    [Senate Hearing 114-471]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-471

             THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGMENT'S PLANNING 2.0 INITIATIVE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FOREST, AND MINING

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 21, 2016

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

               Available via the World Wide Web: http://fdsys.gov

                                 _________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     21-992                   WASHINGTON : 2017
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
      Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

               Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

                            JOHN BARRASSO, Chairman
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO                 RON WYDEN
    JAMES E. RISCH                       DEBBIE STABENOW
    MIKE LEE                             AL FRANKEN
    STEVE DAINES                         JOE MANCHIN III
    BILL CASSIDY                         MARTIN HEINRICH
    CORY GARDNER                         MAZIE K. HIRONO
    JOHN HOEVEN                          ELIZABETH WARREN
    JEFF FLAKE
    LAMAR ALEXANDER

                          COLIN HAYES, Staff Director
                    PATRICK J. McCORMICK III, Chief Counsel
                    MICHELLE LANE, Professional Staff Member
               ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director
                    SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel
               SPENCER GRAY, Democratic Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Barrasso, Hon. John, Subcommittee Chairman, a U.S. Senator from
      Wyoming........................................................     1
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, a U.S. Senator from Alaska.................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Kornze, Hon. Neil, Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
      Department of the Interior.....................................     7
    Magagna, Jim, Executive Vice President, Wyoming Stock Growers
      Association....................................................    15
    Ogsbury, James, Executive Director, Western Governors'
      Association....................................................    20
    Sgamma, Kathleen, Vice President of Government & Public Affairs,
      Western Energy Alliance........................................    27
    Squillace, Mark, Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law
      School.........................................................    33

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    American Exploration & Mining Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    88
    American Petroleum Institute:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   122
    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
        Washington Post article dated June 20, 2016 entitled
          ``Interior chief warns 70,000 employees: Sexual harassment
          is `completely out of line with our values' ''.............    52
    Kane County, Utah Board of Commissioners, et al:
        Letter for the Record........................................   125
    Kornze, Hon. Neil:
        Opening Statement............................................     7
        Written Testimony............................................    10
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    72
    Magagna, Jim:
        Opening Statement............................................    15
        Written Testimony............................................    17
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
        Written Statement............................................     3
    Ogsbury, James:
        Opening Statement............................................    20
        Written Testimony............................................    22
        Response to Question from Senator Gardner....................    58
    Sgamma, Kathleen:
        Opening Statement............................................    27
        Written Testimony............................................    29
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    86
    Squillace, Mark:
        Opening Statement............................................    33
        Written Testimony............................................    35
        Supplemental Letter for the Record...........................   132

            THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT'S PLANNING 2.0 INITIATIVE

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
             Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John
    Barrasso, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM
                                WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. This Subcommittee meeting will come to
    order.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the Bureau of
    Land Management's proposed rule which is called Planning 2.0.
        Before I give my opening statement I would like to turn the
    time over to the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Murkowski.

       STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        The Chairman. Senator Barrasso, thank you. I apologize to
    our witnesses and to those in attendance today. I have a
    commitment with the Inter-parliamentary group from Canada, and
    I am supposed to speak over there as well.
        I would like to, if I may, take a couple moments and just
    enter this statement into the record, but first thank all the
    witnesses for joining us here this afternoon.
        As you state, Mr. Chairman, the focus of today's hearing is
    to provide oversight on the BLM's proposed land use planning
    rule, Planning 2.0, which will make broad changes to how the
    agency will issue resource management plans moving forward.
        For an initiative that claims to engage state and local
    governments early in the process, Planning 2.0 is certainly
    taking a lot of heat right now.
        The BLM outlines its engagement process online including a
    webinar and two public meetings that occurred prior to the
    development of the proposed rule. While the agency may feel
    that they met the FLPMA requirements for outreach, our state
    governments, especially my colleagues in Alaska, largely
    disagree. Instead they have told me their voices have been
    ignored as evidenced by the product BLM noticed in the Federal
    Register.
        BLM is currently obligated to establish management plans
    that are consistent with state, local and tribal management
    practices. Under the proposed rule the time period for
    consistency review is limited to 60 days and the scope is
    restricted to officially approved and adopted.
        This is particularly troublesome for folks in Alaska as the
    BLM has yet to fulfill Alaska's entitlement requirements, thus
    making it impossible for the state to adopt and improve plans
    for lands it has yet to receive.
        As written, the proposed rule makes some sweeping changes
    to both the current resource management planning process and
    the opportunities for public engagement. The drastic changes in
    the process and the elimination of opportunities for formal,
    public comment, along with the exclusion of several
    transparency requirements are alarming to say the least.
        While BLM attempts to justify many of these changes in the
    name of streamlining, I am concerned the long-term result may
    be a longer process with state, local and tribal governments,
    as well as interested stakeholders, deprived of opportunities
    to engage in the process in a meaningful way.
        In its proposed rule, BLM includes the definition of
    mitigation. To explain that mitigation includes the sequence of
    avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts and compensating for
    remaining unavoidable impacts.
        For the first time in a proposed planning regulation, BLM
    specifically states, ``By including this proposed definition in
    the planning regulations, the BLM acknowledges that this
    sequence also applies to the planning process.''
        The emphasis on mitigation, specifically as a means of
    compensating for unavoidable impacts, is problematic as it
    moves the agency away from its mission of multiple use.
        Finally, I would like to speak to one of the purported
    primary goals of the proposed rule which is to enable the BLM
    to readily access landscape scale resource issues. While I
    concur with the BLM that the current planning process is far
    from perfect, I am not convinced that the solution to all
    present planning issues lie in landscape scale plans as we have
    seen in the sage grouse plan of late.
        I am particularly concerned about including Alaska in
    multiple state plans. While Alaskans certainly love our
    neighbors in the lower 48, there are certain Federal laws that
    apply only to Alaska that do not apply elsewhere and
    specifically cover Federal lands. Thus, this could prove quite
    problematic in developing a broad RMP that covered say our
    migratory bird plan for the Western United States.
        So again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you giving me an
    opportunity to say a few words. I thank you for conducting this
    very, very important hearing on these issues and thank the
    witnesses again.
        [The written statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
    appreciate you taking the time to be here. I think it is going
    to be an interesting hearing because the BLM has been
    describing this Planning 2.0 as a simple initiative to so-
    called increase public involvement and incorporate the most
    current data and technology into its land use planning.
        There is no doubt that the BLM's current planning process
    is often cumbersome. It is inefficient. But I am concerned that
    instead of actually increasing public involvement and
    streamlining the planning process, this Planning 2.0 process
    will be less efficient, will be more costly and will
    marginalize experts who are integral to public land management.
    Those are real concerns, and I hear them in Wyoming.
        The agency seems to think that the proposed rule is a
    simple clarification of the planning process but this is not
    the case. What Planning 2.0 proposes would fundamentally alter
    the way that state, local, tribal, local governments,
    stakeholders and general public engage in the public land
    management planning process.
        As written, Planning 2.0 will effectively ignore expert
    knowledge in both local agency offices and among local land
    users, and I believe, compromise the ability of state and local
    governments to represent the people and the resources in their
    own districts.
        In an effort to make its goal of a transition to what is
    called, ``landscape scale planning,'' BLM proposes to shift
    authority from local and district offices to Washington, DC.
    Now I appreciate that the BLM wants to make management plans
    more cohesive among local offices, but developing sweeping
    landscape-scale plans from the Director's office in Washington,
    DC, I believe, is going to result in a failure to utilize
    valuable, localized knowledge of ecosystems and resources. This
    change would result in plans that do not reflect the on the
    ground realities and ultimately, will disenfranchise
    knowledgeable, local agency employees.
        It won't just be agency personnel who are overlooked. In
    the proposed rule, BLM seems to recognize the need for improved
    stakeholder involvement in the planning process, but
    unfortunately, the proposed changes will, in my mind, decrease
    stakeholder involvement at crucial points in the planning
    process and will further extend planned development times that
    are already much too long.
        The BLM seems to think that the addition of the ``planning
    assessment'' period at the beginning of the planning process
    would help agency officials understand how the public feels.
    What the agency clearly fails to realize, however, is that if
    planning is kept at the local and the state offices' level,
    then officials developing the plans should already be aware of
    public opinion before the process even begins.
        Formalizing this preemptive planning assessment period
    seems to be a justification for regional or Federal agency
    employees to implement a top-down land management agenda.
        Introduction of public comment on preliminary alternatives
    before a draft resource management plan is published will only
    increase the time it takes to complete a resource management
    plan and, in my view, will provide no added benefit. How can
    the public or any relevant stakeholder be expected to comment
    on proposed alternatives when the details of the plan have yet
    to be determined?
        I am not sure if Senator Wyden is a bit delayed. He may
    come, and I will give him an opportunity at that point to make
    opening remarks.
        Senator Daines, at this time, would you like to add any
    opening remarks or to wait until the questioning?
        Thank you.
        I appreciate the wonderful witnesses who are here with us
    today.
        We are going to have Mr. Neil Kornze, who is the Director
    of the Bureau of Land Management; Jim Magagna, who is the
    Executive Director of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association;
    Mr. James Ogsbury, who is the Director of the Western
    Governors' Association; Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, who is the Vice
    President of Public and Government Affairs for the Western
    Energy Alliance; and Mr. Mark Squillace, who is a Professor of
    Law at the University of Colorado Law School.
        Before turning to our first witness, I would like to take a
    moment to thank my friend, Jim Magagna, for being here today. A
    native of Rock Springs, Wyoming, Jim has served as the
    Executive Director for the Wyoming Stock Growers Association
    since 1998. He is a veteran witness before congressional
    Committees. He provides an invaluable perspective on all things
    related to agriculture and public land management. So I am
    happy, Jim, that you could join us today to share your thoughts
    with us and with the rest of the panel.
        I would like to remind the witnesses that your full written
    testimony will be made part of the official hearing record.
    Please keep your statements to five minutes so that we may have
    time for questions.
        Director Kornze, please proceed.

