Summary of the Resource Management Plans that could be scrapped by Congress's CRA - North Dakota, Central Yukon (AK), PRB (MT)
A detailed review of the science backed RMPs.
September 12, 2025
Michael Khamis - The Conservation Current
michael@conservationcurrent.com
Summary:
If a Congressional Revew Act (CRA) disapproves it could reasonably set precedent for more Resource Management Plans (RMP) repeals
Keeping RMPs in place creates conservation value: keeping big, wild country intact—healthy migrations, functioning watersheds, resilient sagebrush/prairie and tundra ecosystems. (Central Yukon Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)/core habitat; PRB no-new-federal-coal; ND water-source protections.)
Keeping RMPs in place means real benefits for hunters, anglers, and recreationists. Better access and opportunity where backcountry settings and wildlife productivity persist (Backcountry Conservation Areas (BCAs)/Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) in Alaska; reduced new surface coal footprints in PRB; ND stipulations that temper disturbance around key water resources).
North Dakota Statewide RMP (BLM surface & minerals, statewide)
What it currently protects
Governs ~58,500 acres BLM surface and ~4.1 million acres federal mineral estate. Among the most cited provisions: closes ~213,100 acres (≈44%) of federal mineral estate to new oil & gas leasing, with the rest open under No Surface Occupancy (NSO)/Controlled Surface Use (CSU)/Timing Limitations (TL) stipulations; tightens coal availability with over ~1.0 million acres managed unacceptable for further consideration for federal coal leasing under the selected alternative. Source: Federal Register
When it was finalized - Record of Decision (ROD) signed Jan. 8, 2025; notice Jan. 15, 2025.
Why conservationists care
Targeted closures/stipulations steer drilling away from low-potential and drinking-water source areas, which helps limit fragmentation and pressure on prairie pothole wetlands, riparian corridors, and big-game winter ranges, while still allowing development elsewhere under tighter sideboards. Importantly, BLM’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) shows little projected change in total wells/production versus no-action. ie., access protections without major production loss. Source: BLM PDF
Stakeholders
BLM; State of North Dakota (and Attorney General); tribes; counties; oil, gas & coal operators; ranchers/grazing permittees; hunters/anglers & conservation groups; local communities. (See FEIS and protests.) Source: Eplanning BLM PDF ND
Money & policy angle Congress cites
Critics argue the RMP “closes” ~99% of federal coal and ~213k acres (44%) of fluid minerals, claiming lost future lease revenues. Supporters note the closures are in low-potential/drinking water areas and FEIS projections show nearly the same well counts/production as no-action. Onshore royalties are split roughly half to states; Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) remains formula-driven and separate. Source: North Dakota Office of the Govenor
If a CRA repeal succeeds (what could be lost / tradeoffs)
Lost protections: the 213,100 acres of Oil and Gas (O&G) closures and attendant NSO/CSU buffers for water/wildlife could be undone. Meaning more lease nominations near water sources and greater fragmentation risk where we hunt.
Potential gains (industry view): more leaseable acreage and potential bonus bids/royalties if economics support development; however, BLM’s own FEIS indicates only marginal production differences versus no-action, so benefits may be limited while habitat risks rise.
Central Yukon RMP (Alaska) + Ambler Access Corridor
What the Central Yukon RMP currently protects
Updates management across ~13.3 million acres; emphasizes habitat & subsistence while keeping development options where appropriate. Key designations: ~3.6M acres ACECs, 746k acres caribou core habitat, 4.6k acres Dall sheep habitat, two Backcountry Conservation Areas (666k acres) and three Special Recreation Management Areas (1.453M acres). >8.3M acres remain open to mining claims; ~12M acres open to saleable materials. Also recommends ~11.1M acres be opened for Alaska Native Vietnam-era veteran land selections. Source: BLM Press Release
Ambler Road decision (the “Ambler Access Corridor”)
Separate, but overlapping issue: BLM issued a June 26, 2024 ROD selecting No Action and terminating the right-of-way for the 211-mile industrial road to the Ambler Mining District due to significant, unmitigable subsistence and habitat impacts (caribou, fish, cultural uses). The road was to be private/industrial only. Closed to the public. Source: Eplanning BLM PDF Ambler Road Alaska
When it was finalized
Central Yukon RMP ROD announced Nov. 12, 2024.
