What can fly under the radar are the expert conservationists who help make this on the ground conservation happen. Just as you would consult a mechanic for car repairs or a financial advisor for retirement planning, farmers, ranchers, and foresters can turn to Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) staff for land management expertise at the USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).

CTA staff are the “boots on the ground” who provide direct support through one-on-one conversations to help farmers navigate programs and make management decisions.

These experts identify on-farm resource concerns, design individual conservation plans, implement low-cost, high impact practices, and use other USDA programs, if necessary. Improvements made through CTA are beneficial to all Americans, as it helps improve the conservation of soil, water, and wildlife across the United States.

A Closer Look at Conservation Technical Assistance

In Adams County, North Dakota Stan Murphy purchased an 839-acre ranch in 1995. Since purchasing the land, Murphy has worked tirelessly to transform the property in partnership with NRCS. Stan has completed many conservation projects, including a 25-tree row that extends 700 feet. He credits NRCS CTA as a key to his success: “I had the expertise, which was the main thing, from NRCS.”

This is just one example of how hundreds of thousands of producers have used CTA to solve natural resource concerns while enhancing the efficiency and resiliency of their operations.

CTA is not done casually. It utilizes a nine-step planning process led by NRCS agents and trusted partners, including local conservation districts, university extension, and state agencies to develop practical, no-cost conservation plans tailored to the specific objectives and circumstances of individual landowners. Throughout the process, experts work with the landowner to identify potential solutions, and to help put practices in place.

By providing the expertise necessary to implement effective practices on the ground, CTA acts as the access point for delivering billions of dollars in Congressional conservation investments. However, despite its role in protecting soil, water, and wildlife, CTA funding has experienced significant cuts in recent years. In fact, in 2026 it declined to its lowest point since 2008 and USDA requested zero discretionary funding to CTA in 2027.

Voices from the Field – Focus Groups

NWF, in partnership with Rural Coalition, and Partnerscapes launched a project to identify opportunities to make CTA more efficient and accessible. Between late 2025 and early 2026, the team conducted focus groups with 36 participants including farmers, ranchers, conservation professionals, and former NRCS staff who helped identify solutions to expand CTA’s impact.

Across the conversations, one resounding theme we heard was how valuable CTA is. Despite challenges, people across the spectrum were supportive of CTA and its value for providing on farm assistance.

“NRCS has been a tremendous partner for us – a valuable partner that needs help. They are a trusted, non-regulatory partner” – Producer with 50 years of NRCS experience.

Opportunities

Participants identified several areas for improvement including more flexible processes and standards, improved service quality across all offices, and increasing the number of staff and support for those experts. Additionally, the national USDA should support equitable and transparent funding processes, to enhance partnerships and conservation planning and adoption.

Recommendations

Discussions of innovative solutions and improvements to the CTA delivery system led to six themes:

1. Locally led, Nationally supported
   • Improve control at the state level. Specifically, allow State conservationists to take the lead, as they are the experts in their area.
2. Support NRCS and Partner Staff
   • Invest more time in recruiting qualified staff and increase staff compensation to improve retention rates.
   • Increase mentorship opportunities for new staff, including with experienced farmers.
3. Eliminate Unnecessary Requirements
   • Streamline application and planning processes and listen to staff and farmers about redundancies that can be eliminated.
4. Improve Customer Service
   • Improve staff training opportunities.
   • Implement best practices across states, using successful work from other states as case studies.
5. Effective Funding Priorities
   • Increase transparency across funding decisions
   • Increase funding equity across production, producer, and farm types.
6. Effective partnerships and Technical Service Providers
   • Streamline the Technical Service Provider (TSP) certification process and improve accessibility for partners and farmers, alike.

CTA Underpins the Value Farmers Place on USDA Conservation

In response to farmer and rancher demand, Congress recently invested an additional $11 billion into USDA conservation programs through 2031. Without staff and partnerships provided by Conservation Technical Assistance, this funding won’t get out the door and improve the soil, water, and wildlife habitat as intended.

Now, perhaps more than ever, Congress and USDA need to listen to farmers and provide the CTA funding and staff that they need.

You can learn more about Conservation Technical Assistance and appropriations funding for the program in this fact sheet.

Congress typically rewrites the Farm Bill every five years, updating and improving programs and adapting them to the changing farm economy. Congress was supposed to rewrite the 2018 Farm Bill in 2023, but instead has provided short-term extensions, and the most recent extension expires September 30, 2026.

That approach keeps programs running but fails to make the many needed changes and improvements. This cycle of temporary measures has left the farmers and communities who depend upon those programs in a state of uncertainty.

As the nation’s largest federal investment in private lands conservation, the Farm Bill provides billions of dollars annually to help farmers and ranchers improve soil health, water quality, and wildlife habitats. Through financial and technical assistance from the USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service, producers can adopt conservation practices on their land.

However, demand for these programs far outweighs the available resources. Even with a historic $20 billion investment from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, these conservation initiatives remain oversubscribed, leaving the USDA unable to meet the needs of landowners who would like to participate. With another expiration date on the horizon, now is the time to push for a more robust, wildlife-friendly Farm Bill.

What the Farm Bill Does for Wildlife

From conservation easements to grassland restoration, the conservation programs funded by the Farm Bill aid farmers, ranchers, and foresters in protecting wildlife, habitats, and maintaining healthy waterways and soil.