        STATEMENT OF HON. NEIL KORNZE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
              MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Kornze. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and members of the
    Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony
    on the Bureau of Land Management's proposed update to its land
    use planning rule.
        The BLM manages ten percent of the land in the United
    States and 30 percent of the nation's minerals and soils.
        Land use plans form the basis for every on-the-ground
    action that the BLM authorizes or undertakes. That's why it's
    critical, not just to the BLM but to communities throughout the
    nation, that we have an effective land use planning process
    that includes meaningful public process.
        Since the BLM first implemented its land use planning rule
    in 1979, pressures on BLM-administered lands have increased and
    management conflicts have grown. As a result, the current land
    use planning process encounters more delays, higher expenses
    and expanded legal challenges.
        We have heard from numerous governments and individuals
    that the BLM's notoriously long planning processes make them
    feel disconnected from the agency's work.
        One of the first meetings I took as the head of this agency
    was with Governor Herbert of Utah. In that conversation he told
    both me and Secretary Jewell that the BLM's planning process is
    broken because completing the land use plan could take a decade
    or more. He said something must be done to make these processes
    more timely and transparent. I understand his concerns, and I
    agree. It's essential that we have a planning process that is
    timely, open and focused on issues that matter to the people of
    each of the communities that are impacted.
        That's why we started the Planning 2.0 initiative. Input
    from Governor Herbert and many others served as a catalyst for
    the BLM to modernize its land use planning process.
        The proposed rule under consideration today is the
    culmination of over two years of outreach and discussion with
    state and local governments, communities and the public. During
    those two years the BLM held public meetings and accepted
    comments from more than 6,000 local governments, groups and
    individuals. With this updated rule the BLM aims to address the
    concerns of governments and the public by accomplishing two
    primary goals.
        First, the proposed rule would establish more meaningful
    opportunities for governments and the public to be involved
    earlier and more often in the land use planning process. By
    providing earlier and more regular check-ins and opportunities
    for dialog, we believe that our planning process will be more
    transparent and more relevant to the challenges facing counties
    and towns across the country.
        Second, by building our planning efforts on a more complete
    set of information, we are confident that the need for late in
    the game supplementation will be greatly diminished. In turn,
    we will be able to finish our planning efforts in a timelier
    fashion and put our energy and staff time into on-the-ground
    projects with our partners.
        Under the proposed rule, government entities that have
    either relevant jurisdiction or special expertise would
    continue to be invited to participate as cooperating agencies.
    Cooperating agencies work closely with BLM in every stage of
    the planning process to identify issues that should be
    addressed, to collect and analyze data, to develop and evaluate
    alternatives and to review preliminary documents.
        This unique partnership ensures that the BLM has all the
    information necessary to develop a land use plan that is
    responsive to the needs and concerns of local communities. The
    BLM is committed to continuing its close collaboration with
    these government entities as part of the land use planning
    process.
        Now our stakeholders told us that there was room for
    improvement in the way that we work, and we agree. Without
    close working relationships with communities that we serve, the
    BLM cannot develop and maintain appropriate and effective
    plans. The updated approach that we have in front of us today
    would provide for more public involvement earlier in the
    process, allow the BLM to better address local needs and to
    deal with changing land and resource conditions.
        Updating our process will more fully involve local
    governments and the public and ensure that the BLM will have a
    stronger hand in maintaining and living up to its multiple use
    and sustained yield mission.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you today,
    and I would be glad to answer questions from the Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kornze follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Kornze.
        Mr. Magagna?

      STATEMENT OF JIM MAGAGNA, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, WYOMING
                       STOCK GROWERS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Magagna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    your kind words of introduction.
        I believe it's useful to our discussion of our concerns
    with the planning rule to place it in the context of the
    evolution of the relationship between the BLM and the public
    land ranching industry.
        Prior to the middle of the last century, grazing was
    considered just a use of the land. As we evolved during the
    1960's and beyond with some of the environmental laws that were
    passed in this country, we came to recognize grazing, not just
    as a use of the land, but as a tool for managing the land and
    real strong partnerships developed between public land ranchers
    and local BLM range personnel and BLM decision makers based on
    bringing some new science to the practice of grazing and
    working together on the land, not on paper, but on the land.
    And it, livestock grazing, was recognized within the agency
    itself as being an important tool in meeting the resource
    management goals of the agency.
        We are very concerned as an industry that several of the
    changes proposed in Planning 2.0 will further erode this
    partnership with the agency that worked toward achieving
    sustainable resource management.
        A central component of Planning 2.0 includes a concept of
    landscape level planning. We find several dangers inherent in
    this approach. Attempts to implement broad management plans
    will necessarily often result in less attention to the resource
    management needs of a particular land area. Landscape level
    planning moves the input in decision-making process further
    from those agency personnel with a working knowledge of the
    resource, the resource challenges and the resource dependent
    community. The removal of well-defined roles of BLM state
    directors and field office managers in favor of ``deciding
    officials'' and responsible officials, only serves to increase
    the uncertainty and distrust that had been growing among
    resource dependent constituencies. Landscape level planning
    will significantly reduce the ability of local governments,
    resource dependent users such as grazing permittees, and the
    local public to engage in and influence the planning process.
        A second component of Planning 2.0 addresses so-called
    improved opportunities for public input. While Planning 2.0 may
    engage a greater breadth of the public to provide input, it
    actually significantly lessens the ability of those most
    directly involved in multiple use of the resource and,
    therefore, most significantly impacted to have meaningful
    substantive impact. One example of this is the reduction in the
    minimum formal comment periods from 90 days to 60 days in terms
    of the draft proposed plan. Even today with 90 days there are
    typically requests for extended periods of time. Those are
    often granted. If we reduce this to 60 days, those requests
    will increase.
        We're expediting the process but only in terms of the
    opportunities for public input. In part because grazing
    permittees, many of whom who have multiplied generational
    commitments to stewardship for the public lands, have been
    relegated to no greater opportunity for engagement than that of
    the public. We have become increasingly dependent on state and
    local governments to represent our interest in the planning
    process. While the rule acknowledges the role of these local
    entities, it is filled with undefined terms that provide BLM
    multiple escape routes from full cooperation. These include
    cooperation where possible and appropriate, collaboration as
    feasible and appropriate and consistency to the maximum extent
    that the BLM finds practical.
        Another goal of Planning 2.0 is to increase the agency's
    ability to respond to social and environmental change in a
    timely manner, we find it very difficult to reconcile this
    stated goal with the BLM's mandate to manage for multiple use
    and sustained yield.
        Finally, BLM Planning 2.0 replaces the requirement that BLM
    identifies a single, preferred alternative with the opportunity
    to identify one or more preferred alternatives. This, again,
    will further burden affected constituencies in providing input
    and will actually extend rather than shorten that process.
        So in summary, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee,
    beyond Planning 2.0 will complicate effective resource planning
    while reducing opportunities for meaningful public and local
    government input and lessening local agency decision-making
    authority. It will further challenge the public land rancher
    while eroding our partnership with local BLM personnel in
    ensuring resource sustainability that contributes to the long
    term viability of our industry.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Magagna follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Magagna.
        Mr. Ogsbury?

