[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2024 
                      BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE BUREAU OF
                      LAND MANAGEMENT AND THE OFFICE OF 
                      SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND.
                              ENFORCEMENT

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         Tuesday, May 16, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-27

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       
       
        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-325 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY


                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                    
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                       PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
                     WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
              ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                              -----------                                
                               
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, May 16, 2023............................     1

Statement of Members:

    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     1
    Kamlager-Dove, Hon. Sydney, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California....................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Stone-Manning, Tracy, Director, Bureau of Land Management, 
      Washington, DC.............................................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    10
    Owens, Glenda, Deputy Director, Office of Surface Mining 
      Reclamation and Enforcement, Washington, DC................    15
        Prepared statement of....................................    16
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    19

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        Alton Coal Development, LLC, Statement for the Record....    51

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Fulcher

        Idaho Congressional Delegation, Letter to Tracy Stone-
          Manning, Director, Bureau of Land Management, dated May 
          11, 2023...............................................    34

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Hageman

        Tribal Oil Produced by Fiscal Year and Tribal APDs 
          Approved by Fiscal Year, shown during hearing..........    52



 
 OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST 
  FOR THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND THE OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING 
                      RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, May 16, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:21 a.m., in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Stauber, Lamborn, Gosar, Fulcher, 
Curtis, Tiffany, Rosendale, Boebert, Hunt, Collins, Duarte, 
Westerman; Huffman, Mullin, Kamlager-Dove, Velazquez, Dingell, 
and Lee.
    Also present: Representatives Carl, Hageman, McClintock, 
Bentz, Kiggans, Moylan; and Porter.

    Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time. Under Committee Rule 
4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to 
the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. I ask unanimous 
consent that the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock; the 
gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Carl; the gentleman from Oregon, 
Mr. Bentz; the gentlewoman from Virginia, Ms. Kiggans; the 
gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan; and the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, be allowed to participate in today's 
hearing.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you all for being here today to discuss 
the programs and budget of both the Bureau of Land Management 
and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 
America is blessed with vast natural resources. It is the 
policy of this Subcommittee that we develop here at home under 
the world's best labor and environmental standards.
    And the two agencies before us today administer the 
programs that can make or break our energy production while 
embodying Joe Biden's anti-development quote which was 
``anywhere but here'' agenda that is making us more dependent 
on our adversaries.
    On Day 1, the Biden administration put a freeze on new oil 
and gas leasing and reaffirmed the moratorium on coal leasing. 
And what is the result? Gas prices shot up to over $5.00 a 
gallon last summer and currently sit at over $3.50 per gallon. 
That is over a dollar more per gallon than when President Biden 
took office, and we are just approaching the summer driving 
season.
    Energy prices have also gone up under this Administration 
by a staggering 37.2 percent. Households receiving government 
help to pay for energy costs increased by another shocking 28 
percent, which is the largest year over year increase since 
2009. And why? The BLM under this Administration has chosen to 
ignore law and implement their anti-American energy philosophy 
through executive fiat. Under the Mineral Leasing Act, 
quarterly lease sales are required and drilling permits, or 
APDs, must be processed in 30 days.
    And while the so-called Inflation Reduction Act required 
BLM to issue oil and gas lease sales as a prerequisite for 
approving permits for wind power and solar power, we see the 
agency conveniently sidestepping yet another congressional 
mandate. In fact, this Administration has leased fewer acres 
for oil and gas drilling offshore and on Federal land than any 
other administration since World War II. In Fiscal Year 2022, 
the BLM approved an average of 233 drilling permits per month. 
In contrast, the BLM was approving nearly 400 drilling permits 
monthly in Fiscal Year 2020 under President Donald Trump.
    Meanwhile, Federal coal development is locked in a 
moratorium. This is a political choice, and yet headline after 
headline states that the electricity grid is stretched thin. 
And even the metallurgical coal necessary for steel making, 
that is exempt from the moratorium, struggles to receive 
necessary authorizations from this anti-fossil fuel BLM. For 
example, in my good friend Jerry Carl's district, a coal lease 
has been in limbo since 2014 for metallurgical coal.
    America needs an all-of-the-best approach. Coal generation 
can exist with wind, solar, oil, gas, hydro, nuclear, and more. 
And coal production comes with environmental benefits as well. 
Everybody on this panel knows that fees on current coal 
production funds abandoned coal mine cleanup.
    However, even mine reclamation funds are now raising 
questions. SMCRA was given $11.3 billion in the IIJA to 
accelerate the cleanup of abandoned coal mines, but states are 
now being told to jump through hoops, deviating from the 
effective process in place since 1977.
    Last, and on top of everything else, the newly proposed so-
called BLM Conservation Rule would up-end the multiple use 
mandate on BLM lands and allow this Administration to 
unilaterally lock up more lands absent congressional action. 
There is truly no end to the Biden administration's over-reach.
    Meanwhile, Republicans offer solutions. The bipartisan 
Lower Energy Costs Act, which has now passed the House twice, 
would allow us to develop our resources and permit in 
reasonable time frames.
    I look forward to today's hearing, and I will yield to 
Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove for her opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to 
Director Stone-Manning and Deputy Director Owens for being here 
with us today.
    Our public lands are a critical resource. They are 
unparalleled in their contributions to preserving our country's 
natural heritage and biodiversity. They harbor diverse 
ecosystems and critical habitats. They offer opportunities for 
all Americans to embrace the outdoors and can be ideal 
locations to deploy renewable energy.
    But historically, our public lands and waters are also the 
source of nearly 25 percent of our country's carbon emissions. 
I see that as a challenge as we face the consequences of 
climate change and an opportunity to make our public lands part 
of the solution. For too long, there has been an imbalance of 
power on Federal lands that swings far toward extractive 
industries and away from communities and climate action.
    Fortunately, over the past several years, Congress and the 
Biden administration have made great strides in achieving 
policy victories and investments in clean energy, conservation, 
climate resilience, emissions reductions, and environmental 
justice communities that will help us reverse course. Through 
authorities and mandates in the Inflation Reduction Act, the 
Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, is raising the long outdated 
royalty rates paid by oil and gas companies operating on 
Federal land to provide a fairer return to the American people, 
among other important reforms.
    The agency is taking steps to reduce methane emissions from 
oil and gas operations, which will improve air quality and 
public health for the neighboring communities. They are well on 
their way to reaching the goal of deploying 25 gigawatts of 
renewable energy capacity by 2025, which will power around 5 
million homes. BLM's Budget Request includes funding for 
extensive stakeholder engagement, coordination, and 
environmental review for renewable energy while accelerating 
responsible clean energy permitting.
    And most recently, BLM announced a new Public Lands Rule, 
which will put conservation on equal footing for the first time 
with other public land uses like grazing, oil and gas, or 
mineral development. The rule will allow BLM to approve land 
management in the face of climate change and build more robust 
and resilient ecosystems.
    The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is 
deploying the $11.3 billion appropriated in the Infrastructure 
Investments and Jobs Act to clean up abandoned coal mines in 
communities that the declining industry has left behind. These 
investments will revitalize economies creating good union jobs 
and attracting new economic opportunities while cleaning up 
legacy pollution sites.
    But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
proposing deep cuts that would devastate these agencies and put 
it at risk. If Republicans had their way, they would cut off 
the job creating power of reclamation. They would halt all 
progress on renewable energy development, and they would let 
oil and gas developments go unregulated without inspections. 
And it is all to play into Speaker McCarthy's ransom note of 
demands over the debt limit.
    But it is not just budget cuts that they are threatening. 
They are also pushing to tie H.R. 1, the Polluters Over People 
Act, to the debt limit, a bill that would devastate our public 
lands, communities, and the climate. It is entirely 
inappropriate. It is hostage taking. But we know at this point 
that they would go to any lengths for the polluting industries 
lining their pockets.
    You will hear Republicans accuse Democrats of pushing an 
anti-industry agenda, but let's get the facts straight. We have 
until 2030 to reduce our emissions by 50 percent or have any 
chance of staving off the worst impacts of climate change or 
pushing a people first agenda and tackling the climate head on.
    My Republican colleagues will ask why the Biden 
administration is not selling off more of our public lands to 
the oil and gas industry, but I will remind everyone that the 
United States is already the No. 1 producer of oil and gas in 
the world, and that the fossil fuel leases on public land 
currently cover 24 million acres, nearly half of which is 
sitting locked up and unused. They will claim that the Biden 
administration is killing coal, but their heads are in the 
sand.
    We can fund them fully and appropriately so that they can 
conduct proper tribal consultation and efficient and 
environmental reviews for transmission and renewable energy and 
make sure the fossil fuel industry is cleaning up after itself.
    I look forward to hearing more about how BLM and OSMRE 
support these shared goals.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now introduce our 
witnesses.
    The Honorable Tracy Stone-Manning, Director of the Bureau 
of Land Management here in Washington, DC, and Ms. Glenda 
Owens, the Deputy Director, Office of Surface Mining 
Reclamation and Enforcement out of Washington, DC.
    I will now recognize Director Stone-Manning for 5 minutes. 
Welcome.

  STATEMENT OF TRACY STONE-MANNING, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND 
                   MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking 
Member Kamlager-Dove, and members of the Subcommittee.
    I am Tracy Stone-Manning, the Director of the Bureau of 
Land Management, and it is an honor to be sitting in this 
storied hearing room with you today. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on the Fiscal Year 2024 budget 
priorities and the mission of the BLM.
    We are the nation's largest land manager, responsible for 1 
in 10 acres in this country. The multiple use sustained yield 
mission established by the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act directs us to sustain the health, diversity, and 
productivity of 245 million acres of public lands and 700 
million acres of mineral estate for multiple uses. These lands 
provide food, fiber, minerals, energy, water, habitat, and 
lifetime memories for countless families. They are open to all.
    In Fiscal Year 2021, public lands managed by the BLM 
supported $201 billion in economic output and 783,000 jobs. 
Equally and vitally important is the work we do to conserve, 
protect, and restore public lands and nationally-significant 
landscapes for the benefit of current and future generations.
    The President's Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request of $1.7 
billion for the BLM balances our responsibilities and advances 
the Administration's priorities to address the climate crisis, 
accelerate responsible renewable energy development on public 
lands, create family supporting union jobs, and strengthen 
diversity, equity, and inclusion in our work. The proposed 
budget emphasizes investments to improve the health and 
resilience of public lands from the stresses brought on by 
climate change, such as historic widespread drought and 
wildland fires of increasing scope and intensity.
    That is why the budget requests $304.3 million for the 
BLM's land resources activity, which provides for the 
management of forests, rangelands, and cultural resources as 
well as wild horses and burros.
    As we transition to a clean energy economy, the remarkable 
solar, wind, and geothermal potential on our public lands can 
and must help meet Congress' and the Administration's goal of 
permitting 25 gigawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 
2025. The budget reflects this priority by proposing $72.5 
million in our renewable energy management program, an increase 
of 77 percent.
    I am so pleased that much-needed investments from the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act 
will enable us to put people to work on our public lands, 
restoring wildlife habitat and clean water, enabling us to 
leave these lands better off than we found them. Conservation 
is a key part of BLM's mission. With over 900 units of national 
conservation lands covering about 35 million acres, which 
includes national monuments and wilderness. These areas are 
also the current and ancestral homelands of Tribal Nations and 
Indigenous peoples, many of whom have deep cultural and 
spiritual connection to these places.
    In addition, our neighbors across the country count on 
public lands managed by the BLM as beloved recreation 
destinations. The ever-increasing interest in these lands 
requires additional support and the budget request for the 
National Conservation Lands Program is $11.3 million above the 
Fiscal Year 2023 enacted level.
    Throughout all of our work, we prioritize supporting the 
Administration's efforts to create good-paying jobs and advance 
environmental justice, a priority that is emphasized in the 
budget request and in our programs to remediate and reclaim 
orphaned wells and abandoned mines. The budget also includes an 
increase of $12 million to help establish and support the Job 
Youth Corps program, which will enable the BLM to employ young 
adults and veterans.
    Above all, the proposed budget reflects the 
Administration's continued commitment to striking the right 
balance of land conservation and sustainable use of resources. 
It is incumbent on us as professional land managers to ensure 
that this activity is sustainable and beneficial to all 
Americans, regardless of where they live, and to future 
generations. We take this responsibility seriously.
    I look forward to working with the Subcommittee to provide 
us with the tools and resources necessary to achieve these 
important objectives. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 
today.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Stone-Manning follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Tracy Stone-Manning, Director, Bureau of Land 
              Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the FY 2024 
budget priorities and mission of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 
The BLM's 2024 budget proposal supports the critical role the bureau 
plays in achieving the environmental, conservation, and economic goals 
of the Biden-Harris Administration, while working in partnership with 
thousands of communities mostly across the American West and in Alaska, 
where the vast majority of our employees live and work.
Overview