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) addresses conservation by providing annual rental payments to farmers to take environmentally sensitive land out of row crop agriculture and plant it with conservation cover that can be grazed.

The land enrolled in CRP provides an important safeguard for wildlife species while also improving water quality and soil health. Within CRP is the State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement Initiative (SAFE) providing funding to landowners to create wildlife habitat to help meet state wildlife conservation goals.

Some of the species targeted by the SAFE initiative include grassland birds, such as the lesser prairie chicken, species that have faced declining populations, like the New England cottontail, and many more.

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) also provides funding for wildlife and habitat restoration, including through the Working Lands for Wildlife Initiative (WLFW), which has been crucial for the recovery of at-risk species.

Many species have thrived under this program and currently more than a dozen species—including the iconic monarch butterfly and the lesser-known eastern hellbender, the United States’ largest salamander—are part of these efforts.

Let’s take a closer look at a couple of the WLFW initiatives:

• Southwestern willow flycatcher Initiative – This small migratory songbird lives in wetland and riparian habitats of the southwest. In these arid desert regions, riparian areas are key ecosystems and by protecting the habitat of the flycatcher, the program benefits the many other species that share their home. Since 2012 USDA has partnered with over 100 landowners across Arizona, California, and Utah to conserve 29,000 acres of habitat.
• Gopher tortoise Initiative – Aptly named for its unique burrowing behavior, the gopher tortoise inhabits longleaf pine savannas across the Southeast. Due to a decline in longleaf pine forests, gopher tortoise populations are at risk, and are federally listed as threatened in their western range of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. This initiative helps landowners restore vital habitats while supporting sustainable forestry practices.

With active programs in 48 states, conservation work is likely happening right in your home state! Check out this interactive map to explore WLFW projects across the country.

Current Status of the Farm Bill – U.S. House Agriculture Committee

On March 5, 2026 the U.S. House Agriculture Committee passed the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 out of committee. This marks a significant milestone toward passing a new Farm Bill.

This legislation contains several victories for wildlife, including the reauthorization and continuation of important provisions of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). As of 2025, 26.3 million acres are enrolled in this important  program.

Another win is the passage of important provisions supporting wildlife migration corridors and habitat connectivity on private lands, which originated from the Habitat Connectivity on Working Lands Act. Wildlife corridors are essential for preventing species loss caused by habitat fragmentation and for protecting migration routes that many species need for survival.

Another success was a provision supporting virtual fencing. Virtual fencing is a technology that utilizes GPS enabled collars on livestock to allow farmers and ranchers to establish digital fencing barriers, a tool that helps promote wildlife connectivity by eliminating physical barriers. The provision clarifies the scope of the Emergency Conservation Program to make virtual fences eligible for assistance as fencing repair or replacement. 

While this bill included multiple wins for wildlife, there are unfortunately also some concerning provisions, particularly surrounding the removal of safeguards for pesticide use. You can read more detail in NWF’s press statement.

Looking Ahead

What’s next for the Farm Bill? There are a few more steps that must occur before we potentially have a new Farm Bill reauthorization. Next up, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 will move to the full House of Representatives for discussion, amendments, and votes.

The Senate will also need to work on their own version of the bill, which must first pass the Senate Agriculture Committee and then go to the full Senate floor. This is a lengthy process, and we don’t have a timeline for how soon these steps will happen. In the meantime, it is important to continue to advocate for a wildlife-friendly, bipartisan Farm Bill that meets the needs of farmers, ranchers, landowners, and rural communities.

This work focuses on toxins in our air and water, chemical safety, cleaning up contaminated sites, detecting new pollutants like PFAS and microplastics, and human, ecosystem, and community health assessments.

These science topics are the basis of making good decisions that ensure a safe and healthy environment for everyone. And yet, on July 25 the EPA announced that it will eliminate the ORD. The EPA had already dismissed the scientists serving on ORD’s external advisory bodies, the Board of Scientific Counselors and the Science Advisory Board.

In March, members of Congress received documents showing the EPA was considering closing ORD. In response, we released a statement warning that such a closure would greatly undermine environmental protection.

But the EPA has moved forward with its plan to shutter the nation’s centers of excellence of environmental health research, which include four national centers and ten regional laboratories, as well as funding programs for independent research.

Because we don’t know how long the ORD’s website will be publicly available, we will list their FY 2023-2026 priorities here: Air, Climate, and Energy; Chemical Safety for Sustainability; Health and Environmental Risk Assessment; Homeland Security; Safe and Sustainable Water Resources; and Sustainable and Healthy Communities. 

Why are these programs so critically important?

A foundational pillar of environmental protection

The ORD has been part of the EPA since its founding in 1970. ORD scientists were central to the success of America’s most impactful environmental laws: The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

By grounding the implementation of these laws in an independent science arm of the EPA, the public could be assured that America’s air and water supplies were rigorously tested, measured with widely accepted methods, and continually evaluated according to the latest and best science. To maintain public trust, ORD’s policies and priorities were determined by outside scientific panels, as well as regional offices and the local communities they serve.  