        STATEMENT OF JAMES OGSBURY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WESTERN
                         GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Ogsbury. Chairman Barrasso, members of the Committee,
    my name is Jim Ogsbury. I'm the Executive Director of the
    Western Governors' Association, an independent, bipartisan
    association, representing 19 Western Governors and three U.S.
    flag islands.
        When it comes to the development of an administration of
    Federal public policy, Western Governors are duly concerned and
    often frustrated when they are regarded or treated as common
    stakeholders.
        Governors, the Chief Executive Officers of their states,
    are much more than that. States are sovereigns. Governors have
    constitutional responsibilities, delegated authorities and on-
    the-ground knowledge about their state's economies and cultures
    and environments. Their expertise and their perspectives should
    be brought to bear in the design and execution of Federal
    programs.
        The governors are particularly anxious to operate as
    authentic partners with Federal agencies in the implementation
    of programs that have demonstrable impacts on state authority.
    States, for example, possess primary police powers to manage
    most fish and wildlife within their boundaries. Likewise,
    states have primary authority over the management over water
    resources within their borders and they possess plenary
    authority over groundwater.
        Because of the management of Federal lands implicates these
    authorities and because the Bureau of Land Management owns such
    a vast amount of land in the West, the governors are deeply
    invested in the agency's processes for the development of
    resource management plans.
        Moreover, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
    FLPMA, recognizes this investment and mandates a substantial
    role for governors in the BLM planning process. Unfortunately,
    the proposed Planning 2.0 rule fails to honor the role of
    governors in this process and instead diminishes it in
    significant respects.
        With respect to states, FLPMA says in relevant part that
    the Secretary of Interior shall, ``coordinate the land use
    inventory, planning and management activities of or for such
    lands with the land use planning and management programs of
    states. The Secretary shall provide for meaningful public
    involvement of state officials in the development of land use
    programs, land use regulations and land use decisions for
    public lands. Land use plans of the Secretary under this
    section shall be consistent with state plans to the maximum
    extent he finds consistent with Federal law.''
        Planning 2.0 changes the existing implementing regulations
    in ways that diminish gubernatorial authority and influence.
    Whereas, current regulations provide that BLM shall strive for
    consistency between resource management plans and resource-
    related policies, plans, programs and processes of states. The
    proposed regulation would only consider consistencies between
    RMPs and officially adopted land use plans, significantly
    narrowing the influence of Governors.
        Furthermore, the proposal eliminates the existing
    regulatory directive the BLM accept a governor's
    recommendations submitted as part of his or her consistency
    review if they provide for a reasonable balance between the
    Nation's interest and that of the state. Under 2.0 the Director
    is directed to simply consider governors' views. By eliminating
    the current provision and failing to provide criteria or
    standards for the review of gubernatorial input, it appears
    that BLM is investing itself with great, perhaps unfettered,
    discretion to disregard governors' recommendations.
        Western Governors are concerned about several provisions
    that shorten timelines for public comment and obviate the need
    to publish notices in the Federal Register. The agency has
    suggested that comment periods are appropriately reduced
    because the proposed rule includes new opportunities for the
    public to participate early on in the planning process, such as
    the new planning assessment phase. These additional
    opportunities, however much they may operate to elevate the
    role of the public and non-government organizations in resource
    planning, do nothing to promote coordination between the states
    and the agency rather, governors are treated like any other
    stakeholder.
        Planning 2.0 includes new provisions calling for the use of
    high quality information. It is disappointing that the proposal
    fails to acknowledge the value of state science, data and
    analysis despite the congressional directive. For the past
    three years the Federal land management agencies use state
    information, at least with respect to wildlife data as a
    principle basis for land management decisions.
        There is little disagreement that the resource management
    planning process of BLM could be greatly improved. Accordingly,
    Western Governors are prepared to work with BLM as authentic
    and invested partners in the development and execution of a
    planning process that redounds the benefit of individual
    states, the American West and our great nation.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ogsbury follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Ms. Sgamma?

     STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN SGAMMA, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT &
                PUBLIC AFFAIRS, WESTERN ENERGY ALLIANCE

        Ms. Sgamma. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President of Government and Public
    Affairs for Western Energy Alliance. We represent oil and
    natural gas producers all across the West.
        We believe Planning 2.0 will upend the balance enacted by
    Congress in FLPMA. It's converting it away from principles of
    multiple use and sustained yield and into those of conservation
    or preservation, excuse me, only.
        A preservation only agenda is about locking public lands
    away from human uses, other than recreation. It's meant to
    drive out activities like energy development and grazing, and
    it treats people who live and work in the West as inconvenient
    and their livelihoods as unimportant. Simply put, it is about
    putting wildlife and other resource values above people.
        Of course, we all know that wildlife, rivers and ecosystems
    don't respect state borders. Stating such has been a primary
    talking point from the Interior Department, as if that is some
    new revelation.
        Asserting a new buzz word, landscape level planning, is
    also not particularly enlightening. The implication of this
    messaging is that the Federal Government is needed to step in
    and do something that the states aren't doing. In actuality,
    Western states have been conserving resources on a landscape
    level for decades, well before the term was coined.
        Since at least 1954 states have been working together on
    the greater sage grouse. They've been working since the 1920's
    on many other non-boundary respecting species through WAFWA,
    the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. They've
    been working together for over 100 years to manage water in
    rivers that obviously flow across state boundaries.
        Clearly, the Federal Government is late to the game. In
    fact, it's as if the Federal Government is coming--arriving
    late to the game and not knowing the unwritten rules that
    everyone follows, then suddenly comes up with new rules and
    then complains that everybody isn't following those rules.
        In reality the states have been balancing conservation with
    economic opportunity for its citizens, but it's being treated
    by the Federal Government as if it doesn't know how to handle
    those affairs.
        Let me be clear. I'm talking about the political leadership
    that is promoting the environmental lobby's preservation only
    agenda. Many of the personnel actually in the field and on-the-
    ground have been working in Western states for decades,
    collaborating with state fish and wildlife agencies, county
    land planners and other local stakeholders and trying to do the
    right thing.
        However, BLM and other agencies are being pushed away from
    that practical Western collaboration by Washington and those
    ascribing to the preservation only agenda are being pushed
    further down the hierarchy.
        We appreciate the frankness of one such BLM employee at the
    March 25th meeting in Denver, the outreach meeting on Planning
    2.0, who said that Planning 2.0 is 21st century conservation,
    that is preservation only.
        BLM is conducting Planning 2.0 as if it can just wipe the
    slate clean and plan without respecting the realities on-the-
    ground and prior commitments such as oil and natural gas
    leases, grazing permits, community access roads and other
    inconvenient human uses. It's about upending the balance that
    Congress created in FLPMA. That balance has conserved many
    millions of acres while enabling productive activities on
    appropriate multiple use lands. Those productive uses sustain
    Western rural communities while providing Americans with the
    food, fuel and fiber upon which their lives are based.
        My full testimony and our comments on the proposed rule
    contains several details on how the initiative will result in
    many new layers of overlapping NEPA analysis that BLM is not
    equipped to handle, particularly with all the other rules and
    mitigation policies that it's working on and how the proposed
    rule would actually diminish and not expand the level of public
    participation.
        I look forward to questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Sgamma follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much for your testimony.
        Mr. Squillace?

