals congressional preference for maintaining existing management approaches in a defined geographic area, independent of broader BLM planning activities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill forbids the Interior Secretary from implementing, administering, or enforcing the Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office. It directly targets a single land-use planning action tied to the Buffalo ARMP referenced in the Federal Register.
Who It Affects
BLM staff and the Buffalo Field Office, the Department of the Interior, and entities with land interests within the Buffalo Field Office’s jurisdiction (e.g., local ranchers, energy leaseholders, municipal authorities).
Why It Matters
This creates a legislative constraint on agency land-use planning for a specific locale, elevating congressional oversight over a single ARMP proposal and signaling potential implications for how NEPA-era planning changes are implemented at the field-office level.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is narrowly focused on a single land-use planning action tied to the Buffalo Field Office. It directs the Interior Department not to implement the ARMP Amendment described in the Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2024.
In practical terms, the Buffalo ARMP would not be put into effect, and the field office would operate under its existing planning framework for the time being.
Because the text targets only one amendment for one field office, the bill does not propose a broad rewrite of BLM’s planning process. Instead, it pauses action on a specific proposed change to how public lands around Buffalo are managed, pending further congressional action.
The legislative mechanism is a straightforward prohibition on a named regulatory action, not a general blocking of agency discretion in land management.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits the Interior Secretary from implementing the Buffalo ARMP Amendment.
It cites the Federal Register Notice of Availability for the ARMP as the action being blocked.
The prohibition applies only to the Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office.
There is no sunset clause specified in the bill text.
The measure targets a single ARMP action, not the entirety of BLM planning processes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Restriction on ARMP Amendment for Buffalo, WY Field Office
Section 1 bars the Secretary of the Interior from implementing, administering, or enforcing the Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. It anchors the prohibition to the ARMP Amendment identified in the Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register (89 Fed. Reg. 93650, Nov. 27, 2024). The provision confines its effect to the Buffalo Field Office and the named amendment, stopping a specific planning action rather than altering BLM’s overall land-management framework.
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
- Local ranchers and landowners in the Buffalo region who rely on current land-use rules and grazing arrangements.
- Mineral and energy leaseholders with parcels in the Buffalo Field Office area who would prefer to avoid potential changes to access or permitting regimes.
- Wyoming state and local government players seeking to preserve state and local influence over land-use decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- BLM Buffalo Field Office staff tasked with implementing or reconciling this prohibition and any related enforcement activities.
- Interior Department in managing the administrative and potential legal implications of blocking a specific ARMP action.
- Environmental groups and advocates who supported the ARMP and could view the prohibition as delaying or curtailing environmental protections.
- Taxpayers and local taxpayers may incur costs if the policy leads to legal challenges or delays in land-use planning that affect public programs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing legislative control over a specific federal land-use decision with agency-led landscape planning and environmental safeguards. Blocking the Buffalo ARMP as a sole instrument preserves status quo in one locale but could complicate future planning, create fragmentation, or invite challenges to how uniform BLM policy applies across districts.
The bill imposes a targeted constraint on a single land-use planning action, raising questions about how Congress should interact with agency planning cycles. While it preserves the current management regime for Buffalo lands relative to the referenced ARMP, it constrains the BLM’s ability to finalize site-specific planning changes, potentially pushing these decisions into future legislation or different administrative paths.
This dynamic highlights a broader tension between legislative intervention and agency expertise in land-use decision-making.
A central concern is whether blocking an ARMP amendment via statute undermines the consistency and predictability of land-management planning, particularly if other related actions or associated NEPA analyses were assumed to proceed under the ARMP framework. The prohibition also raises practical questions about how ongoing environmental review, state and local interests, and adjacent land-use activities will be coordinated without the planned amendment.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.