Since this time, we’ve learned a lot about how the system can fail without strong science that is independent of politics and corporate interests, and that is informed by communities. When residents of Flint, Michigan, complained about water quality and health problems after the city switched their water supply in 2014, independent scientists reported high levels of lead in both blood samples and in the water. Scientists, including students, at Virginia Tech demonstrated how water from the Flint river corroded aging pipes and fittings.

However, due to dwindling resources for environmental protection, they struggled to fund their research. In 2016, a federal emergency was declared. Since this failure in protecting community health, the ORD has built much more community engagement, community science, and environmental justice research priorities into its work. This is the very work that is now under attack and being actively dismantled.

The case of Flint, Michigan, shows that to protect public health, we need more, not less, investment in sound environmental science that is free of political interference and available for everyone.

The Environmental Protection Agency and wildlife conservation

ORD research also supports wildlife conservation in other ways. More than a third of species listed under the Endangered Species Act are imperiled by pollution. For these species and many others, habitat protections alone will not eliminate the threat of extinction.

ORD’s Safe and Sustainable Water Resources program develops tools to ensure the health of aquatic and wetland habitat. Their chemical and pesticide impact assessments provide critical information about exposure risk to support the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

The ORD studies the ecological impacts of pollution and climate change, in addition to providing tools for habitat restoration, land reuse, and nature-based infrastructure projects. Its ecosystem research group provides the public with an ecosystem services portal so that residents can make good decisions about maximizing the benefits and limiting harms in their own backyards.

This is only a small sample of the extensive research contributions of the EPA ORD in the areas of ecosystem, habitat, and wildlife health.

If it’s not broken, don’t fix it

So why has the ORD been discontinued? The EPA claims it will achieve $748.8 million in savings by reducing its workforce from 16,155 to 12,448 employees. They have already shuttered their Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, a move that the National Wildlife Federation strongly opposed because it puts communities directly at risk.

With the dismantling of ORD, the EPA is going even further to prevent the public from learning about the risks to their own health and wellbeing. Instead, the EPA proposes to create a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions that will be embedded in the regulatory agency, without acting independently and in line with the best available science. What this almost inevitably means, is that from now on EPA science can be dictated by politics rather than the scientific method, putting scientific integrity at serious risk.

In essence, this is a move to eliminate key safeguards that have been protecting air, water, habitat, and public health from the ever-changing will of politicians and their appointees.

The community of Flint, Michigan, is still coping with the fallout of the failures to safeguard their water supply. What about your community? Where will you get reliable information about air and water quality without an independent ORD? Do you think that decisions about public and environmental health should be grounded in science or special interests?

There is still time to act. Before the expertise and public data of ORD scientists is totally lost, contact Congress and urge them to fully fund, staff, and restore the ORD and its independent science advisory boards with our Action Alert.

From pollinators that keep our ecosystems thriving, to clean water programs that safeguard our health, these federal services are essential to our way of life.

Despite the steep challenges, people like you have been making a real difference, and we will continue elevating your voices.

Your Advocacy is Working.

In May of this year, we learned that the United States Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area (USGS EMA)—home to programs like the Bird Banding Lab, the Bee Lab, and climate adaptation resources for Tribes and communities across the country—was at risk of elimination. You spoke up. In fact, thousands of you joined together for our Rally for the Cornerstone of Conservation Science, demanding that your members of Congress protect funding for the EMA. 

And Congress listened.

Despite the White House’s proposed budget cuts, both the House and Senate chose to fund the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area in their appropriations bills, along with other critical programs like:

• State and Tribal Wildlife Grants – helping species of greatest conservation need before they become endangered
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Science Applications program – applying the science conducted across federal agencies to protect vital habitat, including on private lands

This is proof: When we raise our voices together, we can make change happen.

The Fight Isn’t Over.

Congress still hasn’t passed a fiscal year 2026 budget, and many programs remain on the chopping block—and many are already suffering staff layoffs and closures. These include, but are not limited to:

• USGS Ecosystems Mission Area 
• USFWS Science Applications 
• U.S. Forest Service Research Stations and Laboratories
• Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Earth Science Division 
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries 

In addition to the staffing and budgetary cuts that have been facing conservation science, the administration is working to deeply weaken one of the most important laws protecting our most imperiled species: The Endangered Species Act.

Without urgent action, we risk losing not only crucial conservation protections—but the expert scientists, engineers, and other staff who make them possible.

As you can see, the threats are numerous. But that’s never stopped us before, and it certainly won’t now.

What’s at Stake For You

This fight isn’t just about wildlife “somewhere out there.” It’s about the clean water you drink, the air you breathe, the places you love to hike, hunt, or fish, and the species that make our ecosystems thrive.

Federal conservation programs:

• Safeguard wetlands that shield communities from flooding.
• Protect salmon runs that sustain coastal economies and Indigenous lifeways.
• Monitor pollinators that underpin healthy, functioning ecosystems.

When these programs disappear, the ripple effects hit every one of us.

Two Ways You Can Make a Difference Right Now

It will take all hands on deck to create the urgently needed support for ALL of the federal programs that protect the diversity of species found across our country, and the air, waters, and lands that keep them and our communities healthy. 

We need to show our elected officials—from Congress to the White House—that people across the country care deeply about protecting conservation science, and that this is a top priority for the public they serve.