     STATEMENT OF MARK SQUILLACE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF
                          COLORADO LAW SCHOOL

        Mr. Squillace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    Committee. My name is Mark Squillace. I'm a Professor of Law at
    the University of Colorado Law School, and I appreciate the
    opportunity to share some thoughts with you today about the
    Planning 2.0 initiative.
        Let me begin by congratulating the BLM on undertaking this
    land use planning effort. I think it's an important initiative
    that, frankly, is long overdue. But despite my general support
    for this initiative, I think there's much that could be
    improved.
        I want to focus my testimony on two particular matters. The
    first being the landscape level planning issue that's been
    discussed by several witnesses.
        I also want to talk about something that has not really
    been discussed yet today, and that is the efforts toward
    adaptive management which, I think, are an important part of
    any reform in land use planning.
        When I think of landscape level planning I think about
    Major John Wesley Powell. If you go back and think about
    Powell, he was the guy who did the original exploration of the
    Colorado River and wrote a report about the Western United
    States in which he included a map that suggested that the West
    be divided up according to river basins. I'd like to think of
    Powell as, maybe, the first landscape ecologist, although he
    didn't talk in those terms.
        But Powell, I think, understood the importance of bringing
    our political geography in harmony with our natural geography,
    and I think that's something that's missing today out of our
    land use planning process. I think this initiative by the BLM
    at least has the potential to try to move us farther in that
    direction.
        I want to highlight one important advantage of landscape
    level planning that I think has been overlooked so far in the
    testimony. If you think about what would happen with landscape
    level planning it's going to bring the BLM into an analysis,
    not only of the BLM landscape, but of other land use plans by
    state and local officials at the same time. And so, the
    concerns about consistency reviews could be basically played
    out and understood right at the beginning of the planning
    process before we ever got to unit level planning. I think
    that's a huge advantage because the BLM would then proactively
    be identifying conflicts and working with the states to try to
    resolve those conflicts before we even got to unit level
    planning.
        I want to emphasize that landscape planning is only one
    part of the process. I've, sort of, suggested that there might
    be four different levels in which we think of planning. There's
    the landscape level, there's the unit level, there's the
    resource level, and then there's the project level. At least
    four different ways in which we think about different decision-
    making.
        But I do want to emphasize something that's important here
    which has been brought up by Chairman Barrasso and others about
    the complexity of the process. It's not working. I think
    Governor Herbert is right that the planning process is broken
    the way that it works.
        What our plans need to do is they need to be able to adapt
    and they need to be able to engage the public in a meaningful
    way. When it takes five years or more to develop a land use
    plan, that just isn't happening.
        I've used the word nimble. I think our land use plans need
    to be nimble. When they take so long to develop they are simply
    not nimble, and they need to be improved.
        These uncluttered plans will also really, I think, offer an
    opportunity to better engage the public. Right now it's only
    professionals that can really participate in land use planning
    processes. We really need a simpler process that allows the
    public to be engaged.
        Let me briefly turn to the issue of adaptive management
    before closing my oral testimony. Adaptive management is this
    idea that the scientists talk about as learning by doing. It's
    an important, I think, advance in the way we think about land
    use planning because it allows us to, sort of, give up some of
    the detail and complexity at the front end in terms of the
    environmental assessment and the plan itself in exchange for
    committing ourselves to adapting at the back end after the plan
    is implemented, agreeing to make changes to the plan as we
    learn more information from the experience of actually
    implementing the plan.
        I think the proposed rules that the BLM has promoted take
    us part of the way in the direction of adaptive management.
    They do talk about various kinds of plans having provisions
    that are specific and measurable and time bound objectives that
    can help for us to get part of the way.
        What the current proposed rules do not do, however, is to
    focus on the importance of monitoring and evaluating and
    determining whether or not these objectives are actually being
    met. I think if we go that additional step, we will have taken
    a big, a leap toward better adaptive management.
        I want to thank the Committee again for the opportunity to
    speak today. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Squillace follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for being here. Thank
    all of you for your testimony, your time, and your
    thoughtfulness.
        I am going to turn to my colleagues in a second for
    questions.
        Mr. Kornze, first, there was an article I was surprised to
    see in the Washington Post today, on page A15. The Interior
    Secretary warns staff about harassment, a pretty large article
    in the Post.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The article says that Secretary Jewell apparently warned
    70,000 Federal employees to ``comply with the ethical
    responsibilities expected of all Federal employees.'' According
    to the article, this is a result of sexual harassment,
    scientific misconduct and data manipulation affecting research
    projects worth more than $100 million and other violations of
    ethics standards.
        I was just wondering what you are doing to address this
    issue at the BLM and ensure that your agency employees uphold
    their ethical responsibilities?
        Mr. Kornze. Well, I appreciate the question and these are
    very serious issues.
        A number of weeks ago, perhaps a month ago, I sent out my
    own note to all 10,000 BLM employees noting the importance of
    promoting an ethical culture within our organization. Folks
    have known the importance of transparency, following the rules,
    respecting one another, and these are issues in conversations
    that are continuing in a very real way within all of the
    agencies within the Department.
        Senator Barrasso. It seems that the National Park Service
    is conducting an anonymous survey of all their full time,
    seasonal, and temporary employees to get a handle on the
    problem. Is that something you are considering for BLM as well?
        Mr. Kornze. We are considering it.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Daines?
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
    this hearing today.
        I am an avid sportsman, as are most Montanans. I enjoy our
    public lands with my kids, and it is something I want to pass
    that legacy down to as well.
        I am also just struck as I sit here today and looked at a
    quick little map here and probably should have brought a map
    around where the BLM lands are. It is very, very white as it
    relates to--I have a map here that shows BLM lands as yellow.
    If you look, draw a line north and south basically on the
    eastern border of Montana, go down the east border of Wyoming,
    east border of Colorado and the east border of New Mexico,
    there is nothing as relates to BLM lands going to the east with
    just a little bit of smidgen in North Dakota, South Dakota.
        It is no coincidence, perhaps, we sit here. It is Wyoming,
    it is Alaska, it is Utah, it is Idaho, it is Montana, it is
    Colorado, it is Arizona that are here today.
        Mr. Kornze. Yeah.
        Senator Daines. I was struck with Mr. Ogsbury's comment as
    well on the importance of our Governors, the frustration we
    have out West that our voices are not being heard.
        With all due respect, we have many members in this
    Committee, the full Committee, from Vermont, from
    Massachusetts, from states that do not have lands that are
    classified as BLM. That is why you see a lot of interest here
    today, I think, from those who are affected every day, who hear
    from our ranchers, our sportsmen, our farmers, those in the
    energy business as well.
        As I have said in Montana, we are a blend of John Denver
    and Merle Haggard. You have to find that melody that we want to
    be able to raise our kids in our state and allow them to get
    jobs so they can stay in our state. Our number one export in
    Montana is our children. We educate them and then they have to
    leave because we are 49th in per capita wages, and so that is
    why these discussions really, really matter.
        I was in the software business for a number of years.
    Anytime there was an upgrade from 1.0 to 2.0 oftentimes
    customers would be excited about that. Other customers would
    run for cover knowing here comes the upgrade. What is going to
    happen here as things will break or the upgrade was not as it
    was promised to be.
        The decisions that are made by BLM have wide ranging
    implications for our farmers or ranchers and others' use of
    land and our sportsmen as well. That is why I think
    transparency, local engagement throughout the process is of
    utmost importance.
        We have heard from Director Kornze today that the new BLM
    2.0 plan gives added participation for vested interested
    groups. But when I am talking to folks who work in the energy
    and ag businesses in Montana, multigenerational Montanans,
    listening to the other testimony today and reading the comments
    from the BLM comment period, I tell you, I am hearing something
    a little bit different.
        That is why, again, it is pretty quiet here on the other
    side of Senator Barrasso because most of states do not have BLM
    lands. It is pretty active over here because we all do.
        Thousands of jobs can be at stake because the BLM does not
    always give due consideration to the people who responsibly use
    the land every day and have been doing so for generations.
        Ms. Sgamma, can you address the discrepancies that I heard
    between Montanans and Director Kornze and what you think needs
    to be done in order to ensure the impacts of BLM 2.0 planning
    rule on the people who use the land are reflected and
    adequately addressed in this process?
        Ms. Sgamma. Well, I would reverse the diminishment of
    elected officials in the process, first and foremost. County
    commissioners, city councils, those directly in rural
    communities and local communities in the West affected should
    have a greater voice, just as Mr. Ogsbury has pointed out, the
    governors' roles are diminished as well.
        When you look at things landscape scale and ignore things
    like counties and put conditions on their participation, that
    is diminishing the role of the public and giving it more to
    special interests, frankly.
        When you take away the local elected officials and the
    state elected officials and give it to special interests, you
    know, you're really just taking away from those who actually
    represent the public in all facets of life, from conservation
    to economic.
        Thank you for the question.
        Senator Daines. Director Kornze, I obviously want to get
    your input here. As grazing permittees and lessees have
    contractual relationships with the BLM, makes their livelihoods
    off the land, they are integral partners with BLM in managing
    and improving ranges across Montana and the West. They have a
    distinctive and integral role to play in this.
        With that in mind, do you view grazing permittees as having
    a vested interest in BLM's RMP development process and a unique
    relationship with BLM relative to other interested stakeholders
    or the public at large?
        Mr. Kornze. Okay. Well, thank you, Senator, for the
    opportunity to reply on some of this. And one thing I want to
    point out is we've had some fantastic engagement with we're
    piloting this effort at a number of places. One of them is our
    Missoula plan. We've recently received very positive, glowing
    remarks from the Missoula County Commissioners and from Lewis
    and Clark County Commissioners.
        So there are Montanans on all sides of this issue, and
    we've had some real progress that we're making an example of
    this working.
        Senator Daines. Right, and thank you for that. I will just
    say you have touched two counties. There are 54 more to go.
        Mr. Kornze. There are.
        Senator Daines. If you look at a balanced view here of
    making sure you are getting all counties represented in the
    voice.
        Mr. Kornze. Yes.
        Senator Daines. With all due respect, thank you.
        Mr. Kornze. But there are three counties that are involved
    in the planning process, and we've heard from two and it's been
    thumbs up. So that's the point that I'm trying to make.
        Related to grazers, grazers are playing an important role
    in the land. There are some very important tools that come with
    grazing, sometimes when it comes to fire and other management
    programs that we have. So, you know, we've considered that an
    important relationship.
        If grazers want to be part of resource management planning,
    which we hope they do, we want them at the table. We see them
    and talk to them, you know, very regularly, as you know. So
    that's a relationship that's important to us.
        Senator Daines. Okay, thank you, Director Kornze.
        I am out of time. Thanks.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Gardner?
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    all the witnesses for being here today, particularly the number
    from Colorado. So welcome to the Energy Committee. Mr.
    Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
        Mr. Kornze, I wanted to just follow up with a few of the
    things that you had talked about in your opening comments.
        You talked about local communities, local leaders, farmers,
    local ranchers, feeling disconnected from the agency, and you
    mentioned Governor Herbert and his concern with the BLM
    planning process. Now Governor Herbert does not support this
    rule as it is written today, does he?
        Mr. Kornze. We've received comments from the State of Utah
    with some concerns, but, you know, this is----
        Senator Gardner. But I mean, that is why--it sounds like in
    your opening statement when you talk about I agree with
    Governor Herbert. It is a little bit misleading to say that
    this rule, then, is a result of a conversation you had with
    Governor Herbert because I think they have the same objections
    that you are going to hear from Wyoming, from Colorado, from
    Montana, and from Arizona. And I also----
        Mr. Kornze. We've received comments from a lot of
    government, governors, governments, saying that we need a more
    transparent process. So the average BLM planning process takes
    eight years.
        Senator Gardner. To----
        Mr. Kornze. Eight years, and that's the average.
        Senator Gardner. Mr. Ogsbury, how many governors in the
    Western Governors' Association support the rule as written
    today?
        Mr. Ogsbury. I would have to--Chairman Barrasso, Senator
    Gardner, members of the Committee, I would ask leave to respond
    for the record so I could give a thoughtful and accurate
    answer.

