Sponsors (2)
Disapproves and nullifies the Bureau of Land Management’s North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan issued January 14, 2025, declaring that the plan has no force or effect. The disapproval is based on a Government Accountability Office opinion that the document is a rule under the Congressional Review Act, so Congress is using that process to invalidate it. The immediate effect is to stop implementation of that BLM plan for lands managed by the North Dakota field office. That changes the legal basis for land-use designations, leasing, permitting, and other actions the plan would have authorized, creating near-term regulatory uncertainty for developers, local governments, tribes, recreation users, and conservation interests in the affected area.
Congress disapproves the Bureau of Land Management rule titled "North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan," and the section states that the rule shall have no force or effect.
Identifies the action in question as the "North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan," which was issued on January 14, 2025 as a record of decision and an approved resource management plan.
Notes a Government Accountability Office letter of opinion dated June 25, 2025 (printed in the Congressional Record on June 26, 2025, pages S3556–S3558) that concluded the record of decision and approved resource management plan is a "rule" under the Congressional Review Act.
Updated 5 hours ago
Last progress December 11, 2025 (1 month ago)
Who is affected and how:
Mining, energy, and infrastructure operators: Projects that depended on the RMP (permits, leases, access) may be paused, delayed, or need to be re-routed through a new decision process. Business planning and investment timelines could be disrupted.
Local communities and counties in the North Dakota field office area: Expectations about land use, local economic activity, tax/revenue projections, and infrastructure tied to development or conservation plans may change or be delayed.
Tribal governments and tribal members: If the RMP included provisions affecting tribal uses, access, or consultation outcomes, those provisions will not take effect; tribes may need to re-engage with the agency on a new planning process.
Recreationists, conservation organizations, and the general public: Management prescriptions for public lands (recreation access, habitat protections, travel management) that the cancelled plan would have enacted are not in force; public access or protections could remain at prior levels or be unsettled pending new action.
Bureau of Land Management and federal administrators: BLM must halt implementation tied to the disapproved plan and decide whether to revert to an earlier plan, draft a new plan, or take other administrative steps—each option requires staff time, new rulemaking or planning, public involvement, and potentially litigation.
Broader effects:
Regulatory uncertainty: Private and public actors who rely on predictable land-management decisions will face near-term uncertainty until the BLM issues a clear follow-on path.
Potential legal and administrative costs: Interested parties may sue or request administrative remedies; BLM will incur staff and procedural costs to respond and to develop any replacement planning documents.
No new federal funding or mandates are created by this resolution; its primary effect is to change the legal status of a single agency decision and the management trajectory for public lands in the North Dakota field office area.
Last progress July 10, 2025 (7 months ago)
Introduced on July 10, 2025 by Kevin Cramer
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.