Ambler Road ROD (No Action) signed June 26, 2024.
Why conservationists care
RMP designations keep big-country character, protect salmon systems and caribou core use areas, and enhance Dalton Highway hunting/recreation access via Backcountry Conservation Areas (BCAs)/Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs). Denying the industrial road avoids a major new barrier to caribou migration and subsistence depletion, which ripple into sport hunting opportunity. Source: BLM Press Release
Stakeholders
BLM; cooperating tribes (Alatna, Allakaket, Evansville, Huslia, Tanana); State of Alaska; USACE, EPA, USFWS; NPS (participant); Alaska Native corporations; AIDEA; local communities; hunters/anglers and conservation orgs; mining interests. Source: Eplanning BLM PDF Ambler Road Alaska
Money & policy angle Congress cites
Hardrock (locatable) minerals: under the 1872 Mining Law, no federal royalty on copper/zinc/gold produced from claims (fees exist, but not royalties). Ambler proponents tout jobs & state/local taxes; opponents point to the subsistence economy value and long-term habitat costs. The RMP still leaves >8.3M acres open for claim-staking; the road denial removes a subsidizing corridor but doesn’t ban mining. Source: Policy Topics and Background Related to Mining on Federal Lands
If a CRA repeal succeeds (what could be lost / tradeoffs)
Lost protections: more pressure to authorize the Ambler road or relax habitat designations. Risking caribou migration impacts and reduced subsistence availability that also underpin non-subsistence hunting.
Potential gains (industry view): easier logistics to the Ambler district and state tax revenue if mines advance; still, no federal royalty on hardrock means limited federal take compared to coal/oil & gas.
Powder River Basin (PRB) - Miles City RMP Amendment (SE Montana)
What it currently protects
Ends new federal coal leasing within the Miles City Field Office: 0 acres available; 1,745,040 acres unavailable for further consideration. Existing federal coal leases can keep operating. Source: Federal Register Miles City Field Office, Montana
BLM’s Federal Register notice notes production on existing leases continues (e.g., Spring Creek into the 2030s; Rosebud into mid-century). This is a climate- and market-driven course correction, not an instant shutdown. Source govinfo.com
When it was finalized - Record of Decision signed Nov. 20, 2024.
Why hunters/conservationists care
No new federal coal pits = less future habitat fragmentation, fewer haul roads, and reduced pressure on sagebrush/grassland watersheds that support mule deer, pronghorn, upland birds, and cold-water fisheries. (Benefit is forward-looking because existing mines remain.) Source: Federal Register Miles City Field Office, Montana
Stakeholders (who’s at the table)
BLM; State of Montana & counties; tribes; coal operators (Spring Creek, Rosebud); ranchers/grazing permittees; hunters/anglers & conservation groups; local communities and labor. (See agency notices and protest files for participating entities.) Source: BLM Press Release
Money & policy angle Congress cites
Foregone “future” coal leasing revenues (bonus bids, rentals, royalties). Federal coal royalties are 12.5% (surface) / 8% (underground); revenue is shared roughly half with the state (48% after a 2% admin fee). Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) county payments are separate and formula-based. The plan doesn’t touch current royalty flows from existing leases. Source: Bureau of Fiscal Service
If a CRA repeal succeeds (what could be lost / tradeoffs)
Lost protections: the “no-new-federal-coal” line goes away—opening the door to future surface mining that would fragment habitat and add truck/rail disturbance where hunting and fishing occur.
Potential gains (industry view): possibility of future lease sales and state revenue—but only if markets justify new mines. Near-term royalty receipts likely unchanged either way because existing leases continue regardless.