    The BLM's work is immense in both scale and scope. One in 10 acres 
of land in the United States are managed by the BLM, as well as 
approximately 30 percent of the nation's subsurface minerals. Driven by 
our mission, the BLM sustains the health, diversity, and productivity 
of the nation's public lands for multiple uses, such as conventional 
and renewable energy development; livestock grazing; conservation; 
mining; watershed protection; and hunting, fishing, and other forms of 
recreation. This multiple-use, sustained yield mission, established by 
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, enables the 
BLM to contribute tremendously to economic growth, job creation, and 
domestic energy production, while generating revenues for Federal and 
State treasuries and local economies and allowing for a thoughtful and 
balanced approach to management of our public lands.
    The 245 million acres of land and 700 million acres of mineral 
estate managed by the BLM are economic drivers for the communities 
where these resources are located. BLM estimates in FY 2021, programs 
administered on public lands managed by the BLM supported an estimated 
$201 billion in economic output and approximately 783,000 jobs. 
According to DOI's Office of Natural Resources Revenue, public lands 
managed by the BLM generated more than $8 billion for the U.S. Treasury 
and States in FY 2022. Equally important are the public lands and 
nationally significant landscapes the BLM has the responsibility for 
conserving, protecting, and restoring on behalf of all Americans for 
the benefit of current and future generations.
    As the steward for more land than any other Federal agency, the BLM 
plays a critical role in achieving the climate and economic goals of 
the Biden-Harris Administration through science-based, balanced 
management of public lands and waters. The President's FY 2024 budget 
request of $1.7 billion for the BLM balances these responsibilities and 
advances the Administration's priorities of addressing climate change; 
accelerating responsible renewable energy development on public lands; 
creating good-paying jobs with a free and fair chance to join a union; 
and strengthening diversity, equity, and inclusion and related 
partnerships.
Landscape Health and Climate Resilience

    The BLM's proposed budget for FY 2024 emphasizes investments to 
improve the health and resilience of BLM-managed public lands from the 
stresses of persistent drought and water scarcity, which have led to an 
influx of invasive species and wildland fires of increasing scope and 
intensity. The budget calls for increases in efforts to restore and 
conserve our shared public lands, making sure they are available for 
enjoyment by current and future generations. Locally-led and voluntary 
conservation empowered by the Administration's ``America the 
Beautiful'' initiative to conserve, connect, and restore 30 percent of 
our lands and waters by 2030 will contribute to climate resilience in 
the face of rising temperatures and extreme weather.
    The budget requests $304.3 million under the BLM's Land Resources 
Activity, which provides for the management of forests, rangelands, and 
cultural resources, as well as wild horse and burro management. This 
includes $12.3 million for Public Domain Forest Management; combined 
with a request of $118.0 million for Western Oregon Resources 
Management, BLM will support timber sales and help improve forest 
health and resilience. The Western Oregon Resources Management funds 
are also used for identifying and managing carbon sinks and 
implementing reforestation projects, as well as for projects to protect 
mature and old-growth forests. The BLM will also support carbon 
sequestration efforts on public lands with a requested program increase 
of $3.4 million in the Cadastral, Lands and Realty Management program.
    The budget requests $162.0 million for Wildlife Habitat Management 
to bolster efforts to identify, protect, conserve, and restore large 
landscapes. These efforts are necessary to support the long-term 
resilience of wildlife and plant populations, particularly in light of 
the ecological transformation occurring due to climate change. BLM will 
use the requested funding increase to improve habitat health and 
resiliency and advance efforts to identify, protect, conserve, and 
restore functional, landscape-level wildlife migration, dispersal, and 
daily movement corridors for big game, migratory birds, pollinators, 
and at-risk species. In a time of prolonged drought, we are working to 
restore nature's capacity to keep water in streams. The proposed 
funding level of $73.4 million for Aquatic Resources will enhance the 
BLM's capacity to conserve remaining high-quality lands and waters, 
restore degraded land and water resources, and ensure the connectivity 
of these systems.
    Key elements of improving the health of public lands include 
eradicating invasive species, re-establishing native plant communities, 
and carrying out other forms of restoration, which will improve habitat 
and support increased landscape connectivity and terrestrial and 
aquatic wildlife movement. Invasive species are a pervasive problem on 
public lands, and efforts to control invasive species are often impeded 
by drought conditions and wildland fire.
Transitioning to a Clean Energy Economy

    The BLM has a significant role in advancing the development of 
renewable energy by providing sites on public lands for environmentally 
sound renewable energy production and transmission projects. With 
excellent solar, wind, and geothermal energy potential on public lands, 
renewable energy development on BLM lands provides an important 
contribution to the Administration's goal of permitting 25 gigawatts of 
renewable energy on public lands by 2025. This is part of the broader 
strategy to rapidly reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 
percent by 2030 and achieve a zero-carbon electric power sector by 
2035. Consistent with the Energy Act of 2020, the BLM continues to 
accelerate responsible permitting of renewable energy projects on 
public lands. The BLM permitted over 2,800 megawatts of clean energy 
projects in 2021 and 5,700 megawatts in 2022. The complexities involved 
with authorizing bulk energy generation and transmission line 
facilities require extensive stakeholder engagement, coordination, and 
environmental review, all of which the BLM works diligently to carry 
out.
    To ensure we achieve the goals of the Energy Act, the 2024 budget 
proposes funding that will allow the BLM to facilitate increased 
renewable energy development, including $72.5 million in our Renewable 
Energy Management program, a 77 percent increase over the 2023 enacted 
level, and a program increase of $11.0 million in the Resource 
Management Planning program. Currently, the BLM has prioritized the 
review of 50 solar, 4 wind, and 10 geothermal and 9 transmission 
interconnect projects which, if approved, represent roughly 37 MW of 
renewable energy capacity. In addition to the 73 priority applications, 
BLM has approximately 147 additional applications (125 solar, 13 wind, 
and 9 electricity transmission gen-ties) that are in the preliminary 
adjudication phase. The funds requested in the budget will support the 
siting, leasing, and processing of right-of-way applications, and 
oversight of renewable energy projects and associated transmission 
lines. The BLM anticipates continued demand for renewable energy 
generation from public lands over the coming years, given 
Administration efforts and as States and utilities also seek to 
increase their use of renewable power sources. Further, investments 
from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will help make clean energy more 
affordable and accessible, and lower energy costs by hundreds of 
dollars per year for households.
    A substantial part of the BLM's energy portfolio is oil and gas 
production from public lands. Since January 21, 2021, the BLM has 
approved more than 7,000 new drilling permits--over 3,000 in 2022 
alone, and onshore oil production from Federal lands is at an all-time 
high. The Department is implementing the oil and gas provisions in the 
IRA, updating regulations and policy guidance to implement the law, and 
also incorporating the recommendations in the Department's November 
2021 Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Programs. The 
Administration is committed to the responsible and sustainable 
development of Federal energy resources as the nation transitions to a 
low-carbon economy, and such reforms are a critical component of this 
effort.
Implementing Historic Investments in America's Public Lands

    In 2024, the BLM will continue to put people to work on our public 
lands through investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) 
and the IRA: plugging orphaned oil and gas wells, restoring watersheds, 
and addressing and reducing the risks from wildfire. By the end of 
calendar year 2022, the BLM obligated nearly $21 million in contracts 
and cooperative agreements for various BIL projects nationwide. The BLM 
will work with its partner agencies, external partners, stakeholders, 
and Tribes to achieve meaningful outcomes envisioned in these two 
historic laws. In addition, the BLM will also continue to implement the 
Great American Outdoors Act to address BLM's deferred maintenance 
backlog to support public safety, visitor access, and visitor enjoyment 
more effectively. The BLM anticipates that approximately $91.8 million 
in deferred maintenance will be addressed upon completion of the 
proposed FY 2024 projects. Fully implementing these laws will help 
restore the balance on public lands amid the increasing demands of an 
ever-growing Western population. Together, these laws are a historic 
investment in clean water, clean air, and wildlife habitat that will 
benefit people, landscapes, and local economies for generations to 
come.
Wild Horses & Burros

    The Wild Horse and Burro program continues to present significant 
challenges for the Bureau, with on-range populations far in excess of 
the statutory allowable management level, and off-range holdings 
severely straining BLM's capacity. As of the end of FY 2022, there were 
approximately 82,000 wild horses and burros across the 177 Herd 
Management Areas that BLM manages--exceeding the nation-wide AML of 
27,000 animals by over 55,000. Of the 177 Herd Management Areas, 85 
percent are above AML.
    The budget requests $154.8 million for the Wild Horse and Burro 
Management program, which will help to offset rising program costs and 
conduct on-range and off-range management activities for wild horses 
and burros. The BLM is focused on addressing the management challenges 
with this program, notably through use of fertility control treatments 
and permanent sterilization efforts and through private placements of 
animals. However, significant increases in the cost of off-range 
holding caused by recent price increases for feed, fuel, labor, and 
related costs have slowed the BLM's ability to deliver fertility 
treatments or remove wild horses and burros while balancing the 
obligations to ensure the wellbeing of the 60,000 horses off-range in 
our care. On-range costs such as for contracted gather and removal 
operations will continue to be similarly impacted, which impacts our 
ability to gather horses and implement an aggressive program of 
fertility control. The program's budget supports the BLM's commitment 
to continued efforts to manage the on-range populations as it is 
critical to prevent permanent damage to public lands and resources.
Recreation

    The BLM's neighbors, particularly in the American West, count on 
public lands managed by the BLM as a beloved recreation destination. 
More than 86 million people live within 100 miles of BLM-managed public 
lands in the western United States, making the BLM a key part of 
connecting Americans to the outstanding and unique outdoor 
opportunities that contribute to and preserve the social fabric of the 
nation, bond families across generations, and preserve the character of 
the rural American West and Alaska. Public lands are open to use for 
pursuits such as camping, off-highway vehicle riding, mountain biking, 
river running, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, and fishing--and the 
vast majority of the public lands managed by BLM are open to visitors 
without any fees. In 2022, BLM-managed public lands attracted 
approximately 81 million visitors, which is an increase of 8 million 
visitors from 2020. The increased interest in recreating on our public 
lands is outpacing BLM's ability to keep up. Meeting America's diverse 
recreational needs requires new, innovative, and collaborative 
management. The budget request in FY 2024 for the Recreation Resources 
Management program is $65.4 million, an increase of $9.8 million over 
the FY 2023 budget. The FY 2024 budget request will also help the BLM 
further the priorities of the Biden-Harris Administration and Secretary 
Haaland, such as investing in America's infrastructure by providing 
access to public lands for all Americans.
National Conservation Lands

    National Conservation Lands protect resilient ecosystems, provide 
opportunities for research and self-discovery, and create a refuge for 
biodiversity. The BLM-managed National Conservation Lands currently 
encompass over 900 units covering about 35 million acres, including 
National Monuments, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National 
Conservation Areas, and National Scenic and Historic Trails. Designated 
by Congress or the President, these components of the BLM's National 
Conservation Lands represent some of the nation's most spectacular 
landscapes and provide abundant recreational opportunities, important 
scientific research grounds, and outstanding ecological and cultural 
resources. They are also the current and ancestral homelands of Tribal 
Nations and Indigenous peoples, many of whom have deep cultural, 
historic, and spiritual connections to these places. Conserving these 
lands means collaborating with local, State, and Tribal governments and 
other Federal partners; enhancing and maintaining recreational access; 
and engaging communities to foster shared stewardship efforts. An 
estimated 11 million visitors each year come to these sites, providing 
significant economic benefits to surrounding communities and supporting 
long-term jobs by promoting multiple-use activities, tourism, and the 
service industry. The ever-increasing interest in the BLM's National 
Conservation Lands requires additional support, and the FY 2024 budget 
request for the National Conservation Lands program is $11.3 million 
above the FY 2023 enacted level. This includes a program increase of 
$3.0 million for the Department's Increasing Representation in our 
Public Lands initiative, which will provide support for recent or 
potential new designations that preserve important places and tell the 
stories of those that have been historically underrepresented.
Jobs & Equity

    The impacts of climate change and environmental degradation in the 
United States are not evenly distributed in our society. Communities of 
color, low-income families, and rural and Indigenous communities have 
long suffered disproportionate and cumulative harm from air pollution, 
water pollution, and toxic sites. The BLM, as part of its work, 
dedicates time and resources to engage a wide range of stakeholders and 
communities in all its land management decisions, as well as to conduct 
formal consultation with Tribes in recognition of the Federal 
Government's trust responsibilities.
    The FY 2024 BLM budget request will advance the Administration's 
efforts to create good-paying jobs through its program to remediate and 
reclaim orphaned wells and abandoned mines. These jobs may also serve 
to ease the transition for oil and gas field workers, coal miners, and 
conventional energy and mining communities as the market transitions 
toward cleaner energy sources. The proposed budget will help support 
underserved communities that have been adversely impacted by energy and 
mining activities in the past. The budget also includes an increase of 
$12 million to enhance BLM capacity to support various youth corps 
programs, allowing the BLM to employ young adults and veterans, drawing 
on their skills to improve the public lands while training the next 
generation of public land stewards.
    The budget also invests in the BLM's Seeds of Success program, 
which employs Tribal youth in the collection and preservation of 
culturally important native plant species. This program is conducted in 
partnership with the Fort Belknap Indian Community and the Society for 
Ecological Restoration. Seeds of Success is part of a larger 
interagency National Seed Strategy that works in partnership with a 
network of seed collectors, farmers and growers, nurseries, and seed 
storage facilities to develop science-based native seed mixes to 
restore resilient ecosystems.
Conclusion

    The BLM's FY 2024 proposed budget reflects the Administration's 
continued commitment to striking the right balance of land conservation 
and sustainable use of resources. It is incumbent on us as professional 
land managers to ensure the use of public lands is sustainable and 
beneficial to all Americans, regardless of where they live, and to 
future generations. The decisions we make about how we manage and shape 
this development now and into the future will have a profound impact on 
Americans across the country, and we take that responsibility 
seriously. I look forward to working with the Subcommittees to provide 
the BLM with the tools and resources necessary to achieve these 
important objectives. Thank you for the opportunity testify here today.