1. RSVP for America’s Forum for Wildlife on August 28th at 12 pm ET

Join the National Wildlife Federation and partners for a virtual national event bringing together scientists, policy leaders, youth advocates, and community voices from across the country.

During the Forum, you will:

• Hear updates on the current threats to federal conservation programs.
• Learn about recent wins and how they happened.
• Take action together—sending personalized messages to your elected officials in real time.

2. Lend your voice on social media

Personal stories are the most powerful way to show elected officials what’s at stake in their communities, and we want them to hear us everywhere. Share a message or story on social media, and we will compile them for delivery directly to Congress alongside Forum participants, partner organizations, and youth leaders.

What to share:

• A species you care about (e.g., monarch butterflies, salmon, black bears) and why;
• A place that matters to you (e.g., a local wetland, national forest, neighborhood park); and/or
• A program that’s made a difference in your community (e.g., urban forestry, water quality monitoring, habitat restoration).

How to share:

• Record a short video (30–60 seconds) or write a post on social media.
• Tag your members of Congress (find them here) and and use hashtag #StandUpForWildlife so we can find your posts.
  • Make sure your post is public so we can include it in our compilation video of all the posts shared and play it on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

Why it matters:
Your message or story will become part of a coordinated public message to federal leaders: Protect the science that protects us all. When combined with thousands of others, your voice can influence decisions that determine the future of wildlife, our environment, and our communities.

Together, We Can Protect What Matters Most

Federal conservation science is the backbone of wildlife protection, clean water, and healthy lands—and it’s powered by people like you. By showing up and speaking out, we can ensure these programs have the needed funding, expertise, and support.

Register for the Forum
Share Your Message or Story

When we act together, we can secure a healthy future for people and wildlife alike.

Recently, members of Congress introduced resolutions under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) aiming to overturn several of these RMPs. This is a significant move that could reshape how millions of acres of public lands are managed, directly impacting hunters, anglers, and all who value predictable access and responsible stewardship of our public lands.  

What the CRA is and How It Works

The Congressional Review Act, enacted in 1996, gives Congress a powerful, fast-track way to overturn “rules” issued by federal agencies. Its purpose is to ensure agencies stick to Congress’s original intent when creating regulations pursuant to specific laws.  

Here’s how it works: When a federal agency, like the BLM, issues a new rule, it must send a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Congress then has a limited “fast-track” period, usually 60 legislative days, to pass a joint resolution disapproving the rule. If both the House and Senate pass this resolution, it goes to the President.

The CRA has been used sparingly, overturning only 20 rules since its creation. Its use often spikes during presidential transitions, allowing a new administration or opposing party to quickly undo regulations from the previous one. Whether intended by Congress or not, the CRA is now a potent political tool for swift policy changes.

The “Substantially Similar” Clause

One of the most controversial parts of the CRA is its “substantially similar” clause. If a rule is overturned, the agency cannot reissue that rule, or a new rule that is “substantially the same,” unless Congress passes a new law specifically allowing it. This means once a policy is repealed, it is essentially blocked indefinitely.

Why does this matter? Well, the CRA doesn’t define “substantially the same.” This ambiguity creates a legal gray area. Agencies trying to address the same issue must guess what Congress considered “substantially the same” and leave courts incredible latitude to make that determination, or risk another repeal from Congress. This can lead to regulatory paralysis, making it hard for agencies to adapt or find new solutions, potentially leaving important issues unaddressed or forcing less effective approaches. 

Are BLM Resource Management Plans “Rules”?

A major point of contention in these recent proposals is whether RMPs actually qualify as “rules” under the CRA. This isn’t just legal hair-splitting; it determines whether Congress can legally use the CRA to overturn these plans.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently stated that RMPs do meet the definition of a “rule” under the CRA. It argues that RMPs set “goals and objectives to guide future land and resource management actions” and dictate how millions of acres will be used for decades.

As of August 2025, the administration has not publicly declared whether RMPs formally qualify as “rules” under the CRA. However, historically the Department of the Interior has asserted that they do not. It previously argued that RMPs, developed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), have “never been considered rules by the Department of the Interior (Department) or any reviewing court”.

Many environmental non-profits share this concern. This fundamental disagreement sets the stage for potential legal battles and creates significant uncertainty for land managers and users alike. 

Currently, certain members of Congress are targeting specific RMPs in North Dakota, Alaska, and Montana with CRA resolutions. These proposals highlight a clear divide in how our public lands should be managed.

Why Proponents Want Repeal

Those supporting the CRA repeals, including members of Congress from the affected states, argue that these RMPs are harmful to state economic development. They claim the North Dakota RMP, for instance, would “crush coal production, close off millions of acres to leasing, and devastate jobs and communities” by restricting coal, oil, and gas development. Similar arguments are made for the Alaska and Montana RMPs, which are criticized for designating conservation areas that block resource development, hindering energy production and job creation. 

Why Opponents Resist Repeal

Opponents call these efforts unprecedented and a direct attack on the integrity of public land management. They stress that the targeted RMPs were developed over years with broad public input, including from local communities, Tribes, and interested stakeholders, and that they included extensive scientific review.