        [The information referred to follows:]

        Response for the record from Mr. Jim Ogsbury to Senator
    Garner's Question:
        No governors have communicated their support of BLM's
    proposed Planning 2.0 rule to the Western Governors'
    Association.

        Senator Gardner. But I think it is fair to say that the
    majority of Western governors do not support the plan, the
    rule, as it is written. Is that correct?
        Mr. Ogsbury. Western Governors' Association has submitted
    detailed comments on the rule that express very serious
    concerns and reservations about it, about its provisions.
        Senator Gardner. And some of those reservations the
    governors do not believe that they are authentic partners, that
    it allows room for consistency with state plans and I believe,
    it creates unfettered discretion by BLM to ignore the
    governors' comments. That is some of the testimony you
    provided, correct?
        Mr. Ogsbury. Those are among the concerns, yes, sir.
        Senator Gardner. That sounds like a pretty strong
    condemnation of the rule. I have to tell you I have traveled
    throughout Colorado, Dolores County, Garfield, Gunnison,
    Hinsdale, Jackson, Mesa, Moffat, Montezuma, Montrose, and Rio
    Blanco, Club 20, Western Governors' Association, a number of
    people who are very concerned about this rule as it is written.
        Some of their overarching themes of concern, prioritization
    of single use of multiple use, proposed change for cooperating
    agency status qualifying--I mean, Mr. Kornze, do you think that
    a Garfield County Commissioner should have more say in Garfield
    County than an NGO in New York City over what happens on BLM
    lands?
        Mr. Kornze. So there is no change to cooperating agency
    status proposed here.
        Senator Gardner. I think some would disagree with you here.
    I think a number of people would disagree with you on how that
    cooperating agency status works.
        But do you think, from a standpoint of philosophy, that an
    NGO in New York City should not have as much opinion or sway or
    clout over what happens on BLM land in Garfield County than a
    Garfield County Commissioner?
        Mr. Kornze. So the Organic Act that we have for the agency
    tells us that counties and states, other local governments
    should be the closest to us.
        Senator Gardner. Right.
        Mr. Kornze. So, but let me lay out the challenge that we
    have here. The average BLM resource plan takes eight years,
    average. It can take 10, 12, 13 years to complete one of these
    plans.
        What Governor Herbert commented to me was that you could
    have two or three turnovers in your county commission during
    that time. Right? So the folks that come into the scoping
    process don't have the time to track the 12 or 13 years later
    that their comments have been successfully incorporated into
    what we've been working on.
        So that's a lot of time. It's too much time. It's also a
    lot of money that we're spending on that process that I would
    prefer to spend on projects on the ground, working with your
    constituents.
        So that question that we asked our team is how do we make
    this go faster? And the answer that they brought back to us is
    we should add more process up front because where we get caught
    up and where we trip very often is people bring new information
    to the table and we have to supplement and it adds years and
    years to the process.
        So what you see in front of you and what all of us have in
    front of us with this proposal, this is an honest, genuine
    effort and an open effort, right? We are not, these are not
    final answers. This is a proposal that we're seeking comment
    and input on. So we're very happy to have this hearing today.
    But this is an honest effort to figure out how do we go faster?
    How do we make this more transparent?
        I think the gentleman's comment about this, about planning
    documents which can be a thousand to many thousands of pages
    long, turning this more into professionalized business is
    relevant. And so----
        Senator Gardner. We are running out of time here.
        Mr. Kornze. Yes, yes.
        Senator Gardner. I have a couple of questions here.
        Mr. Kornze. Very quickly, we're essentially, there's two
    big changes here.
        One, we want to start with a process where we ask all our
    local partners, towns, counties, others, to bring the best
    science and best data forward. That's the new foundation we
    want to build. We think it will be stronger.
        And the second piece is between our scoping process and our
    draft EIS we want to be more transparent. We want to take a
    document to your county and others and say, these are the basic
    concepts we're exploring. Are we headed in a good direction
    here? Because if we're not we want to understand how you're
    thinking about it different.
        Senator Gardner. Can you give me a definition of what high
    quality information means?
        Mr. Kornze. So high quality information relates to guidance
    from OMB. It encapsulates best available science. It relates
    to, let's see, I've got a note here.
        You know, information that is yes, reliable----
        Senator Gardner. Well, here is the thing, I mean----
        Mr. Kornze. Accurate.
        Senator Gardner. So we have the length of time it takes to
    get a plan. You have counties that maybe have one employee
    trying to address these issues.
        Mr. Kornze. Exactly.
        Senator Gardner. They are having to rely on bigger counties
    to address these issues. There is very little turnover in the
    agencies that are having to deal with this. I think this is
    putting tremendous stress on so many of our counties in
    Colorado and beyond that are heavily, heavily outnumbered in
    terms of private acres versus public acres. In terms of public
    acres more, far more, than private land.
        This is not something that I have people calling my office
    and saying please embrace this rule. Maybe there are one or two
    people, one or two organizations, not from Colorado. Maybe a
    few organizations in Colorado, but the vast majority of those
    public land counties that I speak to have grave concerns with
    this.
        We were looking at a map here about the BLM, the public
    lands in the Western United States. Do you think it is time
    that we move the BLM headquarters to the Western part of the
    United States? [Laughter.]
        Mr. Kornze. I would be open to that conversation.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        Senator Flake?
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Director Kornze, could you tell me what the role of the
    Resource Advisory Councils are?
        Mr. Kornze. Our Resource Advisory Councils play an
    important role in terms of the folks that we sit down with
    usually, two, three, four times a year. We go out on tours. We
    bring them, somebody put it to me recently, inside the tent,
    and we show them the processes we're working through. We show
    them the tough questions we're asking.
        You know, we're able to consult with them in a way on an
    ongoing basis that's meaningful for us and that is over and
    above some of their--it washes away some of the restrictions we
    have with members of the public, right?
        Senator Flake. Well, that is a concern I have. We know what
    they are supposed to do, but in a letter last month to you I
    listed some of the concerns that we have coming out of Arizona
    about the proposed rule. One of the things that I found most
    troubling was that I heard from the Arizona Resource Advisory
    Council that the proposed rule was not brought up by the BLM or
    discussed at any of their meetings prior to being promulgated
    in September.
        I received a letter from you, yesterday, that detailed the
    interaction that BLM has had with the Arizona RAC. It consisted
    of an initial communication two years ago. Another providing a
    fact sheet after the proposed rule was published, and then an
    invitation to a webinar during the public comment period. Is
    that sufficient interaction and is that using the RAC as it was
    intended?
        Mr. Kornze. Well, we have had, what we think, is, you know,
    some fairly good engagement with the RAC in Arizona, and we've
    taken a number of other approaches to get word out about this
    proposal.
        I, myself, have spoken to the National Association of
    Counties, at least three times in the last few years, heavily
    focused on this issue. Some of my deputies have done similar
    engagement. We've been to the North American Wildlife
    Conference. We've sat down with Western Governors' Association.
    We've had webinars. All of this information is available
    online. You know, we've recorded. We've broadcast.
        We've had, you know, we have some limited resources, so
    have we been everywhere in every town? We have not, but have we
    done, I think, a significant and honest outreach with the basic
    questions of how do we improve our planning process? We have,
    and have we taken that input and turned it into a product? We
    have, and that's where we are today.
        So, the additional information that we have from the
    Arizona RAC, from other state RACs is very valuable to us and
    is going to continue to shape this proposal as it moves
    forward.
        Senator Flake. Well don't you think that it would have been
    wise, before the rule was promulgated, to seek some of that
    input because it seems, given the communication that you