                                 ______
                                 
  Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Tracy Stone-Manning, 
                  Director, Bureau of Land Management

Ms. Stone-Manning did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

BLM Proposed Rule on Conservation and Landscape Health

    Question 1. During the hearing, Members from both sides of dais 
raised concern over the determination the BLM proposed rule on 
Conservation and Landscape Health was not deemed economically 
significant. The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs makes the determination of whether a rule is major, 
although this information would have been submitted by BLM. 
Conservation leases could potentially prevent access of federal land to 
current BLM permittees. I'd like to understand how the BLM determined 
this proposed rule does not have an impact of more than $100 million 
per year on the national economy.

    1a) What analysis did BLM provide to justify this would not have a 
major impact?

    1b) Will you share the entire economic analysis conducted by the 
agency and submitted to ORIA with the Committee?

    Question 2. I often find the local staff, with boots on the ground, 
have valuable expertise and should be consulted on major decisions 
effecting their roles to carry out the agency's mission. Given that, 
I've been disappointed to hear, from multiple sources, the lack of 
consultation with local staff on the BLM's recently released 
Conservation and Landscape Health proposed rule. In addition, 
stakeholders and those directly affected by such a rule were left out 
of the development of this rule.

    2a) Did you engage with local staff, solicit their expertise and 
advice, and value their opinion on the crafting of this proposed rule?

    2b) Do you commit to consulting stakeholders, including BLM 
district staff, in any rule or agency decision?

    Question 3. The BLM's proposed Conservation and Landscape Health 
rule seeks comments on how the agency should incorporate the management 
of old and mature forests into the rule. The BLM recently released a 
report on old growth, with the Forest Service, clearly recognizing 
``mature forests'' are not a scientifically recognized term in 
forestry. Why is the BLM proposing to fundamentally change the way we 
manage these forests based on inherently flawed science? Is the 
Department considering placing any restrictions on the management of 
``old growth and mature forests'' as part of this rulemaking?

    Question 4. Your Department of the Interior colleagues have 
recently testified before this committee about their lack of concern 
for Congressional authority. I now see the BLM potentially following 
suite. The agency has proposed a rule fundamentally changing the way 
the BLM carries out its multiple use and sustained yield mandate. BLM 
is creating a new use of lands without Congressional Authority. Why do 
you believe the agency is justified in publishing this proposed rule 
outside of Congressional direction?

    Question 5. I am glad you are making an effort to listen to 
stakeholders through in-person listening sessions. However, I am 
concerned about the lack of in-person sessions and their location. The 
population of the three cities announced does not accurately represent 
the people who will be most impacted by this rule.

    5a) Who have you invited to participate in the listening sessions?

    5b) Will you commit to holding more listening sessions in areas 
impacted by this proposed rule?

    5c) Will you commit to attending each listening session?

    Question 6. In the recently published proposed rule, BLM has two 
statements that appear to contradict each other. The proposal says 
conservation leases are ``not intended to provide a mechanism for 
precluding other uses, such as grazing, mining and recreation. 
Conservation leases should not disturb existing authorizations, valid 
existing rights, or state or Tribal land use management.'' The proposal 
also says that once a lease has been issued, the ``BLM shall not 
authorize any other uses of the leased lands that are inconsistent with 
the authorized conservation use.''

    6a) Will conservation leases be in addition to other leases or 
issued in a way excluding other uses of the land?

    6b) How will BLM determine lands eligible for a conservation lease?

    6c) What will take priority if conservation leases overlap with 
other possible land use, such as the potential for oil and gas 
development leases or areas for timber or grazing?

    Question 7. The Inflation Reduction Act provided $500 million for 
NPS and BLM for conservation, resiliency, and restoration projects. 
Recently, your staff briefed my staff on the implementation of this 
funding. The NPS and BLM are carrying out landscape sized projects to 
restore and conserve land, including post fire work. DOI confirmed 
their ability to carry out this conservation work without the need for 
any new rules, regulations, or authority. Why is the BLM pushing 
forward a proposed rule focusing on conservation and creating 
conservation leases when conservation work has been ongoing without 
such a rule?

    Question 8. How does the BLM statutorily justify the addition of a 
``conservation lease'' and giving this designation an equal standing as 
other uses defined within FLPMA while maintaining the requirements of 
FLPMA's multiple-use and sustained-yield framework?

    Question 9. Is the overall intent of this proposed rule to reduce 
the acreage available for FLPMA mandated uses just as grazing, energy 
development and transmission?

    Question 10. How will the BLM evaluate and manage the conservation 
efforts that are laid out in the proposed rule? Will this process be 
done through RMPs and various land management plans, as prescribed by 
FLPMA, currently governing public land use?

    Question 11. It is clear BLM is already engaging in meaningful 
conservation work through stewardship agreements and other activities.

    11a) How many BLM acres have been conserved, restored, or treated 
with mitigation measures each year in the past 10 years?

    11b) How many acres does BLM expect this new proposed rule would 
include?

    Question 12. The recent proposed rule on conservation and landscape 
health defines conservation as ``meaning maintaining resilient, 
functioning ecosystems by protecting or restoring natural habitats and 
ecological function.''

    12a) Will you provide any other definitions of ``conservation'' 
used by BLM?

    12b) How much BLM land is currently considered ``conserved'' by 
BLM's proposed definition in this rule?

    Question 13. How many ACECs have been designated each year for the 
past 10 years?

    Question 14 How many acres have been designated as ACECs each year 
for the past 10 years?

    Question 15. In the recent proposed rule, the agency states, ``. . 
. public lands are increasingly degraded and fragmented due to adverse 
impacts from climate change and a significant increase in authorized 
use.''

    15a) How has climate change led to fragmented lands?

    15b) What is the agency referencing as ``authorized use''?

    Question 16. Sadly, we see BLM has often failed to maintain healthy 
landscapes across much of the west. Areas are overrun and destroyed by 
wild horses and burros. Lack of active management on our timber and 
grasslands has led to catastrophic wildfires. The inability to actively 
manage lands has only furthered invasive species. These examples are 
the responsibility of the BLM and cannot be attributed to other 
multiple uses. How would this proposal help BLM be a better steward of 
places like overstocked Herd Management Areas and overgrown, wildfire 
prone areas?

    Question 17. Is active forest management consistent with the BLM's 
definition of ``conservation'', as proposed in this rule?

    Question 18. Can the agency commit that this rule will not affect 
the ability of the agency to manage its lands to reduce hazardous fuels 
to respond to wildfire, insects, disease, drought, and/or overstocked 
and unhealthy forests or rangelands?

Wildland Fire and Fire Management

    Question 19. Fire can be a valuable tool to manage rangelands and 
forests and reduce the buildup of hazardous fuels. However, wildfire is 
bad. What are the agency's policies to ensure fire doesn't escape 
containment?

    Question 20. What is the role of fire on rangelands and forests?

    Question 21. How does focusing on old-growth forests interplay with 
the Department's Wildfire Risk Five-Year Monitoring, Maintenance, and 
Treatment Plan?

    Question 22. The BLM proposed budget is an indication of the 
agency's priorities. As I read it, I see DOI's budget requests 
substantial increases in funding for hazardous fuels reduction, but 
concerningly, without committing to treating any additional acreage of 
fire-prone lands. Despite requesting an increase in the Fuels 
Management account, DOI is planning to treat the exact same amount of 
acreage as last year. The administration is also proposing a 
legislative path to increase wildland firefighter pay. However, the 
budget request fails to identify any long-term funding sources for this 
pay increase. Further, the budget fails to pair pay reforms with the 
rangeland and forest management reforms. Increasing the pay for 
wildland firefighters and failing to address the issues preventing the 
agency from efficiently managing its land does nothing to address the 
increasingly dangerous situations wildland firefighters are sent into. 
Will the agency pursue active forest management and support for 
wildland firefighters?

Oil and Gas

    Question 23. BLM's application for permit to drill (APD) reports 
are missing for October and November 2022, due to a database 
reconciliation error.

    23a) What are the costs of maintaining relevant databases? If so, 
are there any redundancies that can be eliminated?

    23b) Is the Department of the Interior actively overseeing these 
databases and attempting to resolve reconciliation errors?

    Question 24. Jason Miller, OMB's deputy director for management, 
reiterated the expectation of a greater ``in-person presence in the 
office'' in a recent blog post. I believe that having employees in the 
office is important because it allows communities with BLM lands to 
come in and meet face to face with BLM employees.

    24a) Are you planning on bringing more staff back in person? Is 
there a plan in place to do so and, if so, please provided it to the 
Committee.

    24b) Are you tracking agency efficiency as it relates to BLM staff 
working in person versus remotely?

    24c) How is agency staff work and progress tracked, and how are you 
ensuring that agency staff meet agency missions?

    24d) How many hours a week are field office staffers required to 
come into the office or what percentage of your staff in Field Offices 
are back in the office five days a week?

    Question 25. How does the BLM plan to spend money associated with 
the new Expression of Interest (EOI) fee provisions contained in the 
Inflation Reduction Act?

    25a) Is there a plan to refund the EOI fees if multiple companies 
submitted EOI fees, and one of those companies lost in a multi-bidder 
scenario?

    25b) If not, what is the plan for those funds?

    Question 26. The BLM held an onshore lease sale in June of last 
year, but the Department watered-down the sale and only offered 20 
percent of the parcels originally included. We recently saw reports 
that the Department plans on removing roughly half of the tracts in 
Wyoming's first federal oil and gas lease sale slated to take place 
later this year.

    Section 50265 of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act states that 
a right-of-way for wind or solar energy development may only be issued 
if an onshore oil and gas lease sale has been held within 120 days and 
if the total acreage offered for lease the prior year is either over 
two million acres or equal to or greater than 50 percent of the acreage 
for which EOis have been submitted.

    26a) Are you counting the deferred acreage for purposes of meeting 
the 50 percent requirement in Section 50265 of the Inflation Reduction 
Act?

    Question 27. During your time as an employee of the U.S. Senate 
from 2007-2012, yes, or no, did you remain in compliance with all 
required ethics laws to the best of your knowledge?

    27a) During that time, did you participate in any and all ethics 
training, as required by the U.S. Senate and/or the Office of Senator 
John Tester, yes or no?

    27b) Were you aware that a gift rule was and remains, to this day, 
in place for all Senate employees, yes or no?

    27c) Did you accept a loan of $100,000 from a Mr. Stuart Goldberg, 
a donor to the Democratic party and your boss in the 2006 election 
cycle, yes or no?

    27d) Did you disclose this loan to Senator Tester?

    27e) Did you disclose this loan, which was below market rate, or 
seek counsel regarding acceptance of such a loan, from the Senate 
Ethics office, yes or no?

    27f) Have you paid off the loan?

    27g) During the time that you held the loan, did you recuse 
yourself from all projects related to Mr. Goldberg's interests?