They argue that repealing these plans without public hearings or transparency undermines the collaborative process and gives commercial interest greater power and the public less opportunity for meaningful involvement. A recent National Wildlife Federation poll even showed that 75% of voters in North Dakota oppose congressional efforts to eliminate existing public land management plans.  

Consequences of CRA Repeal on BLM Resource Management Plans

The repeal of RMPs via the CRA carries the potential for significant and complex consequences for how our public lands are managed, affecting everything from hunting and fishing access to energy development and land sales.

Regulatory Vacuum and Outdated Plans

If an RMP is repealed, management might revert to older, potentially outdated RMPs, which predate current RMPs. For example, North Dakota’s old RMP was adopted in 1988—when no one used things like cell phones, handheld GPS devices, or the internet. These older plans may not account for modern scientific understanding, or current demands for land use.  

This means less predictable and outdated management. For hunters and anglers, this could translate to uncertainty about access, changes in habitat management, or delays in permits for recreational activities. Without a clear, modern plan, the BLM could be forced into ad-hoc decisions, making it harder to ensure consistent, science-based stewardship of the lands and wildlife we depend on.

Impact on Oil and Gas Permitting

RMPs are the foundation for oil and gas leasing decisions on public lands. They set the conditions for leasing and ensure environmental compliance. Repealing an RMP could disrupt this framework, creating uncertainty for energy development. While the BLM is required to hold quarterly lease sales when eligible lands are available, the absence of a governing RMP could lead to a less structured permitting environment.

This might mean a return to older, less protective stipulations, or more ad-hoc environmental reviews for individual projects, increasing delays and the risk of litigation. Also, since the One Big Beautiful Bill Act included mandatory leasing tied to RMPs, the absence of an RMP, or reversion to an earlier RMPs could have significant impacts on the amount of acres that must be offered for lease. 

Impact on Grazing Leases

Grazing on BLM lands, including the issuance and oversight of permits, is guided by RMPs. RMPs determine which lands are available for grazing, forage amounts, and specific management activities. Grazing permits are typically issued for 10 years, making their renewal a cyclical process tied to current land use plans.  

A CRA repeal could significantly disrupt grazing lease administration. Without a current RMP, the BLM’s ability to adjust stocking levels or implement conservation-oriented grazing practices might be constrained. This could lead to less adaptive management, potentially increasing conflicts between grazing and other resource values, or hindering efforts to maintain healthy rangelands.  

Effects on Conservation and Recreation

RMPs are crucial for conserving public lands, maintaining intact landscapes, restoring degraded habitats, and designating Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Repealing an RMP could undermine these efforts. It might open up lands to increased development without adequate safeguards, potentially ignoring ecological science and public input.

This could reduce protections for sensitive areas, critical wildlife habitats, and cultural resources—jeopardizing some imperiled species. For hunters and anglers, this directly impacts the health of game populations and the quality of their outdoor experiences. 

For recreation, the consequences are also significant. BLM relies on RMPs and adequate staffing to maintain trails, manage campgrounds, and ensure visitor safety. Recent workforce reductions have already raised concerns about caring for public lands and ensuring safe, enjoyable outdoor experiences. Repealing RMPs, which guide these activities, could further hinder efforts to improve outdoor recreation by removing the necessary planning framework.   

Broader Concerns: Trust, Litigation, and Long-Term Planning

Beyond specific land uses, using the CRA on RMPs raises broader concerns about the stability of public land management. The immediate invalidation of an RMP and the prohibition on issuing a “substantially similar” rule create significant legal uncertainty for the BLM. This increases the risk of litigation from various groups seeking clarity or challenging management decisions made without a comprehensive plan.

When the CRA bypasses the extensive public engagement and scientific review that go into RMP development, it can erode public trust in the collaborative planning process. If years of public input can be swiftly undone by a congressional vote, it may discourage future participation from local communities, Tribes, and other interested stakeholders. This top-down approach risks alienating stakeholders and making it harder for the BLM to develop broadly supported and durable land management strategies in the future.  

Furthermore, the “substantially similar” clause limits the agency’s flexibility to adapt to new information or changing environmental conditions. This hinders the BLM’s ability to engage in adaptive, science-informed management, which is essential for healthy ecosystems and sustainable resource use for generations of hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts.  

Some of the disputes over the contents of RMPs are narrow. Opponents of the RMPs might agree on 80% or more of the planning guidance in the document. However, because of the “substantially similar” clause, agencies may be barred from adopting or implementing the 80% of things everyone agrees upon. 

There is a better way. Congress and the Administration are politically aligned, and likely want to see similar outcomes in the disputed RMPs. The Secretary of the Interior can follow existing law and open the disputed RMPs to address the 20% of the RMPs that are disputed without jeopardizing the 80% that everyone supports.

If Congress is successful in using the CRA to repeal existing RMPs, the implications are far-reaching: oil and gas permitting and grazing lease administration could become less predictable, and vital conservation efforts that protect wildlife and habitat could be undermined. 

Ultimately, using the CRA in this manner creates tension between congressional authority and the need for stable, science-based, and collaboratively developed land management plans. It risks eroding public trust, increasing litigation, and hindering the long-term, adaptive management necessary to ensure our public lands remain healthy and accessible for all Americans, including hunters and anglers, for generations to come. 

David Willms is the associate vice president for public lands at National Wildlife Federation.