    outlined and what we hear from them, that their advice and
    counsel was not sought in the promulgation or the formulation
    of the rule.
        Wouldn't it have been better to have sought their counsel
    before promulgation of the rule rather than simply informing
    them, here is what it is and come to a webinar?
        Mr. Kornze. So we are happy to, you know, double down on
    our engagement with the Arizona RAC and we look forward to
    hearing their thoughts and concerns.
        Senator Flake. The purpose is to seek their input before
    the issue, before the rule was promulgated. I think we could
    have avoided a lot of the substantial negative input that we
    have received had the RACs been used for their intended
    purpose.
        But when it is a letter two years ago providing them the
    fact sheet after the proposed rule was promulgated and then an
    invitation to a webinar--that is it. That is about the only
    communication that they received, so I do not blame them for
    feeling left out.
        Mr. Kornze. Yeah.
        Senator Flake. And can you blame them?
        Mr. Kornze. Well I think, you know, if your perspective is
    that the outreach here could have been better, then I would ask
    you to think about this rule as an effort for us to formulize
    making outreach stronger.
        The point here is to have more upfront engagement so that
    even before we have a scoping meeting we've engaged with
    counties and towns and, you know, universities and others, you
    know, local grazers, citizen scientists, making sure that we're
    bringing data together and we're having a good conversation
    about what foundation should we be building this plan upon?
        So, you know, I'm happy to take criticism about our
    outreach efforts on this rule. You know, we may disagree about
    the quality of that outreach, but what this rule, proposed
    rule, is about is making sure that we're talking to folks,
    local folks, early and often, because right now the criticism,
    they may not be calling Senator Gardner's office but they call
    my office.
        And when I'm out West I very frequently hear from folks
    where they say, yes, look, we went to a scoping meeting for
    your plan and then you disappeared into a cave for four or five
    years and then suddenly we've got a 1,500 page document on our
    desk that we have to work through. That's not an ideal process.
    Right? We want folks to feel like they've been with us through
    multiple steps and that they're part of a live conversation,
    and that's what we're seeking to give them.
        Senator Flake. Well, I would just suggest, I mean, you have
    this organization, this RAC, that is there for that purpose.
        Mr. Kornze. Yeah.
        Senator Flake. It would behoove BLM to reach out.
        Mr. Kornze. Okay.
        Senator Flake. While it still matters while the rule is
    being formulated and we could avoid some of the negative
    feedback that we have received. That is my two cents, and I
    yield back.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Flake.
        Senator Lee?
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is an issue that is very important to me and to my
    state. BLM manages nearly 23,000,000 acres of public lands in
    Utah. Now 23,000,000 acres is an enormous amount of land. I
    live in a relatively big state and within my state that covers
    an astounding 42 percent of the surface area of the state.
        Utahans depend on these lands for their way of life, for
    farming, livestock grazing, mining, energy development and also
    in many, many instances for recreation. It goes without saying
    that BLM's land management plans have very substantial and very
    lasting consequences for Utah's economy and for the well-being
    of individual families, individual citizens within my state.
        That is why I am troubled by the proposed planning rule's
    disregard for state and local involvement in the planning
    process. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA,
    as it is commonly known, requires BLM to give state and local
    governments a prominent seat at the land use planning table to
    ensure that plans are in harmony with local needs and with
    local values, with local customs and things that the land is
    commonly used for.
        The proposed rule that we are discussing today, however,
    flouts, I believe, BLM's legislative mandate by undermining
    coordination between BLM and local officials, relaxing
    consistency standards and watering down state and local input
    and doing so in the early planning stages.
        Furthermore, the proposed rule threatens to circumvent
    BLM's own field managers and state directors at later stages of
    the planning process through the introduction of so-called
    landscape level planning which transfers decision-making to a
    deciding official, hand-picked by the BLM director in
    Washington, DC. In the case of my state, that is a couple
    thousand miles away from where the affected people live and
    work and are trying to raise their families.
        Effective land management depends on collaboration and
    trust between the Federal Government and local officials at
    every step of the process. I therefore strongly urge BLM to
    carefully consider the public comments submitted by state and
    local leaders and to incorporate their recommendations into the
    final rule.
        But Mr. Kornze, Utah's local leaders and I are especially
    concerned about the new planning assessment step in the
    proposed rule. As you are aware, last month Utah's Governor,
    the Office of Governor Gary Herbert, sent you a letter
    expressing concern that the planning assessment does not
    meaningfully involve state and local governments, even though
    that is required by FLPMA. The letter recommends, among other
    changes, two amendments to the planning assessment. The first
    would direct the BLM to ``identify state and local plans with
    which BLM plans must be consistent to the maximum extent
    consistent with FLPMA and Federal law.'' The second would
    require BLM to ``coordinate with state and local governments
    and Indian tribes to formulate BLM planning and management
    objectives in the planning area.''
        Now these are modest and, I think, very reasonable requests
    that would more closely align the planning assessment with
    FLPMA and with what FLPMA already requires and I think, would
    alleviate concerns justifiably shared by states and local
    governments across the West.
        So, Mr. Kornze, does the BLM plan to incorporate these
    recommendations into the final rule?
        Mr. Kornze. So we are receiving a lot of really excellent
    comments right now from the State of Utah, from many states,
    from counties, from other stakeholders and other governments.
    We plan, I think we have a path to accepting a number of
    comments. I can't tell you specifically, you know, where we are
    in terms of working through those two pieces, but I will say,
    in terms of the planning assessment and the role of state and
    county governments, if they are cooperating agencies they are
    sitting with us. Right?
        So the point of a planning assessment is to bring in a
    whole mass of information and figure out what data, what
    information you're going to build your plan upon, right? What
    are the core--what's the core information you're going to use?
    You know, who sits next to us? The state and the counties, if
    they want to. They have to opt in to be a cooperating agency,
    but they sit with us and they help us work through that data
    that comes through the door.
        So I'm confident that that is going to be, continue to be,
    a close relationship.
        Senator Lee. Now I am out of time, but just to clarify. Is
    there anything about the two recommendations I outlined, the
    two proposed changes that strikes you as unworkable or
    something that is likely to be rejected or do they sound like
    sound recommendations to you, recommendations that presumably
    could be and perhaps should be incorporated into the final
    rule?
        Mr. Kornze. You know, we are going to take those seriously
    and see if there's something that we can incorporate there.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        It does not sound like there is anything that is
    categorically, that would strike you as unreasonable about
    those recommendations? Okay, thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Lee.
        Senator Warren?
        Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The BLM's Planning 2.0 initiative has the laudable goal of
    modernizing the agency's planning process and to increase
    public involvement in the management of 245,000,000 acres of
    public lands directed by the agency. The vast majority of
    these, of course, are out in the Western states. While BLM does
    not manage any lands in Massachusetts, I am very concerned
    about stakeholder involvement and public outreach across all
    Federal agencies.
        In Massachusetts there have been a number of times when
    Federal outreach has just clearly fallen short, whether it's
    FERC, the FAA, NOAA, HUD or the BLM. An agency cannot insulate
    themselves from public engagement.
        Now I should note that some agencies such as the National
    Park Service and the Department of Agriculture have done a good
    job of reaching out to communities in Massachusetts while
    others simply have not.
        So I would like to start today by asking, Director Kornze,
    the 2.0 initiative is the BLM's first resource plan update in
    over 30 years. The agency has stated in the Federal Register