    27h) If you did recuse yourself, how was this tracked if you never 
reported the initial loan?

    Question 28. IM 2023-007, Evaluating Competitive Oil and Gas Lease 
Sale Parcels for Future Lease Sales, requires heightened weight be 
afforded to certain criteria when reviewing leases for sale. These 
criteria include proximity to existing development, the presence of 
``important'' fish and wildlife habitat, historic properties, 
recreation and other ``important'' uses and the potential for 
development.

    28a) Why is this IM necessary given the fact that every Resource 
Management Plan studies and determines, in a public process, which 
lands shall be available for leasing?

    28b) Based on this new policy, the BLM is proposing to defer leases 
in both the Q2 and Q3 lease sales in Wyoming. Please provide sufficient 
justification about how these criteria would be sufficiently negatively 
affected to compel the BLM to not offer the leases for sale.

    28c) Please provide the threshold BLM considers significant when 
deciding a parcel should not be offered.

    28d) Please provide commentary about how the current conditions in 
the RMPs covering these criteria are inadequate.

Mining

    Question 29. In August 2021, Interior released a notice of intent 
to conduct a review of the federal coal leasing program. It has now 
been a year and a half since BLM first solicited comments for the 
review.

    29a) When does BLM expect to complete the review and issue its 
findings?

    29b) Please provide specific examples of how your agency is taking 
into account the comments and economic needs of federal coal states and 
tribes who have expressed interest to the agency in developing their 
coal resources.

    Question 30. DOI's Departmental Highlights for the FY24 budget 
said, ``BLM is processing 68 priority utility-scale onshore clean 
energy projects proposed on public lands in the western United States, 
including solar, wind, geothermal, and associated interconnect 
transmission line projects that are vital to grid connection.'' It also 
stated that, ``BLM has over 120 pending applications for solar and wind 
development for processing when transmission capacity is available.''

    30a) Is BLM providing the same level of priority to process permit 
applications from industries aside from solar, wind, geothermal, and 
associated transmission projects, such as conventional energy 
development and hardrock mining?

    30b) How many applications for permits, mine plans of operations, 
or other authorizations for coal and hardrock mining projects are 
currently pending at BLM?

    30c) Please provide information on the number of staff at BLM field 
offices dedicated to processing coal and hardrock mining permits and 
other authorizations.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. I am interested in the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska rulemaking status, announced on March 12, 2023.

    The Western Arctic has the potential to help our nation meet our 
climate goals. while protecting biodiversity and sustainable activities 
like subsistence which support local communities in the region. We are 
encouraged that the administration will consider how to strengthen 
protections, and we hope that the administration will use this 
opportunity to take bold action to protect the Western Arctic.

    1a) What is the scope of the rulemaking, and when can Congress and 
the public expect the draft rule to be published for comment?

    1b) We agree that further protections for Special Areas are 
warranted, given their value as wildlife habitat and the subsistence 
and recreational values they provide. However, the Willow project--and 
the massive oil and gas development proposals that will follow--pose an 
urgent threat to the biological integrity of the region and subsistence 
uses, as well as threats to established Special Areas. ConocoPhillips 
has made it clear that it views Willow as ``the next great Alaska hub'' 
and hopes to use it further to build significant infrastructure and 
extraction throughout the Reserve. Does DOI intend to propose 
withdrawals or other protections for any areas of the Western Arctic 
currently available for oil and gas leasing, either within or outside 
current or proposed Special Area boundaries?

    1c) Oil companies hold numerous leases in Special Areas of the 
Reserve, and we are concerned that multiple projects the size of Willow 
could be proposed in years to come. How does the administration plan to 
assess the emissions from oil and gas development in the NPRA, and how 
does it align with the administration's climate commitments?

    1d) When does the administration plan to finalize these 
regulations?

    Question 2. What tools does the Bureau of Land Management have to 
prevent nuisance mining claiming on federal lands?

    2a) How would removing the valuable mineral discovery requirement 
impact BLM's operations in terms of staff capacity and resources?

    2b) Do you expect that removing the valuable mineral requirement 
could increase nuisance claiming?

    2c) How could an increase in nuisance mining claiming impact 
renewable energy development?

    Question 3. As you know, the Energy Act of2020 included a goal to 
deploy 25 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2025. Senior 
Advisor to the White House, John Podesta, recently mentioned in remarks 
on energy infrastructure that we need to update these goals for 2030 
and 2035. Director Stone Manning, from your perspective, what should 
those next goals be?

               Questions Submitted by Representative Hunt

    Question 1. During the hearing, you mentioned that BLM waited on 
operators for an average of 162 days.

    1a) Please define, in detail, how your department categorizes 
``waiting on an operator.''

    1b) Are court delays or other matters outside an operator's control 
included in the ``waiting on operator'' category?

    1c) Please provide the average number of days ``waiting on an 
operator'' delays are attributable to court delays or matters outside 
an operator's control.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Glenda 
Owens for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF GLENDA OWENS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE 
       MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Owens. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Stauber, 
Ranking Member Dove, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 
for the invitation to testify on behalf of the Office of 
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement on the President's 
Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request and priorities for OSMRE.
    In accordance with the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977, OSMRE continues to work diligently in 
ensuring that the nation's coal mines operate in a manner that 
protects citizens and the environment during mining and after 
mining, and in addressing the legacy hazards and environmental 
degradation that occurred before the law was passed.
    OSMRE's Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request is $301.9 million, 
which is $11.9 million above the Fiscal Year 2023 enacted 
level. The Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request for the Regulation 
and Technology appropriation is $127.3 million, and for the 
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund appropriation, it is $174.6 
million.
    $200 million of OSMRE's Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request for 
discretionary appropriations provides financial assistance in 
the form of regulatory grants of $65 million and AMLER grants 
of $135 million to eligible states and tribes. $101.9 million 
covers OSMRE's operational costs in fulfilling its SMCRA 
responsibilities. The Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request also 
includes $1.3 billion in mandatory funding for reclamation 
grants to states and tribes and for the United Mine Workers of 
American health benefit plans, and the 1974 UMWA pension plans. 
This budget request for discretionary appropriations enables 
OSM to execute its five business line activities.
    The budget request of $90.6 million for the environmental 
protection business line will enable OSMRE to provide 
regulatory grants to fund 23 primacy state regulatory programs 
and the regulatory program development cost for three tribes. 
This request also enables OSMRE to fund Federal regulatory 
programs in non-primacy states, carrying out mining plan 
reviews for Federal lands and continue efforts to streamline 
mining plan decision processes, among other things.
    The budget request of $155.4 million for environmental 
restoration focuses on state and tribal AML program 
evaluations, abatement of high-priority coal mining-related 
hazards through the Federal Reclamation Program and strategic 
partnerships to address acid mine drainage and other water 
pollution problems.
    Environmental restoration also funds OSMRE's administration 
of the AMLER program, providing eligible states and tribes with 
grants to accelerate the reclamation of AML sites in connection 
with economic and community development end uses. Environmental 
restoration funds the Passive Treatment Protection Program, 
providing grants to non-governmental organizations and local 
and state governmental agencies to operate, maintain, and 
rehabilitate AML passive treatment systems.
    The budget request of $21.3 million for the technology 
development and transfer line enables OSMRE to provide 
technical support and training to states and tribes to ensure 
they have the necessary technical skills and expertise needed 
to effectively operate their SMCRA programs.
    The budget request of $7 million for financial management 
enables OSMRE to carry out its financial management 
responsibilities through fee compliance, revenue management, 
and grants accounting management. Under this business line, 
OSMRE also manages the statutorily required transfers to the 
UMWA and determines AML fund investments.
    The budget request of $27.6 million for the executive 
direction and administration activities funds activities that 
are integral to the development, leadership, guidance provided 
across all areas of OSMRE's SMCRA responsibilities.
    In sum, the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request will enable 
OSMRE to effectively work with the states and tribal partners 
to address the wide range of environmental and public health 
and safety problems associated with coal mining activities.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning, and 
I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Owens follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Statement of Glenda H. Owens, Deputy Director,
         Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
                    U.S. Department of the Interior

                      Introduction and Background

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and other Members 
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify on behalf 
of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) on 
the FY 2024 President's budget request and priorities for the bureau.

    Through the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 
1977 (P.L. 95-87), Congress established OSMRE for two primary purposes:

        First, to ensure that the Nation's coal mines operate in a 
        manner that protects citizens and the environment during 
        mining, and to restore the land affected to a condition capable 
        of supporting the uses it could support before any mining, or 
        higher or better uses following mining.

        Second, to implement an Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Program to 
        address the hazards and environmental degradation resulting 
        from two centuries of coal mining activities that occurred 
        before the law was passed in 1977.

    OSMRE is committed to protecting people, land, water, and the 
environment while ensuring coal mining is conducted in an 
environmentally responsible way. Currently, 24 States have approved 
regulatory programs in place pursuant to the requirements of Title V of 
SMCRA. There are 25 States and 3 Tribes that administer approved AML 
reclamation plans pursuant to Title IV of SMCRA. The major tasks for 
OSMRE are to ensure that States and Tribes successfully address coal 
mining activities for active and abandoned coal mines by ensuring that 
primacy States administer high-quality and effective regulatory and AML 
frameworks. OSMRE monitors these activities through oversight of the 
State Programs. To ensure that primacy States and Tribes have the tools 
necessary to administer their SMCRA Programs effectively, OSMRE 
provides significant funding, technical assistance, training, and 
technological tools to support their efforts.

                   FY 2024 Budget Request Highlights

    OSMRE's FY 2024 budget request is $301.9 million, which is $11.9 
million above the FY 2023 enacted level. The FY 2024 budget request for 
the Regulation and Technology appropriation is $127.3 million and for 
the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund appropriation is $174.6 million. 
The $301.9 million budget request in discretionary appropriations will 
enable OSMRE to fulfill its Title IV (Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation) 
and Title V (Control of the Environmental Impacts of Surface Coal 
Mining) responsibilities under SMCRA. In addition to discretionary 
appropriations, the budget includes $1.3 billion in mandatory funding 
for reclamation grants to States and Tribes, and for the United Mine 
Workers of America (UMWA) health benefit plans and the 1974 UMWA 
pension plans. The FY 2024 budget focuses on funding OSMRE's core 
mission responsibilities and supporting the highest priority efforts 
and activities. The FY 2024 budget request will provide for the 
oversight of responsible coal production through the protection, 
preservation, and restoration of mined lands and the restoration of 
mined lands left unreclaimed from past mining operations. Approximately 
66% ($200 million) of OSMRE's FY 2024 total request for discretionary 
appropriations provides financial assistance in the form of regulatory 
grants ($65 million) and AML Economic Revitalization (AMLER) grants 
($135 million) to eligible States and Tribes. The remaining 34% ($101.9 
million) covers OSMRE's operational costs in fulfilling its SMCRA 
responsibilities.
    OSMRE's discretionary appropriation includes five Budget 
Activities: Environmental Protection, which includes regulatory grants; 
Environmental Restoration, which supports AML programs and funds AMLER 
grants; Technology Development & Transfer; Financial Management; and 
Executive Direction & Administration.
Environmental Protection--Title V--Regulation and Technology

    OSMRE's FY 2024 budget request for Environmental Protection is 
$90.6 million and 181 FTEs. This will enable OSMRE to meet its 2024 
performance goals for the Environmental Protection business line, which 
includes providing $65.0 million in regulatory grants to fund the costs 
for 23 primacy State regulatory programs and funding the regulatory 
program development costs for three Tribes.
    The FY 2024 Environmental Protection request includes $9.7 million 
to oversee and evaluate State and Tribal regulatory programs. The 
request also includes $8.5 million to fund Federal regulatory programs 
in non-primacy States, such as Tennessee and Washington, and on Indian 
Lands. Also, included in the FY 2024 budget request is $1.6 million for 
OSMRE to carry out mining plan reviews for Federal lands and $5.8 
million for program development and maintenance to continue efforts to 
streamline mining plan decision processes and ensure that regulatory 
standards adequately reflect changes in technologies and program needs.
Environmental Restoration--Title IV--Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund

    The FY 2024 budget request for Environmental Restoration is $155.4 
million and 43 FTEs, a program increase of $3.0 million above the FY 
2023 enacted level. The request focuses on State and Tribal AML program 
evaluations, abatement of high-priority coal mining-related hazards 
through the Federal Reclamation Program, for which OSMRE has 
reclamation responsibility, and strategic partnerships to address acid 
mine drainage (AMD) and other water pollution problems. In FY 2024, the 
Environmental Restoration program plans to reclaim 9,800 acres of 
abandoned coal mine lands through traditional mandatory AML grants and 
annual appropriations by eliminating health, safety, and environmental 
hazards and providing several hundred thousand people with reduced 
exposure to safety risks from abandoned mine lands. Under the State 
Program Evaluation activities, OSMRE coordinates evaluation and 
oversight of the State and Tribal AML reclamation operations. Federal 
Reclamation Program Projects and Operations addresses issues in States 
and Tribes without an approved AML program. This program also funds the 
Watershed Cooperative Agreement Program (WCAP) to support cooperative 
conservation with local nonprofit organizations. The Environmental 
Restoration business line also funds the Program Development and 
Maintenance Program activity, which provides policy direction, support 
and services to States and Tribes.
    In addition to the above-mentioned activities, the Environmental 
Restoration business line funds OSMRE's administration of the AMLER 
program and provides eligible States and Tribes with AMLER grants and 
guidance on project eligibility criteria and reporting requirements. 
This program administers grants to six States and three Tribal nations 
to with the dual purpose of supporting economic and community 
development, and reclaiming AML sites.
    The FY 2024 budget includes $135.0 million for AMLER grants and 
allocates 0.75 percent of AMLER appropriations for OSMRE administration 
and 0.5 percent for oversight by the DOI Office of the Inspector 
General. The proposal provides OSMRE with dedicated funding for AMLER 
administration for the first time since the program's inception in 2016 
and will allow the bureau to enhance support for States and Tribes to 
develop projects and speed the Federal project approval process. 
Further, authorizing the transfer of 0.5 percent of AMLER funding to 
the DOI Office of the Inspector General will help ensure that program 
funding is put to effective and efficient use, avoiding waste or abuse 
and maximizing the economic development and environmental benefits that 
the funding is intended to deliver. From creating recreational 
opportunities, developing tourism, and enhancing infrastructure, to 
providing job training, skills, and opportunities, continued funding of 
the AMLER Program will provide economic opportunities and assistance to 
Appalachian coalfield communities and on Indian lands that have a long 
history of scarred landscapes from AML and legacy water pollution 
problems.
    OSMRE provides verification and assistance with project eligibility 
on AMLER project applications submitted by States and Tribes. To that 
end, OSMRE has developed an external-facing AMLER project tracking 
spreadsheet to inform the public and increase transparency of each 
AMLER project's status. The AMLER project tracking system will provide 
transparency on the approval rate and status of project proposals.
Priority Federal Reclamation Projects in Oklahoma

    Pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, OSMRE 
is charged with enforcing SMCRA on Tribal lands within Oklahoma, 
including assuming responsibility for addressing outstanding priority 1 
and priority 2 AML problems. The FY 2024 request of an additional $1.0 
million will build on the $4.0 million in existing base funding to 
increase the number of AML projects that can be addressed in Oklahoma. 
OSMRE will be fully staffed to undertake additional reclamation 
projects in Oklahoma in FY 2024.
Passive Treatment Protection Program (PTPP)

    Passive Treatment Protection Program projects are investments that 
will reduce water pollution discharges from abandoned mine lands. In FY 
2023, OSMRE was appropriated $500,000 to begin a PTPP program. The FY 
2024 budget request includes $2.0 million for the PTPP program to 
provide grants to non-governmental organizations and to local and State 
government agencies to help operate, maintain, and rehabilitate AML 
passive treatment systems that were previously constructed to address 
water pollution from mine drainage.
Technology Development & Transfer--Title IV & V

    The FY 2024 budget request for Technology Development and Transfer 
is $21.3 million and 99 FTEs, with $16.8 million to support Regulation 
and Technology activities and $4.4 million to support AML Reclamation 
Fund activities. The Technology Development and Transfer (TDT) 
activities provide technical support and training to ensure States and 
Tribes have the necessary technical skills and expertise needed to 
effectively operate their SMCRA programs including training, technology 
development, and technology transfer activities to Federal, State, and 
Tribal regulatory and reclamation staff. The TDT funding also 
facilitates OSMRE's efforts to implement effective partnerships with 
stakeholders to meet SMCRA's restoration and protection goals.
Financial Management--Title IV & V

    The FY 2024 budget request for the Financial Management business 
line is $7.0 million and 36 FTEs. The Financial Management business 
line provides resources for OSMRE to carry out its financial management 
program responsibilities through three activities: fee compliance, 
revenue management, and grants accounting management. Under this 
business line, OSMRE also manages the statutorily required transfers to 
the UMWA Health Benefit Plans and the 1974 Pension Plan and is 
responsible for AML fund investments.
Executive Direction & Administration--Title IV & Title V

    The FY 2024 budget request for Executive Direction and 
Administration is $27.6 million and 70 FTEs. This is a program increase 
of $4.96 million and 2 additional FTE from the FY 2023 enacted level. 
The Executive Direction and Administration business line activities are 
integral to OSMRE's Environmental Restoration and Environmental 
Protection mission and Technology Development and Transfer efforts. The 
Executive Direction and Administration business line provides 
leadership, policy, and program management guidance, and support for 
all areas of OSMRE's SMCRA responsibilities. The Executive Direction 
and Administration activity includes the salaries and operating 
expenses for the Office of the Director and six immediate staff 
offices, including the offices of Equal Opportunity; Communications; 
Planning, Analysis, and Budget; Information Resources; Administration; 
and Human Resources.
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan 
        Infrastructure Law (BIL)

    The BIL provides OSMRE a total of $11.293 billion to be spent over 
a period of 15 years. OSMRE has already distributed the majority of the 
FY 2022 grants and will continue to distribute amounts made available 
in the appropriation on an equal annual basis over a 15-year period, in 
accordance with the provisions of the BIL.

                               Conclusion

    With the funding requested for FY 2024, OSMRE will continue its 
core mission and work with its State and Tribal regulatory partners in 
protecting the environment, the public, and property from the adverse 
impacts of active and historic coal mining activities. OSMRE's ongoing 
efforts to improve its partnerships with local, State, and Tribal 
governments, industry, non-profits, and watershed and citizens groups 
will ensure greater effectiveness in addressing the wide range of 
environmental and public health and safety problems associated with 
coal mining activities.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today, and 
I am happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Glenda H. Owens, Deputy 
     Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Ms. Owens did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) 
provided $11.3 billion in abandoned mine land (AML) funding to reclaim 
abandoned coal mines, in addition to the fee-based grant distributions 
to state and tribes from the AML Fund. This was intended to simply add 
new funding to cleanup efforts, not overhaul a program that has been 
working well since the 1970s. However, I understand that the states are 
facing many new so-called ``recommendations'' in order to receive this 
new funding--everything from application formatting and project lists 
to the inclusion of the ``Justice40'' initiative.

    1a) Why is DOI adding nebulous new ``strings'' to the funds from 
IIJA instead of allowing the program to simply function as it always 
has?

    Question 2. On April 25th, OSMRE issued a proposed Ten-Day Notice 
rule, which modifies existing regulations to address potential 
violations under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, as 
well as how citizens' complaints are handled and other matters. I have 
concerns that this rule may conflict with state primacy as explicitly 
addressed in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).

    2a) Did OSMRE consult with states that have primacy under SMCRA or 
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission prior to these revisions?

    2b) The proposed rule states that there are vast problems with the 
2020 Ten-Day notice regulations; but does not provide explicit 
examples. Please provide the data being relied upon for the last three 
years of Ten-Day Notice requests to OSMRE, that show there is a problem 
with the 2020 Ten-Day Notice regulations.

    Question 3. OSMRE is using thresholds about projected coal 
production at a given mine site to determine whether a federal mine 
plan requires an EA or EIS. However, OSMRE has not disclosed what these 
threshold limits are, how they were established, or how they are 
applied in determining the level of NEPA review. Will you commit to 
providing the states and public information about how these thresholds 
are made, and how they are used in review?

    Question 4. OSMRE is applying downstream effects in federal mine 
plan NEPA reviews. This is redundant, as these potential impacts and 
effects are already addressed by BLM during their NEPA analysis. Why is 
OSMRE duplicating the work of another federal agency related to the 
same activity?
    Question 5. On April 26th, the Interstate Mining Compact Commission 
sent you a letter regarding the serious concerns states have about the 
anticipated dam safety rule, requiring Emergency Action Plans for dams 
despite nearly every state already requiring them. Emergency 
preparedness has always been under the primary authority of the states 
throughout the life of the program.