Earlier this month, Congress made several such decisions as part of a broad budget reconciliation package, which was signed into law on July 4 after weeks of debate. That debate included fast-paced, sometimes confusing back-and-forth over provisions that have profound effects on wildlife and our lands, waters, air, and climate.

Input from wildlife supporters made a major difference during the process, blunting the impact of some of the most harmful proposals originally on the table. Still, several provisions will make it more challenging to address the crises facing wildlife and the natural world.

Lawmakers are already beginning to consider funding legislation for fiscal year 2026, and proposals from the final reconciliation package could come back into play during these key discussions. So here’s where the bill landed on three crucial issues for wildlife:

1. Advocates kept millions of acres of public lands from being sold off

A proposal to sell up to 3.3 million acres of federally-owned land across 11 western states was completely scrapped in the final reconciliation bill. That’s because a passionate coalition of hunters, anglers, recreationists, and wildlife supporters spoke up. More than 48,000 people participated in public lands advocacy efforts organized by the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund between April and June. 

However, the new law still includes worrying threats to public lands. It rolls back smart policies that safeguarded wildlife and benefitted taxpayers by ensuring oil and gas companies paid their fair market rates to operate on public lands. And several provisions will increase logging, mining, and drilling activity on federal land—including in treasured wild places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

2. Bedrock environmental protections weakened

Under the new law, companies will be able to pay a small opt-in fee to gain expedited reviews, permitting, and approval for any project that could harm wildlife habitat and our lands, waters, climate, and air.

The provision weakens the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—the landmark law that has helped give communities a voice on major infrastructure projects and save habitats for countless wildlife species for 50 years.

However, as with some of the bill’s clean energy provisions, the changes to NEPA could have been worse. The original language would have prevented the abbreviated reviews from being challenged in court, cutting out a crucial opportunity for communities and wildlife advocates to stand up for clean air, soil, and water. 

3. Major blows to climate and clean energy softened slightly

The reconciliation bill clawed back and steeply cut incentives for clean energy, energy efficiency, and clean manufacturing, which will result in more expensive energy bills for people like you and me and make it harder to reduce and stop fossil fuel pollution.

Some harmful provisions relating to clean energy were relaxed slightly in response to pressure from advocates. One of the most alarming proposals—a steep tax on most solar and wind projects—was removed in the final days of debate. 

Even amidst these losses on clean energy, the final bill demonstrates that advocacy can make a difference. And it’s critically important to keep up the pressure when it comes to climate change. From polar bears struggling to find sea ice to sea level rise flooding the nests of saltmarsh sparrows, our planet’s continued warming threatens many species—not to mention our own mounting challenges with flooding, heat waves, and other disasters.

Takeaways for wildlife

The budget reconciliation package presents major challenges when it comes to protecting wildlife. Polar bears, for example, may face more drilling near their Arctic homes and less investment in preserving their icy habitats. 

But the final legislation also shows that advocacy and engagement can affect outcomes. People sent more than 265,000 messages and calls to lawmakers about the reconciliation bill through National Wildlife Federation Action Fund campaigns. These policy wins, even tiny ones, can prevent some harm to bald eagles, monarch butterflies, and countless other vulnerable species whose habitats are on the line.

American wildlife is facing a crisis, and we can’t afford to lose momentum. Join our friends at the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund in urging Congress to reject further cuts to conservation efforts and programs that protect bald eagles, monarch butterflies, polar bears, and so many more fragile and beloved species in America.

Managing these lands can be a complex endeavor, making sure that all interests are treated fairly so that the lands can thrive far into the future. In recent years, Congress has passed laws to ensure that oil and gas companies pay fair market fees and royalties for the privilege of drilling on public lands. These fees brought much-needed funding into federal coffers.

The laws also incentivized oil and gas development in areas that minimized negative impacts on wildlife and clean water. And the laws guaranteed that local communities had ample opportunities to provide public input on land management decisions.

Rolling back land protections

Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate is now considering a provision in the budget reconciliation bill that would undo these common sense laws. The Senate plan is modeled on a version that has already passed the House of Representatives.

Both plans prioritize the oil and gas industry over hard-working Americans. Royalty rates would be reduced from 16.7% to 12.5%. That’s well below the rate that most states charge oil and companies and would mean a significant decrease of money that could be used to help balance the budget. It would also reduce money to states because royalties are split between the states and federal government.

Both the House and Senate proposals eliminate the authority of the Bureau of Land Management to say “no” when oil and gas companies propose to lease near wildlife habitat and water resources. And both proposals cut out the public from having a say in how these lands are stewarded. 

The public loves public lands

The National Wildlife Federation recently released a poll of residents in six Western states and the Dakotas showing that voters are overwhelmingly opposed to all of this. The poll shows that more than 76% of voters say that Congress should keep existing fees for oil and gas development.

More than 84% say there should be broader public participation in land management decisions—not less. And more than four-in-five voters across the West agree that the government needs to be cautious in how oil and gas are developed on public lands.

The polling also confirmed what many of us always suspected: people love public lands and want to see them managed in ways that will allow them to thrive for generations to come. More than four in five voters say that the most important uses for public lands are to keep air and water clean, to provide a place for wildlife to live and offer opportunities for outdoor recreation.