    that the goal of the proposed rule and I'm going to quote here,
    ``is to affirm the important role of other Federal agencies,
    state and local governments, tribes and the public during the
    planning process and enhance opportunities for public
    involvement and transparency during the preparation of resource
    management plans.''
        I would just like you, if you would, to explain what steps
    the BLM is taking to determine the best practices to accomplish
    outreach and public participation goals?
        Mr. Kornze. Great. Well a few of the pieces that we're
    trying to pull together, one is our sister agency, the U.S.
    Forest Service, has gone through a number of revisions to their
    own land use planning regulations in recent years. In fact, I
    think they've done it three or four times.
        One of the pieces that they have found to be the greatest
    success in their new process is the planning assessment, making
    sure that they're doing a wide call for information and
    building on top of that. So that's one of the pieces.
        We're also, you know, we have nearly 40 years of experience
    in working through these planning processes. So we're really--
    we've relied on our sister governments, the governors,
    counties. We've also turned to our own folks who have a
    lifetime of experience in helping us understand what counties
    and local governments and others really have been asking for
    over these many years.
        Senator Warren. So thank you.
        I am pleased that the BLM has made early public
    participation a goal. But I have got to say I am concerned that
    the agency is working against itself by proposing to reduce the
    minimum public comment period for a draft EIS level plan
    amendment from 90 days to 45 days and additionally proposing to
    reduce the minimum public comment period for draft resource
    management plans from 90 days to 60 days.
        I just have to say, oftentimes I have been contacted by my
    constituents asking me to request that the Federal Government
    extend the period of time so that they can comment so that they
    have a chance to have their voices heard.
        So let me ask this. Mr. Ogsbury and Ms. Sgamma, in your
    respective testimony you also cited concerns with the BLM's
    proposed reduction in the comment period. Would this proposed
    reduction likely limit community participation and what do you
    believe would be an appropriate comment period?
        Mr. Ogsbury. Chairman Barrasso, Senator Warren, members of
    the Committee, yes, Western Governors do share your concern
    about the reduction in time period for public comment and feel
    that the additional opportunities for input at the front end of
    the process are probably not a good substitute for those
    comment periods which are necessary to wade through extremely
    lengthy, complex materials and materials that might become all
    the more lengthy and complex if the agency does move to more of
    a landscape level analysis.
        So I think there's been a lot of comment, commentary from
    the Western Governors to the effect that, rather than
    shortening those public comment periods, they should be
    extended.
        Senator Warren. Thank you.
        Ms. Sgamma?
        Ms. Sgamma. Thank you for the question, Senator Warren.
        I really think that the public comment period should be
    about 180 days because these documents are thousands of pages
    and they can include technical documents on wildlife, water,
    wild and scenic rivers, very complex issues. So I think the
    public should have a good chunk of time.
        Thank you.
        Senator Warren. Alright.
        This is very important. Look, I understand BLM's desire to
    move these plans in a timely fashion but I think it is
    important to get them done right and that everyone has a chance
    to have their voice heard in this process. Modernizing the
    planning process is a very important goal, but I do not think
    that shortening the comment period at the expense of public
    input is the way to accomplish that. I hope that BLM hears and
    acts on these concerns before issuing a final rule. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Warren.
        Senator Hoeven?
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Kornze, I have several questions regarding the
    Planning 2.0 initiative. It moves to what is called landscape
    scale planning which is much broader and more ambiguous context
    than currently exists.
        Talk to me about oil and gas development under that
    approach. How is it going to change?
        Mr. Kornze. You bet. So I don't see any major change for
    oil and gas, specifically. So we talk about landscape level
    planning a number of times in the preamble to the rule. I think
    we may have been better served to talk about appropriate scale,
    right?
        So at the agency, working with our partners, we have to
    figure out issues, you know, perhaps there's a real recreation
    driver for an individual town. And then maybe in that same
    quadrant or half of a state there's a change in economies.
    Let's say one resource extraction is going in, one is going out
    and there's a need to figure out on that scale how to work with
    those folks and how to serve those communities best.
        And then you may have on that same landscape a bigger
    landscape that perhaps goes across state boundaries. Think
    about the way that fire is changing ecosystems and invasive
    species are coming in and how we're planning for transmission
    lines and how are we working through other large scale changes
    or challenges.
        So right now at the Bureau of Land Management we have
    about, more than 160 different plans. If I gave either of you a
    map of the West and said, you know, here's a sharpie and here's
    a map of all the public lands, I would be very surprised if you
    came up with 160 different units as the best way to approach
    management of Western public lands.
        So what we're trying to do here is to--it's not prescribing
    something that is necessarily bigger. It could end up being
    bigger and incorporating multiple field offices into a single
    plan, but it's really asking the question, you know, perhaps
    it's, you know, the answer might be, Senator, in practical
    application that it's better for oil and gas.
        You could have a scenario in which our planning is better
    and more effective because we're looking at multiple scales;
    therefore, our plans are less susceptible to successful
    challenge.
        Senator Hoeven. Well I would also recommend that you make
    sure--it looks to me like you expedite the timeline for input
    and this is a very complicated issue and I would recommend that
    you make sure that you provide adequate time for input and you
    may get requests for extensions. I think you need to consider
    those very carefully given the significance of the change and
    the complexity.
        I want to move on to leonardite. BLM is trying to decide
    whether leonardite is coal or humade. But in the meantime we
    have a plant in Williston, North Dakota that is producing
    leonardite and paying royalties and that matters. This
    classification matters because if it is classified as coal then
    they have to pay royalties, and if not, they do not. In the
    meantime, they are paying royalties. When are you going to make
    a decision on this?
        Mr. Kornze. Okay.
        So very quickly on the public comment period that a number
    of folks have mentioned, we will be paying very significant
    attention to making sure that we get that right.
        I think we had put together a, you know, a broader concept
    that with more information up front, perhaps comment periods
    would not need to be as long on the back end. But I--we are
    hearing a strong message from our partners that they still want
    that time and that makes sense to us. Right, so you've got my
    ear on that.
        On leonardite, which is I want to know who Leonard is.
    [Laughter.] But on leonardite my understanding is that the
    lease in question has been in place for about 50 years.
        Senator Hoeven. That is a long time.
        Mr. Kornze. Right.
        And so the new company that has the lease that took over
    ownership a few years ago is looking for a change in the
    position of the Federal Government in terms of the status of
    those minerals.
        I believe our team will be visiting with the company later
    this week, so we should be able to move that process along.
        Senator Hoeven. So relatively soon?
        Mr. Kornze. Relatively soon.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay.
        The last story I want to ask you about is coal leases.
    Right now companies are hearing from the BLM that it will take
    a decade to get approval on a coal lease. Remember in a lot of
    these instances you do not own the surface acres. What is
    happening is you are either having to try to mine around you or
    you are holding up that mine, but it creates a real problem
    because they are still mining that area, they just have to skip
    the coal. So you actually create more disruption, more cost and
    the Federal Government gets no reimbursement out of it.
        Now you have got a three-year moratorium and my question is
    how are you going to address it and fix it? This does not make
    any sense.
        Mr. Kornze. So in terms of the, I mean, we are, as you
    know, you know, doing a top to bottom look at the coal program,
    and all questions are on the table, you know, so this is a
    legitimate question of how long does it, should it take x