    5a) Why should this rulemaking extend to dams in all states, 
including those with primacy under SMCRA and their own Emergency Action 
Plans in place, instead of being limited to only those dams within 
OSMRE's direct regulatory purview?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Before we get to the questions, I do want to ask unanimous 
consent to also waive on to the Committee Representative Katie 
Porter from California.
    Without objection, so moved.
    We are getting to the questions now, and I will recognize 
myself for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stone-Manning, I am from northern Minnesota. In 
northern Minnesota we hunt, and fish, and recreate. We also 
mine and harvest our timber. We talk about the three pillars: 
timber, taconite, and tourism, in Minnesota.
    During your 2021 confirmation process, it came to light 
that you typed a letter using a pen name to the U.S. Forest 
Service stating in part, and I quote, ``You bastards go in 
there anyway and a lot of people get hurt.'' If unnoticed, tree 
spikes can cause serious injuries for workers. In fact, a mill 
worker lost half his jaw because of a tree spike placed by an 
ecoterrorist.
    This is a simple yes-or-no question. Do you condemn tree 
spiking and other forms of ecoterrorism?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, yes.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes or no. Do you commit to a zero tolerance 
policy when dealing with acts of ecoterrorism?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, yes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. Director Stone-Manning, what was 
the average number of applications for permits to drill issued 
by the Bureau of Land Management per month in Fiscal Year 2022?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I don't have the monthly 
average, but I know that in Fiscal Year 2022, the BLM received 
3,729 APD requests, and we approved 3,010 of them. Operators 
drilled on just over 2,000 of them.
    Mr. Stauber. The applications for Fiscal Year 2022 for the 
applications to permits to drill were 238. Do you know how many 
the Trump administration issued on average per month in Fiscal 
Year 2020?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I do not.
    Mr. Stauber. 386. Meaning your Department's APD approvals 
have declined by 40 percent. Ms. Stone-Manning, this is 
embarrassing, but par for the course, as President Biden stated 
on his campaign, and I quote, ``I guarantee you we are going to 
end fossil fuel.'' Is this 40 percent reduction intentional as 
part of President Biden's stated campaign goal of ending fossil 
fuel?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Chairman Stauber, it is my understanding 
that in the first 2 years of the Biden administration we 
approved more APDs than in the first 2 years of the Trump 
administration. And there are 6,755 APDs that are out there and 
the industry is choosing not to use. The President has urged 
them to use them.
    Mr. Stauber. As far as the APDs go, is it your intention to 
continue to increase those applications, within the next 2 
years of this Administration?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we respond to the 
applications we receive in a timely manner and we get them back 
out the door.
    Mr. Stauber. The IIJA created a categorical exclusion for 
gathering lines for oil and gas operations to reduce quantity 
of methane. To your knowledge, has the Department used this 
categorical exclusion?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, it is a helpful tool, but as I 
understand it, we have been asked once to do it and have done 
it in Colorado.
    Mr. Stauber. You have used it once?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. In Colorado.
    Mr. Stauber. How many requests?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I don't know the answer to that 
question, Congressman. I can get back to you on that. But I 
believe just once.
    Mr. Stauber. Do you have an idea of how many requests? 
Would you have any idea?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. No, I believe it is just once, but I can 
confirm that and get back to you.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. And I appreciate that. Can you please 
commit to following the law and using the categorical exclusion 
to increase methane capture?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Absolutely, Congressman, that is what we 
do, follow the law.
    Mr. Stauber. A couple more questions. Have there been any 
new coal leases or lease modifications approved either for 
thermal or metallurgical coal, which is not under the leasing 
ban, as you know, under the Department of the Interior under 
the Biden administration?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. It is my understanding that we approved 
a lease expansion in North Dakota at the Center Mine.
    Mr. Stauber. How many have been requested?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I don't have that number off the top of 
my head, Congressman.
    Mr. Stauber. Will you commit to getting that information to 
the Committee?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, I will check with my folks at the 
Department and get back to you.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. With that being said, I would hope that 
the philosophy of keep it in the ground mentality change under 
your leadership. I think that you know that many areas of our 
nation have natural resources and are abundant, so we can do 
these activities and keep our environment clean.
    With that, my time is up. I am going to turn it over to 
Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove. Thank you.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Stone-Manning, you mentioned that communities of 
color, low-income families, rural and Indigenous communities 
have long-suffered disproportionate and cumulative effects from 
air and water pollution. Glad to see that you are trying to 
address some of those disproportionate impacts in your budget. 
Do you believe that these communities are important?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Absolutely, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. Good to have that on the record for 
everyone.
    Can you elaborate on how the proposed budget increase will 
support underserved communities that have been adversely 
impacted by energy and mining activities in the past?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thanks for the question. 
I think we are doing that in two ways. First, we are making the 
transition to a clean energy economy so that we can blunt 
future pollution from occurring to future communities. Second, 
through investments of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and 
the Inflation Reduction Act, we are putting people to work 
restoring these places, restoring abandoned and orphaned oil 
and gas wells, for example, restoring landscapes that have been 
impacted by climate change, and the budget reflects that we are 
trying to do that as much as possible by bringing in youth 
through the Youth Corps.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great, thank you. And what is BLM doing 
to improve community protections from oil and gas development, 
especially those who have been disproportionately impacted who 
share the burden, and how would the Republican-proposed budget 
cuts hurt those protections? I ask because in my district we 
have the largest urban oil field in the United States.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thanks for the question. 
We are approaching the oil and gas program to try to make it as 
balanced and responsible as possible, so we are asking 
companies to focus their development in places that have high 
potential for oil and gas. The Bipartisan Infrastructure law 
put in abundant provisions to make a fair return for the 
taxpayer.
    And forthcoming in a couple months will be an oil and gas 
rulemaking, I think as you all have seen, on the unified agenda 
that will help us ensure those policies into the future.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great. The last question. Do you ever 
not follow the law?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, I always follow the law. 
Thanks for the question.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. Thank you for that.
    Deputy Director Owens, your agency handles the regulation 
of current coal mining and the cleanup of coal mines abandoned 
before the industry was regulated in 1977. As you mentioned in 
your testimony, OSM is now administering a clean-up program 
with more than $11 billion over the next 15 years. How is OSMRE 
leveraging those funds to boost economic development and create 
jobs and communities that have been left behind by the 
declining coal industry?
    Ms. Owens. Thank you for that question, Representative 
Dove. OSM has been working diligently since the passage of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. We call it BIL back at OSMRE. 
But since the passage of the BIL, we have been working with our 
states and tribal partners soliciting feedback on how we can 
most effectively, as you say, leverage these dollars. This 
historic investment of over $11 billion is a once in a 
generation opportunity for us to actually get out there and get 
the funds.
    Before the BIL was enacted, the reclamation fee collection 
was scheduled to expire. With the extension of the BIL and the 
15-year funding that we have, we are getting more money out to 
states than ever before. The highest amount of funding received 
by one state, Pennsylvania, in this year, Fiscal Year 2022, was 
$244 million. That is more than the monies that went out for 
the entire AML program in Fiscal Year 2021.
    But the exponential increase of funding for the AML program 
and the opportunities that are created, the broadening of the 
scope, the opportunity to create jobs, to hire displaced coal 
workers, and to require and ensure cleanup in areas that we had 
not been able to reach under the historic traditional AML fee-
based program, the opportunities now for us, as I say, are 
exponential. And we have 15 years now to take advantage of this 
funding and to get into those communities that had been 
adversely impacted by those legacy mine sites that had been 
abandoned prior to SMCRA's enactment in 1977.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that.
    My time is up, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. I will now recognize the Chairman 
of the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber. Thank you, 
Director Stone-Manning and Director Owens, for being here 
today.
    Director Stone-Manning, I was reading in the newspaper this 
morning about BLM's proposal to sell land, or to do 
conservation leases, I guess is what you would call it, on BLM 
land, and I am a little bit confused. Could you tell me how BLM 
defines conservation or how you personally define conservation?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman Westerman, thanks for the 
question. The Public Lands Rule envisions--I think the 
conservation lease portion of that rule that you are referring 
to is for two purposes: for restoration activities and for 
compensatory mitigation.
    Mr. Westerman. If you go back to Teddy Roosevelt, he said 
that conservation means development as much as protection. We 
often hear it called wise use. My idea of conservation is you 
use it and leave it better for future generations.
    So, my question is, is BLM not practicing conservation on 
lands that are leased for other purposes right now?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, yes, we are. And the 
interesting thing about the Public Lands Rule is it expresses 
the part of our Organic Act, FLPMA, that requires us to protect 
fish and wildlife habitat, protect scenic values, protect 
cultural values.
    Mr. Westerman. Does this mean that multiple use is 
antiquated, that we can't have multiple use anymore? Because my 
understanding was that we were going to have multiple use on 
these public lands with conservation everywhere that we use the 
lands. Are you saying multiple use and conservation are 
mutually exclusive?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I am not. What the rule does is make 
conservation an equal among multiple uses, so there----
    Mr. Westerman. But is conservation a multiple use or is it 
an ethic that should be practiced across all uses?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. We are expressing what FLPMA asks us to 
do which is to make those values an equal. And there are three 
buckets basically to the rule. One that looks at protection of 
intact landscapes as FLPMA asks us to do; one that looks at 
restoration as the landscape is requiring us to do; and one to 
make wise decisions based on science and data. And I think that 
third point gets to what you are talking about. Of course, that 
is conservation, bringing science data deeper into our decision 
making.
    Mr. Westerman. It is giving the impression that there is no 
conservation taking place on BLM lands now, so you have to set 
aside a new category and call it conservation, which I think it 
is very concerning to me if BLM is not practicing conservation 
where you have oil and mineral leases, where you have grazing. 
Conservation should be throughout all of the uses on BLM land.
    And also, some of the actions of BLM are telling me that 
conservation is not being practiced. If you look at wildfire, 
we have seen an average of about 2 million acres per year on 
BLM land go up in flames. And if you do a rough calculation, 
you are probably looking at 30 or 40 million tons of carbon 
being released every year off of BLM lands. That doesn't seem 
like conservation to me.
    So, shouldn't BLM be focused more on practicing 
conservation under the programs that you already have rather 
than trying to set aside more land to put them in programs like 
BLM manages forest land, which is really not managed at all, it 
is being mismanaged.
    You talked about science. Your agency actually released a 
report on old growth with the Forest Service that clearly 
recognized that mature forests are not a scientifically-
recognized term in forestry. If you really claim to utilize the 
best science, why is BLM proposing to fundamentally change the 
way we manage these forests on flawed science?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thanks for the question. 
The technical report that I think you are referring to was 
written by scientists.
    Mr. Westerman. Yes, and they said that your terminology is 
wrong.
    And I have to go quickly to Ms. Owens. When Secretary 
Haaland was here, she talked about 20 new mine modifications or 
expansions that your agency has approved since 2021. Can you 
tell me what new mines, or modifications, or expansions those 
were?
    Ms. Owens. Representative Westerman, thank you for the 
question. Most recently, in fact, on May 12, OSMRE, the 
Department, approved a mining plan modification for the Center 
Mine in North Dakota, and we have----
    Mr. Westerman. And what kind of mine was that?
    Ms. Owens. It is Center Mine. What kind of mine?
    Mr. Westerman. What were they mining there?
    Ms. Owens. I don't know exactly. It was not met coal. But I 
can get that information for you.
    Mr. Westerman. We have asked for that information, and 
nobody has been able to provide it so far. So, you are familiar 
with one mine that has been----
    Ms. Owens. Well, that is the one that was most recently 
approved, mining plan----
    Mr. Westerman. Secretary Haaland said there were 20. Can 
you get that list for us?
    Ms. Owens. We don't have 20, I am sorry. I think Secretary 
Haaland may have been also including NEPA decisions for leasing 
as well as mining.
    Mr. Westerman. I would think with the emphasis on 
electrifying the economy that BLM would be cranking out as many 
critical mineral and copper mine permits as you could possibly 
do, but that seems to be just the opposite. I understand the 
political bias against fossil fuels, which I think is 
incorrect, but I understand that. But I do not understand the 
attack on mining and the failure to utilize our resources to 
achieve the objectives that the Administration said it wants to 
achieve.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Huffman from California.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses for being here.
    I want to applaud BLM for promoting renewable energy 
development on our public lands despite the challenges of all 
of those deadbeat APDs that form a checkerboard on the BLM map 
around much of the country limiting our ability to be creative 
and do some of these other things on our public lands. But you 
have lowered rental rates, you have updated the Solar 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, and you are on 
track to more than achieve the most recent renewables goal that 
we have set, putting us in the nice position of raising the bar 
and setting a new goal.
    So, these things that you have done are a type of 
streamlining, a type of permit reform. It kind of goes against 
one of the prevailing narratives around here right now, but a 
lot of this is already happening under your leadership, and I 
appreciate it.
    As we are aware, reaching the Administration's clean energy 
goals will not just include investing in renewable energy 
development but also transmission, so I want to ask you a 
little bit about how we are going to provide that power 
generation and transmission. I represent the North Coast of 
California. Humboldt Bay is the site of two of California's 
five offshore wind lease locations, and BLM lands could very 
well come into play when it comes to the transmission upgrades 
we are going to need to bring that energy on-line.
    Can you tell us how BLM is working to ensure transmission 
capacity is ready for the future build-out of clean energy?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thanks for the question. We 
are laser-focused on transmission. The electrons that we are 
producing with solar, and wind, and all forms of energy need to 
get from Point A to Point B. We are working on nine 
transmission lines as we speak and happily did a ribbon cutting 
just a couple months ago on one in the Southwest, ribbon 
cutting coming in June on one in Wyoming. And we are working 
across the Federal Government, working very closely with the 
Department of Energy to ensure that we can get this really 
important work done.
    Mr. Huffman. Yes. Thank you for that. The Inflation 
Reduction Act gave you some new authorities to improve the 
antiquated oil and gas leasing program that includes raising 
royalty rates and adding a royalty on all extracted methane, 
including methane that is lost through venting, flaring, or 
negligent release. I know you are working on a rulemaking on 
this issue as well, and I think we have a long way to go to 
bring this program into the 21st century, but let me just ask 
you how these new authorities and the BLM rulemaking on methane 
are going to help reduce emissions on public lands?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thanks for the question. We 
are trying to focus development in the very best places. The 
Waste Prevention Rule I think that you are speaking of is going 
to help reduce wasted gas, literally burning money on a 
resource unnecessarily. And then oil and gas rulemaking is 
going to implement what the Congress has done through rule and 
then also address bonding which we think will help the overall 
program on behalf of the American taxpayer.
    Mr. Huffman. All right, thank you. I want to ask about 
conservation. I think you can see that that has become a word 
that makes some of our colleagues across the aisle squirm these 
days, unless you are defining conservation as some type of 
polluting extractive industry use. Most of us define it a 
little bit differently. But certainly it is embedded in BLM's 
multiple use mission.
    Can you tell us a little more about how your work is not 
going to negatively impact BLM's multiple use mission or the 
original intent of FLPMA? Why is conservation perfectly 
consistent with that?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thanks for the job and the 
10,000 people that work for us, do conservation everyday and 
want to be able to have more tools in the toolbox to do that 
work. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act expressly 
states in Section 208 that our management needs to preserve and 
protect certain public lands and their natural condition. It 
needs to provide food and habitat for fish, wildlife, and 
domestic animals, as well as for outdoor recreation and human 
occupancy. It needs to protect the scientific, scenic, 
historic, ecological, environmental, air, atmospheric, and 
cultural values, to just name a few.
    The framework that is the Public Lands Rule is going to 
give us a consistent way to deliver on what FLPMA is asking us 
to do.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. And just by way of perspective, 
what percentage of the 245 million acres of land you manage is 
open for leasing oil and gas?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, over 90 percent.
    Mr. Huffman. Yes. And how about hard rock mining?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, all of our lands are open 
to hard rock mining unless expressly withdrawn.
    Mr. Huffman. Does the new proposed rule undermine any valid 
existing rights?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. It does not.
    Mr. Huffman. Just one last question. When you manage for 
conservation, you don't just let land go feral, right? I mean, 
if you are going to try to restore native grasslands, you 
probably, at least for some period of time, going to employ 
grazing as part of that conservation management, right?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. That is right. Conservation in a time of 
climate change is active work.