That is in sharp comparison to the percentage of people who think that oil and gas development is one of the most important uses of public lands. More than three in four voters are also opposed to limiting the ability of federal agencies to respond to local concerns on land management. 

The opposition to this recent Congressional activity was strong even among people who self-identify as MAGA supporters. Large majorities favor keeping current fees in place and are opposed to reducing public participation in land decisions.

The poll was conducted in Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Members of the Senate would be wise to heed these poll results and listen to their constituents: don’t weaken current oil and gas laws. Senators should remove any provisions in the budget reconciliation bill that would lower fees on oil and gas development, limit public input, and tie the hands of federal land managers who are trying to keep public lands healthy by making sure oil and gas development doesn’t interfere with wildlife, clean air or water.

Won’t you speak up and let your senators know that they shouldn’t mess with the current laws that help safeguard both wildlife and taxpayers? Visit our Action Fund page to make your voice heard.

The bill may be big, but it is not beautiful—nor beneficial for Americans or our nation’s treasured wildlife. As passed by the House, it includes provisions to remove clean air and water protections and short-circuit proper environmental review for government-approved projects. It rolls back fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, removes fees on methane wasted in the atmosphere, and expands oil, gas, and coal mining. All of which put public health and wildlife at risk, while further destabilizing our climate.

Progress Abruptly Halted 

Perhaps the biggest blow to climate progress in the bill is the changes to clean energy tax credits.

These credits have enabled the U.S. to produce more energy from clean sources like wind and solar more quickly. To date, they have generated $321 billion in new private investment across nearly 2,400 domestic clean-energy facilities. An additional $522 billion private sector investment has been announced across 2,217 facilities.

More than just statistics, these numbers are income for landowners, tax revenue for towns, and job opportunities for blue-collar workers in construction, manufacturing, and operations.  

The reconciliation bill destroys all of this. It repeals some credits immediately, including all clean vehicle credits, all residential energy efficiency credits, and the clean hydrogen production credit. It revokes transferability of credits—the mechanism by which smaller companies with low tax liability access the credits through credit markets. This effectively denies credits to a wide swath of the industry.

It makes more severe changes to the technology-neutral tax credits. Though framed as a phaseout, the changes amount to elimination. The bill mandates aggressive placed-in-service dates: clean energy projects have to commence construction within 60 days of the enactment of the law. Even with expedited permitting currently being pursued by this Administration, it’s likely that no clean energy projects could be sited, permitted, and moved to construction in time to meet that deadline.

The bill also places “foreign entity of concern” guidelines, meant to prohibit sourcing materials for clean energy projects from certain countries. The guidelines are so strict they are virtually unworkable, and likely even unenforceable by the Internal Revenue Service. These changes will affect not only wind and solar, but also promising clean technologies like next-generation geothermal.

Jobs at Risk 

The reconciliation bill would cripple the U.S. clean energy industry. The solar energy industry alone estimates it could kill 330,000 American jobs—including more than 30,000 each in Texas and Florida—and could wipe more than $280 billion in investments off the map. Recent modeling estimates the bill will kill about 830,000 American jobs by 2030. For an administration that claims to want to revitalize American manufacturing, why would they get rid of incentives that have been doing exactly that for more than two years?

Factoring in impacts to other clean energy sectors, the bill is estimated to kill about 830,000 jobs by 2030. Those impacts will extend into everyone’s pocketbooks. The bill will increase the average household’s energy bill by $400 a year. Additionally, the bill will have long-term effects on our climate—halting the transition to clean energy will undoubtedly mean pumping more climate-altering pollution into the air, continuing to raise global temperatures, trigger more extreme weather, and wreak havoc on our lungs.

The cost of eliminating the clean energy tax credits is clear. The Senate has a chance to fix these issues, and shield American consumers, workers, and burgeoning clean energy industries from this devastation. Take action by telling your Senator to keep America first by preserving the clean energy tax credits.

What’s in the Amendment?

The amendment directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to dispose of large areas of public land. It overrides the current system laid out by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the law that has governed how we manage public lands since 1976.

Rather than requiring careful analysis and local input, the amendment mandates that these lands be sold, exchanged, or transferred on an expedited timeline—essentially cutting corners on the planning, environmental review, and public participation that would normally happen under FLPMA.

What’s FLPMA, and Why Does It Matter?

Congress passed FLPMA in 1976, and ensures public lands are managed for multiple uses—grazing, recreation, energy, wildlife and fisheries, clean water, and more. It also establishes that lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management remain in public ownership unless there’s a strong case for disposal. Here’s how it typically works:

• BLM conducts land use planning, including public meetings and coordination with state and local governments.
• Lands identified for disposal go through a transparent review process, often including environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Just because land is identified as suitable for disposal, does not require that the land must be sold, nor does it provide any timeline for sale. 
• The public gets a chance to weigh in, including local residents, hunters, ranchers, Tribes, and others who use or value these lands.
• Sales occur at fair market value, and include public notice and a competitive bidding process, unless certain exemptions apply.
• Congressional notification required for sales exceeding 2,500 acres. Congress has 90-days for either body to formally disapprove, or the sale can proceed. 