    amount of time to go through a coal lease process?
        If there are new ways to think about that and work through
    it, we are open to them and now is a perfect time to be
    bringing that to the table and we will consider that brought to
    the table via comments.
        Senator Hoeven. Well, and I am just encouraging you to
    address it because again, you do not accomplish any
    environmental benefit and instead you are raising costs and for
    the companies affecting private owners and actually losing
    revenue in terms of what the Federal Government takes. It seems
    to me this ought to be figured out sooner versus later, like
    having a three-year moratorium to get a resolution of the
    problem.
        Mr. Kornze. Yeah. You know, similar to land use plans that
    take eight to ten years, ten years for a coal process is too
    long.
        Senator Hoeven. Too long.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Kornze. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
        Mr. Kornze, following up.
        The NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, requires
    every Federal agency to assess the environmental impacts that
    would result from major actions that are taken by that agency,
    actions like issuing a permit or new regulation. A Federal
    agency assesses environmental impacts in what is known as the
    EIS, the Environmental Impact Statement.
        But your agency, the BLM, has effectively exempted itself
    from complying with NEPA for the Planning 2.0 proposed rule
    because prior to issuing the proposed rule BLM stated that
    Planning 2.0 qualified for what is known as a categorical
    exclusion.
        Given the significance of the changes that Planning 2.0
    proposes, why has your agency decided not to issue an
    Environmental Impact Statement for its own proposed rule?
        Mr. Kornze. So we're getting into the fine details here, so
    bear with me. But the Department of the Interior has a
    categorical exclusion available to us for efforts that are
    procedural in nature which this rule fits. Right?
        So, let me give you a parallel example. Annually, when we
    put out our budget, that is a high level document that comes
    with a CX, the same CX is used because it is not the
    implementation. It's not hitting the ground. It's high level
    and it's procedural in nature. So we're taking a similar
    approach here.
        Senator Barrasso. I think some folks may question that in
    terms of whether it is procedural or if it actually impacts on
    the ground. So there may be additional questions about that.
        Mr. Kornze. Sounds good.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Warren asked a question about how
    long comments ought to be and Ms. Sgamma, you mentioned 180
    days may be necessary just because of the complexity of trying
    to deal with that.
        I am just going to ask Mr. Magagna and Mr. Ogsbury what
    your thoughts are on the amount of time.
        Mr. Magagna. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We certainly think the time, based on the experience of
    extensions being granted, that it should be longer than it is
    today rather than shorter.
        I would add to that the other important component of this
    proposal that allows the agency to put out more than one
    proposed action during that comment period. Until this point in
    time I am not aware of any agency that puts out multiple
    alternatives.
        So the fact that we may have two or more in some cases of
    alternatives to analyze and comment on to me, would add even
    another element of meeting a larger--a longer comment period.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Ogsbury, from the standpoint of the governors?
        Mr. Ogsbury. Chairman Barrasso, thank you very much for the
    question.
        Western Governors do not have a specific policy on the
    amount of time that they would request for public comments;
    however, they've expressed very serious concerns about any
    reduction in the amount of public comment periods.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Mr. Kornze, the agency has chosen to include several new
    terms and objectives in the Planning 2.0 proposed rule. The BLM
    identified the need to respond more quickly to something called
    social change as part of the justification for Planning 2.0.
    How does the BLM define, ``social change'' and do you believe
    social change is part of the agency's multiple use management
    directive?
        Mr. Kornze. So the term social does find its way into the
    document, and what we were trying to encapsulate was the human
    element, right?
        So it's the economic side. It's the community side. So we
    used a broad term and that's something we're going to think
    about improving to be a little bit more specific and clear in
    the final.
        Senator Barrasso. Getting back to this categorical
    exclusion and the procedural way that you described it. The
    Forest Service did include and issued an EIS on their similar
    proposed rule. So why would the exception apply to BLM but then
    not to the Forest Service?
        Mr. Kornze. So there's two pieces to that. One is my
    understanding is that they do not have a parallel categorical
    exclusion available to them that matches what we have. And then
    the second piece is that the larger framework that they have
    for their similar land use regulation related to plans calls
    out specific standards on the ground that must be met. So ours
    is about how we work. Theirs is about how they work but also
    what they expect to see in their plans and on the ground.
        So they are, as a result of what's in their rule, they are
    seeing impacts on the ground.
        Senator Barrasso. Yes, some may view this as a double
    standard in that the rules that apply to everybody else do not
    apply to the BLM.
        Mr. Magagna, in your testimony you state the BLM's proposed
    rule ``introduces the concept of landscape level planning.''
    You go on to say that your organization finds several dangers
    inherent in this approach. Do you have a clear idea of what the
    term landscape scale planning actually means and would you
    expand a little bit about your concerns about this landscape
    scale planning?
        Mr. Magagna. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's undefined
    in the proposal, so I can only suppose what it means.
        The way we have necessarily interpreted it is that it gives
    the agency the ability, in any given case, to allow that to be
    whatever they choose it to be. It could be narrow. It could be
    very, very broad. There's no limitation on it, and in that
    context, perhaps the distinction worth making, incidentally,
    I've spent the last four years serving on a national advisory
    committee to the Forest Service, on their new planning rule.
    There are some fundamental similarities that are practical, a
    lot of differences. But in terms of that particular component
    of landscape scale, the Forest Service, I think, more
    appropriately talks about not doing plans on a landscape scale
    but assessing the landscape scale impacts of the plans that
    they do do. They're doing their plans based on forest units as
    they've always done, but they're sensitive to what the
    landscape scale impacts are, not only on other forest lands,
    but on private lands, on state lands, etcetera.
        That seems to make some sense to us. Whereas, landscape
    scale planning, per se, does not and creates real concerns that
    you're moving further away from being able to look at the local
    impacts on local people on local resources. The broader you
    become, the more generic you necessarily become.
        Senator Barrasso. Yes.
        Ms. Sgamma, is there anything you would like to add on this
    term landscape scale planning and concerns you might have with
    that phrase?
        Ms. Sgamma. Well, I think the biggest problem with it is by
    crossing state borders and county borders. It's just watering
    down the input of those counties and states.
        When you've elevated a deciding official, who could be in
    Washington, who could be in another state, who certainly is not
    looking at the county's specific interests. I think that's
    problematic and really getting away from the specific resources
    on the grounds.
        I mean, I sympathize with Director Kornze's point about
    there being a lot of planning units, but in order to do good
    planning you do have to take into effect those details on the
    ground.
        Senator Barrasso. I want to thank all of you for being here
    to testify today.
        Decisions about the future of public lands should involve,
    I believe, the best science, meaningful and ongoing
    coordination with local stakeholders, with state and local
    governments, with tribal officials and then discretion that
    reflects a true understanding of the resource needs.
        I think Planning 2.0 fails in all these categories.
    Director Kornze, given the feedback we have received here today
    and other serious concerns raised during the public comment
    period, it seems clear to me that the BLM must withdraw
    Planning 2.0.
        Any future proposed rule should meet clear, defined
    standards for improving the planning process without
    compromising the basic tenants of public land management.
        If there are no further questions, members may submit
    written follow up questions for the record.
        The hearing record will remain open for two weeks.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]