    Mr. Huffman. All right. Well, I thank you very much. It 
seems to me that this proposed rule is perfectly consistent 
with your mission, in fact, it is a refreshing modernization of 
it in a system that has been wildly out of balance in favor of 
extractive industry for too long.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Stauber. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lamborn for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
having this important hearing.
    And, Representative Huffman, I think that you may consider 
this a modernization of the language in the bill, but it is an 
expansion that is outside the parameter of the definitions of 
what the mission of the agency is under the bill.
    So, Director Stone-Manning, what is the legal justification 
for proposing this rule, because conservation leases are not 
mentioned in the Organic Act that created and defined the 
obligations of the Bureau of Land Management today?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you, Congressman, for the 
question. Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act tells the Secretary that she has many tools in which to use 
and leasing authority is one of those tools.
    Mr. Lamborn. Apart from that, let me ask you about the 
application that you are intending to use this newly created 
land use for. If there is a parcel of land which has a 
conservation lease that has been given out in the future, will 
grazing be able to be done on that same land?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Absolutely.
    Mr. Lamborn. Will energy development be able to be done on 
that same land?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Once the conservation lease has expired? 
Is that the question?
    Mr. Lamborn. During the term of the conservation----
    Ms. Stone-Manning. The term of the conservation lease would 
preclude uses that directly conflict with the underlying 
conservation lease, and each one is going to be different.
    Mr. Lamborn. Would mining of resources be able to be done 
during the term of a conservation lease?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Again, it would likely conflict.
    Mr. Lamborn. Would recreation be able to be done during the 
term of a conservation lease?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, likely.
    Mr. Lamborn. Would timber harvesting be able to be done 
during the duration of a conservation lease?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Depending, a lot of forest work is 
necessary for restoration of watersheds, so that would likely 
be a compatible use.
    Mr. Lamborn. Wow, you are creating a new use, and you are 
crowding out the uses that you are supposed to be doing. You 
have things backward. This is kind of amazing. This is 
breathtakingly arrogant on the part of the agency.
    Let me change subject here and ask you about a proposed use 
of $7 million or 17 percent of the budget for deferred 
maintenance and capital improvements to install electric 
vehicle charging infrastructure. Wouldn't it be a better use of 
the valuable taxpayer dollars and your mandate to be doing 
things like promoting rangeland health, reducing the risk of 
wildfires, and carrying out what is supposed to be the multiple 
use mandate that you have?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thanks for that question. 
Those other uses do have increases in the budget that I hope 
you will take a good look at. The EV infrastructure that you 
are referring to is part of an Administration priority. I 
remember back when I was the Director of the Department of 
Environmental Quality in Montana, and the previous governor had 
swapped the whole fleet of state cars to hybrids and everybody 
thought he was nuts, and it ended up saving us millions of 
dollars.
    Mr. Lamborn. Have you looked at the lifetime use of energy 
and the pollution caused by an EV versus an internal combustion 
engine car, including the mining of lithium and everything else 
that goes into making the batteries of the EV?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I have not done that 
analysis. I imagine somebody has.
    Mr. Lamborn. I wonder about that. Well, I will be talking 
to the appropriators and maybe we can strip that out.
    Mr. Chairman, that is all I have, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Lee from Nevada for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Chair Stauber.
    Director Stone-Manning, good to see you. Last month, I had 
the opportunity to ask Secretary Deb Haaland about this 
proposed Public Lands Rule, and she emphasized that this 
conservation-centered rulemaking does not intend to slow down 
clean energy development projects. I believe the Secretary, and 
I don't question the rule's intent, but I have continued to 
hear some concerns from stakeholders, especially in my 
district, that the rule may have a chilling effect on clean 
energy development, regardless of its intent.
    So, what would you say in response to these worries that 
the language about maintaining intact landscapes and ecosystem 
resilience, for instance, could inadvertently block out clean 
energy from BLM lands and obviously have an impact on the goal 
of transitioning to 100 percent renewable, clean electricity by 
2035, you know, making that unachievable?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thank you for the 
question. I recall reading one of your quotes when the proposed 
rule came out and you wondered if the BLM can walk and chew gum 
at the same time, and we do that every day. It is what we do 
with a multiple use mission. I have no doubt that we are going 
to be able to deliver on the incredible resources in your 
state. We are on track for 13 gigawatts, and there is a whole 
bunch coming up right behind it. What this rule is going to 
enable us to do is be smart and thoughtful about where and how 
that development happens.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. The Office of ORIA typically reviews 
all significant rulemakings, and I understand that ORIA has 
claimed that this rule, one that has been characterized as a 
seismic shift in land management, is somehow not significant 
and therefore not subject to ORIA review. I also understand 
that BLM intends to apply a categorical exclusion to the 
proposed rule then run it through the NEPA process.
    Wouldn't it make sense for ORIA and BLM to subject this 
Public Lands Rule to more thorough review now to minimize the 
potential for mutual headaches and misunderstandings with clean 
energy advocates as well as agricultural, recreational 
stakeholders, we are hearing several other stakeholder views 
here today, down the road?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thank you for the 
question. The final rule is going to have a categorical 
exclusion right along with it because this rule is procedural 
in nature and therefore doesn't require the full extent of 
NEPA. Some of the things that it may do, like restoration 
projects, those, of course, as they happen, will undergo NEPA.
    But the rule itself is largely procedural. We are talking 
about landscape health assessments, and gathering science and 
data, and doing a lot of procedural steps. That is why it has a 
cat ex.
    Ms. Lee. That is good to hear. It sounds like BLM would be 
able to quickly course correct in the event that when this 
takes effect, that some of these concerns of the clean energy 
community bear out. Is my understanding correct that BLM would 
be able to quickly course correct then?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes. Again, we can walk and chew gum at 
the same time. I am confident we are going to be able to not 
only meet our gigawatt goals for 2025 but exceed them, and into 
the future, do that same level of work.
    Ms. Lee. And then finally, we have been dealing in Nevada 
with delays, primarily because of staffing. Can you comment on 
what the impact of the proposed Republican budget would have on 
your staffing and being able to process all of these 
applications?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, I have heard the number 
25 percent, and I am certain that we would fail to deliver for 
the American people if our budget was slashed by 25 percent. 
For example, in renewable energy, we are working on 64 projects 
right now that are going to deliver, if all go through, 30 
gigawatts of capacity. And there are 147 projects waiting in 
the wings. What I need to get those projects off the ground are 
people, which is why you see the budget increase that you see 
in this proposed budget of the President's of 77 percent in the 
renewable energy management line.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, I yield.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Hunt from Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much 
for being here, to the witnesses, I really appreciate your 
time.
    My first question is for you, Ms. Stone-Manning. I have a 
question for you, and it is, is the oil and gas industry 
important to the future of our country, ma'am?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, it is.
    Mr. Hunt. So, I think I would actually, obviously, 100 
percent agree with that. A little background on me. I am from 
Houston, Texas, the energy capitol of the world. The entire 
energy corridor is in my district, so this is an issue that is 
very near and dear to my heart. And I can tell you that oil and 
gas will be a part of our future for a very long time, at least 
for sure in my lifetime.
    And one of my favorite quotes actually came from Bill Gates 
when he said, and this is kind of paraphrasing, of course, that 
if we were able to miraculously snap our fingers, and if every 
single American drove an EV tomorrow, we would only decrease 
the demand of a barrel of oil by 8 percent. We would still use 
92 percent of a barrel of oil because of all the by-products of 
the industry. So, I think it is clear that we are not going 
anywhere for the foreseeable future, and I want to ensure that 
we continue to make production as easy and as attainable for 
companies to provide us with energy and goods for the future.
    Is it true that your Department has a statutory obligation 
to approve or deny an application for a permit to drill within 
30 days of receipt of a complete APD package?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Hunt. Are you aware of the average APD issuance 
timeline by your field offices to date?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, there is a back and forth. 
We ask the company for information. Sometimes it takes them 
quite a bit of time to get us that information back. I have 
looked at the timelines, I have dug in and asked why there are 
sometimes delays. Some of it is on us, 109 days on BLM. But it 
is 162 days on average that we wait for information to come 
back from the company.
    Mr. Hunt. So, given the 30-day statutory requirement, do 
you think that is an acceptable timeline, considering that is 
significantly more than the 30 days allotted? And I know there 
are a lot of challenges here, but go ahead, ma'am.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, for a complete application, we need 
to make sure that everybody is crossing T's and dotting I's so 
that we follow the law. And sometimes it takes a while for the 
companies to get back to us, sometimes we have delays over 
litigation, and frankly, sometimes our delays are because our 
staff are burning the candle at both ends.
    Mr. Hunt. I understand that. So, in order to get this, I 
think, within better compliance, do you have a plan or an idea 
of what we can do to implement anything, or how can we actually 
help you to achieve these goals to get it closer to that 30-day 
limit?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I appreciate the question, and I would 
ask us also to look at the big picture. There are over 6,700 
APDs that are sitting unused by the industry right now.
    Mr. Hunt. How many, can you say it again? I am sorry, I 
didn't hear that.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Over 6,700.
    Mr. Hunt. OK. Lastly, ma'am, I do want to say this. These 
timelines are really putting a burden on a lot of companies, 
especially in my district, that impacts us every day, and it is 
also a symbiotic relationship between my district in Houston, 
Texas and the Permian Basin, and I am hearing from companies 
every single day that these timelines are absolutely crippling 
the industry, and I am not kidding. I get calls to my staff 
every day. And I really want to make sure that we work 
together, R or D, I really don't care, to get this within 
compliance.
    So, as a question, just so we can work together here, would 
you commit to decreasing the average time of an APD by 25 
percent by the end of the year?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I would ask that you 
support the President's budget, which reflects an increase of 
$10.4 million in our oil and gas management line. That would 
help.
    Mr. Hunt. OK. Well, thank you so much, ma'am.
    I yield back my time.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Velazquez from New York for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Stone-Manning, welcome. The Inflation Reduction 
Act, which Democrats passed last Congress, included several 
boosts to clean energy infrastructure through more than $1 
billion in the IRA for Federal agency permitting offices. How 
is the Bureau of Land Management using Inflation Reduction Act 
funds to shrink timelines for permitting, specifically for 
renewable energy projects on Federal land?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thank you for the 
question, and also thank you for the congressional support for 
speeding up permitting in the form of extra people. We are 
using some of that permitting funding for the Solar 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement which will help us 
guide solar development to the right places so that when 
projects come in, we have done a bunch of the analysis up top. 
I think that is really going to help.
    Ms. Velazquez. And can you give an overview of how the deep 
budget cuts proposed by Republicans impact the Bureau's ability 
to promote renewable energy development on our public lands?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Thanks for the question. Again, we have 
over 170, I think, proposals that are waiting in the wings to 
be analyzed, which is why you see the request in this budget 
for a 77 percent increase in the renewable energy management 
line. That is people. That is people doing the work and doing 
the analysis.
    If we faced deep cuts, it takes people to do this work, so 
we would not be able to deliver on our commitment for an energy 
secure future to the American people.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. And as you mentioned, the Fiscal 
Year 2024 budget includes $72.5 million for the renewable 
energy management program. This funding increase, among others, 
will help meet the Administration's renewable energy and 
greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.
    Can you talk briefly about how the proposed budget will 
allow renewable energy coordinating offices to meet the 
expected demand for renewable energy development over the next 
couple of years? And if there are additional ways Congress can 
support your work to deploy renewable energy, please share with 
us.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, thank you for that question, 
Congresswoman. I think I mis-spoke a second ago. There are 147 
projects waiting in the wings that would deliver over 50 
gigawatts of power.
    The additional funding from Congress would help us do the 
analysis necessary to get those projects out the door but also 
help us coordinate with other agencies. There are many equities 
involved. Often we need to work with our colleagues at the Fish 
and Wildlife Service to ensure that we are meeting laws guiding 
sensitive species. So, the additional support would help us do 
what the American people are asking us to do which is have a 
fully functioning approach to governing.
    Ms. Velazquez. In other words, budgets have consequences.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Indeed.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. And the Chair would like 
to mention that, Director Stone-Manning, you mentioned there 
are 147 projects waiting in the wings. I will submit to you, 
H.R. 1 will help as well.
    The next speaker is Mr. Fulcher from Idaho, 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Director 
Manning, Deputy Director Owens, thank you for being here today.
    On March 28, 2023, in the House Appropriations Committee, 
it was Secretary Haaland that stated the BLM has permitted more 
than 126 renewable energy projects, meaning wind, solar, 
geothermal. During the same hearing, she also said since 2021, 
the BLM has approved 20 mines or mine modifications. And I 
think just a little bit ago you said 22 is like 3,000, if I 
heard correctly. And then Deputy Director Owens I think came up 
with one possible mine modification or mine approval.
    First of all, can you speak to the disparity there, or is 
there a disparity, or is there just a misunderstanding? And 
secondly, what criteria does the BLM, or Department of the 
Interior, use to prioritize one project over another?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thanks for the question. 
There are over 20 mines that have been expanded, or modified, 
or permitted in the first 2 years, ranging from everything from 
gold to lithium.
    Mr. Fulcher. And what was the 3,000 number that you had 
referenced a little bit earlier? Was that just simply renewable 
or what was that? Just a few minutes ago you had referenced a 
number of over 3,000.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Oh, I believe that was applications to 
drill for oil and gas.
    Mr. Fulcher. Applications, not permits.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. APDs. That is a permit, yes.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK. What is the criteria that the Department 
of the Interior uses when they prioritize one project over 
another?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you. We respond to what comes to 
us, so in hard rock mining, for example, a proposal walks in 
the door, and we respond to it, right. The 1872 Mining Law 
says----
    Mr. Fulcher. So, 126 versus 20, if that is right, that is a 
pretty significant difference.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you. I think you are asking about 
the renewable energy projects. We do have a prioritizing 
project sort of screen. Is it close to transmission? Are there 
threatened endangered species on the site? Basically, is it 
ready for prime time?
    Mr. Fulcher. OK. So, there is a prioritization process.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. There is, yes.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, given that prioritization process of 
renewable, in this case, compared to that of mining, does the 
BLM intend to similarly prioritize conservation leases over 
mining projects with this new rule?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thank you for the question. 
Again, we will take requests as they come in the door and 
analyze them, like we do in all of our other work.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, just as a reminder, if you take the 
language in your rule proposal at face value, that makes 
conservation a use, which is, as Congressman Westerman 
indicated, by default that means other stuff doesn't employ 
conservation. So, you have a real conflict there, and I hope 
you recognize that.
    Director Manning, I want to encourage you to hold some in-
person public hearings in my home state of Idaho, and I think 
it would be great if you would be there on this Public Land 
Rule and personally attend those. And I also want to just point 
out to you that part of the reason that we are here is FLPMA is 
a job and those rules in putting those things in place, that is 
something that we are supposed to be doing as opposed to an 
agency. Now you can always argue that we are not doing it well 
enough but, frankly, that is our job, and I want to just point 
that out to you.
    In 2022, S&P Global Report stated to meet electronic 
vehicle demand, unless there is a massive new supply that comes 
on-line in a timely way, the goal of the net-zero emissions by 
2050 will be short-circuited and remain out of reach. And as 
you know, the Biden administration is also seeking to create a 
carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035. Director Manning, 
where are those minerals going to come from?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I am pleased to share, as I 
hope you saw, we issued a notice to proceed on the Thacker Pass 
Lithium Mine a month ago. That mine is going to deliver 20 
percent of the nation's lithium needs.
    Mr. Fulcher. One mine?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. There is another mine coming right up 
behind it that we are analyzing now, and there are, as I 
understand----
    Mr. Fulcher. Why not just go ahead and say, you know what, 
this is something we don't want to do, we want to get it all 
from China? Why not do that?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we follow the law. The 1872 
Mining Law says that when developers come to us with a valid 
claim, we respond, and we go through the NEPA process to----
    Mr. Fulcher. Director Manning, I am about out of time, so I 
just have to tell you, at this pace, there is no way we are 
even close. It is a bankrupt argument to say that somehow, some 
way, we are going to control this domestically because right 
now we are dependent on foreign lands.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to enter into the record a letter sent 
to Director Manning last week by the Idaho Delegation 
requesting in-person public meetings to be held in Idaho.
    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