Of course, this means that the process can be slow because of all of the various boxes that must be checked before a parcel is sold. However, that process exists for good reason. It ensures that land isn’t sold off just to meet a short-term political or budgetary goal and that local voices are heard before public land changes hands. Remember, public lands can only be sold once. Once sold for development, they are gone from the federal estate forever.  

How This Amendment Speeds Things Up—and Cuts You Out

This amendment alters the FLMPA process in significant ways. It declares that the tens of thousands of acres of public lands identified in the amendment must be offered for sale or exchange and sets a much faster timeline for BLM to make it happen. This is a departure from FLPMA, which doesn’t actually require selling lands, by mandating sales. This also means less time for public input, less analysis of how land sales might affect hunting access, habitat, or other public uses, and fewer checks to make sure the transfers actually benefit the public.

Where Does the Money Go?

Under current law, most proceeds from BLM land sales go into the Federal Land Disposal Account (FLDA), created under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA). That account helps agencies buy high-priority conservation lands, enter into easements for access, and other purposes that benefit public lands so we don’t end up with fragmented landscapes or blocked access. In short, the proceeds ensure that by selling less desirable lands, we are able to invest in replacing those acres or improving acres in a way that achieves a net positive for our public lands

The new amendment changes that. Instead of using the revenue to improve public land management, it would redirect the money to general Treasury funds to be spread across the entire federal government. In other words, it turns public land into a short-term revenue source, with no guarantee those dollars come back to support land, wildlife, or access.

Why It Matters

Public land management doesn’t always need to be slow—but it does need to be smart. When lands are sold off without a full understanding of their value or without hearing from the people who use them, we risk losing more than acreage. We lose hunting grounds. We lose grazing opportunities. We lose access for the next generation.

This amendment may be wrapped in the language of “efficiency,” but what it really does is remove the public—especially local stakeholders—from the decision-making process.

Where Things Stand Now

The amendment has passed the House Natural Resources Committee but has not yet been voted on by the full House. The Senate would also need to weigh in, and it’s unclear whether this provision will make it through intact.

Still, the fact that such a sweeping change was introduced late at night, with minimal discussion, is a reminder of how important it is to stay informed and involved. Public lands are part of what makes this country unique—open to all, rich in opportunity, and managed with a long view. Selling them off behind closed doors is the wrong way to go.

If you would like to email your members of Congress about this issue, you can take action here.

David Willms is associate vice president for public lands at the National Wildlife Federation. He is a passionate hunter, hiker, and backpacker, and when he’s not at work, he can be found exploring our nation’s public lands with his family.

Funding from this legislative package has enabled farmers and ranchers to partner with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to support on-the-ground conservation practices and projects. For instance, USDA’s Sage Grouse initiative  partners with over two thousand farmers to restore eight million acres of sagebrush habitat for the iconic sage grouse. These efforts also produce co-benefits for other species that depend on sagebrush, such as the Brewer’s sparrow, green-tailed towhee, deer, and pronghorn.    

Conservation funding for the Farm Bill

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) enacted many wins for wildlife, including an additional $20 billion for key USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service programs, focusing on practices supporting climate-smart agriculture. Additional resources targeted at these important programs are helping to meet the swell of producer interest in voluntary private-landowner-driven conservation programs.

While funding is still not meeting demand, the IRA dollars made an important step toward more farmers, producers, and landowners accessing conservation programs. According to a recent poll, at least three out of four farmers supported increased funding for conservation programs.

The IRA funding presents a unique opportunity for Congress to invest in climate-smart agricultural practices but, without swift action, the opportunity will be lost. Congress has yet to reauthorize the 2018 Farm Bill and include this money in the total funding for this and future Farm Bills.

Incorporating the IRA funding and its related climate-smart provisions into the Farm Bill will preserve this important investment in conservation funding for years to come–but only if Congress acts before the end of its current session. Once USDA spends next year’s funding from the IRA, Congress cannot include those dollars in a new Farm Bill as a base sum for conservation programs in the future. That is almost a six-billion-dollar lost investment if Congress can’t protect these funds by passing a new Farm Bill by the end of the year.

Conservation programs have too long been overburdened and underfunded; the funding from the IRA is an important opportunity to increase access to these resources for farmers to adopt sustainable practices on their farms.

The current 2018 Farm Bill extension expired on September 30^th, 2024. The expiration of the extension has varying effects on different conservation programs. While most of the conservation programs can continue to operate unimpacted until they run out of funds, some, like the Conservation Reserve Program, can no longer enroll applicants until an extension or new Farm Bill is passed.

This prevents the USDA from serving farmers, ranchers, and landowners who want to adopt conservation practices on their land. The rollover to the new calendar year could also pose significant impacts on other agricultural programs authorized by the Farm Bill and have profound consequences that would hurt many parts of the economy.

Wildlife faces a multitude of threats, including habitat loss, climate change, invasive species, and more. Without resources to protect and restore wildlife and habitat, we are bound to continue to see populations of wildlife species decline. Funding from this legislation has demonstrated success at restoring wildlife populations.

The additional funding from the IRA for climate-smart agriculture is an important part of supporting voluntary Farm Bill conservation programs which address climate change, reverse habitat loss, and promote sustainable farming practices. These resources are a win-win for wildlife and producers. Congress should pass a new Farm Bill that protects the climate-smart agriculture funding from the IRA before the end of the year.