                     IDAHO CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION

                                                   May 11, 2023    

Hon. Tracy Stone-Manning
Director, Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Director Stone-Manning:

    As the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) considers a major shift in 
the long-standing and well understood multiple-use approach of federal 
land management, we are discouraged to see Idaho was not listed as one 
of the sites for in-person public meetings regarding the proposed 
Public Lands Rule. Further, we were disappointed to see not only was 
Idaho not included, but the in-person locations are geographically 
concentrated away from many of BLM's constituents. For example, the 
closest in-person meeting for Idaho residents is Reno, Nevada, a trip 
that can take anywhere between 5 and 14 hours by car.
    Additionally, while significant strides have been made in rural 
broadband development, some Idaho residents still lack reliable 
coverage needed to communicate and participate in a virtual meeting. 
This includes those in sparsely populated areas. With the COVID 
emergency ending, it is important for the BLM to meet with shareholders 
in person and face the public.
    Idaho has 12 million acres of BLM managed land, and this rule will 
significantly impact how Idahoans interact with those public lands. By 
categorizing conservation as a use, rather than an outcome, this rule 
will effectively ensure the uses Idahoans have traditionally enjoyed on 
our public lands will be placed in competition with conservation, 
rather than in harmony. This action is in direct conflict with the 
congressional mandate to manage public lands for multiple use.
    Given the impact this rule will have on all Idahoans, we urge you 
to hold in-person meetings in Idaho to gather feedback from the 
stakeholders that this proposed rule will impact. The BLM is proposing 
extensive management practice changes with the capacity to severely 
disrupt multiple uses from grazing to recreation as well as other 
considerations such as Tribal access. Therefore, it is imperative that 
the BLM hears directly from Idahoans, in the state of Idaho, in-person. 
We would also encourage you to personally attend these in-person 
meetings as head of the BLM. That would offer both direct feedback and 
good interaction with your Idaho State Director and her team. We look 
forward to a modification of the schedule for in-person meetings soon.

            Sincerely,

        Mike Crapo                    James E. Risch
        U.S. Senate                   U.S. Senate

        Mike Simpson                  Russ Fulcher
        House of Representatives      House of Representatives

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mullin 
from California for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Director 
Stone-Manning for all the work BLM is doing to promote 
renewable energy deployment on public lands. The rapid 
deployment of renewable energy on our public lands is critical 
for our country's clean energy transition.
    I would like to explore just a little bit how we can get 
those renewable sources built out and generating power as 
efficiently and safely as possible. Many of the figures shared 
by the agency focused on permitted capacity, which is 
understandable as the Bureau's direct authority over this part 
of the process.
    But can you tell us a little bit about any disconnect 
between permitted and deployed capacity, and can you ballpark 
the average wait time between when a project is permitted and 
when it is completed and connected to the grid, in other words, 
actually deployed, can you talk a little bit about that 
challenge?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thanks for the question. I 
can't ballpark because it really depends on the project, it 
depends on the financial backing of the project, it depends on 
a lot of things that are completely out of BLM's control. Once 
projects are approved, I think what is in the BLM's control is 
ensuring that there is transmission available to get those 
electrons to the people who need it, which is why we are so 
laser focused on transmission development as we speak.
    Mr. Mullin. I understand that transmission is quite a 
hurdle here. What other obstacles stand between a project being 
permitted and being deployed, and what can Congress do to help 
that process move forward?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I would proffer that you 
might want to talk to developers to find out how to fill those 
gaps for themselves. Once BLM has done its job and gotten the 
permit, it is out of our hands. So, I expect they would give 
you a better answer than I will.
    Mr. Mullin. With that, I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Mullin. H.R. 1 will help. I now 
recognize Mr. Tiffany from Wisconsin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Director Stone-Manning, we are going to have a 
hearing this afternoon in the Federal Lands Subcommittee about 
wildland fires, and one of the quotes in there is from the 
gentleman that runs that unit. And I didn't realize this. There 
are 154 wildland firefighters that have died over the last 
number of years, and his quote is this, ``We're losing people 
at a terrifying rate.''
    Why would you spend $7 million on EV infrastructure when 
you have this tremendous backlog of land that needs to be dealt 
with, and that needs work, and that these people need pay 
increases, they need the equipment to be able to do their job? 
Why would you spend $7 million on EV infrastructure?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thank you for the question. 
This is an Administration priority in part to address climate 
change and, of course----
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you support that priority by the 
Administration?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I do, Congressman, because climate 
change is in part what is driving the dramatic increase in 
wildfires on our landscape.
    Mr. Tiffany. What if you are wrong about climate change? 
What if it turns out that we don't see 3 degrees additional 
global temperatures by 2050? What if you are wrong about that?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I am not going to second 
guess scientists from all over the country and all over the 
globe.
    Mr. Tiffany. How about the over 1,000 scientists that 
disagree with that, that say, sure, there is climate change, 
but it is not man-driven?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, again, I am not going to 
second guess climate science that is widely accepted.
    Mr. Tiffany. We just heard that we are going to see the end 
of the world by 2030 by the person sitting in the Ranking 
Member's chair in opening remarks. We had a Vice President that 
said the end of the world was coming in 10 years. He said it in 
2007. And then by 2017, he said basically the end of the world 
is coming.
    Is it possible that it may not happen, that climate change 
may not be the end of the world, as so many people, like 
yourself, claim?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I believe it is incumbent 
upon all of us to fix a problem that we know exists in our 
world and in our country. It is our obligation to future 
generations to do that work.
    Mr. Tiffany. But what if you are wrong?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, again, I am not going to 
second guess what is known to be true.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, it is dogmatic, it is faith-based that you 
simply believe it, even though there has been a pause over 
about the last 10 years when you read some of the leading 
climate scientists who are saying there has been a pause for 
about the last 10 years.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I believe we are going to 
agree to disagree on this one.
    Mr. Tiffany. You talked about protection of landscapes and 
the conservation portion of what you are attempting to do. That 
is one of the priorities, protection of landscapes. Does the 
public want to see windmills and solar arrays on those public 
lands?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thank you for the question. 
Change is difficult, and it is our job to work with local 
communities to ensure that any impacts are mitigated.
    Mr. Tiffany. Does the public want to see transmission lines 
where they have never seen them before and are perhaps 
unnecessary if we didn't go this route?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, again, thanks for the 
question. I think what I know the public wants is to ensure 
that the public lands that we manage into the future are as 
healthy as possible, that they deliver clean water, they 
deliver wildlife habitat, and addressing climate change is 
going to enable that.
    Mr. Tiffany. I am glad you mentioned wildlife habitat. Does 
the public want to see all the endangered species that are 
being killed by these Cuisinarts in the sky, by the solar 
arrays? What do they call them, flamers, that go through? Like 
what is it, the Ivanpah Project out in California? They call 
them flamers where endangered birds would fly through there and 
they would just be incinerated. Is that what the public wants?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, it is our job to work with 
our colleagues at the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that 
any development we do takes into account the needs of 
threatened fish and wildlife, and we do that work.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are you familiar that FERC last week, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a few of the 
Commissioners, in fact, there was like three of them, they said 
there was an elevated chance of blackouts, and they are deeply 
concerned about the coal plant closures that are being proposed 
as a result of climate change?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I am not familiar with that 
FERC study. I am familiar with the need for transmission which 
is why we are working so hard to develop it, and I hope you 
will fund it through this budget.
    Mr. Tiffany. They didn't just talk about transmission, they 
talked about production of energy. They said we are going to 
fall short if we continue in this direction that we are going.
    Final question. In regards to the letter that you wrote to 
the United States Forest Service, and you said you always 
follow the law, is tree spiking following the law?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I always follow the law and 
always have.
    Mr. Tiffany. Did you follow the law when you wrote that 
letter to the U.S. Forest Service?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I didn't write the letter, 
I re-typed the letter, and I always follow the law. I have been 
through a confirmation process. This old history was thoroughly 
vetted by the U.S. Senate, and they confirmed me, and I am here 
before you today to talk about the priorities of the Bureau.
    Mr. Tiffany. Did anyone go to prison as a result of writing 
a letter threatening logger's lives?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I am sorry, could you repeat that 
question?
    Mr. Tiffany. Did anyone go to prison as a result of that 
letter that was written threatening logger's lives?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. People went to prison as a result of my 
testimony against them.
    Mr. Tiffany. While you participated in the process.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I did not participate.
    Mr. Tiffany. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 
Collins from Georgia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Stone-Manning, every administration has added new 
lease acreage to the pipeline for future production; however, 
as the Chairman stated earlier, you and this Administration 
have leased fewer acres for oil and gas drilling offshore and 
on Federal land than any other administration in its early 
stages dating back to World War II. According to the EIA, 
global energy consumption is on track to grow by nearly 50 
percent by 2050 and conventional energy sources like petroleum 
will remain the largest energy source over that time.
    Don't you think that future demands should be met by 
production in this country where we do it cleaner and safer 
than anywhere else in the world?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thank you for the question. 
President Biden and Secretary Haaland are very focused on 
energy security which is why they are asking us to transition 
to the clean energy economy that we are aiming to deliver.
    Mr. Collins. OK. I wanted to switch gears a little bit and 
ask you about some other things that you have been stating, 
particularly that you say you need more analysts and stuff. 
Your Fiscal Year 2024, $1.7 billion if I am right.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. That is a $200 million increase over the 2023 
budget, correct?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. All right. So, out of the $200 million, how 
much of that is going to go for additional employees?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I should have the FTEs off 
the top of my head, but I do not. I can tell you the areas in 
which we are going to focus----
    Mr. Collins. Well, I mean, if it is so important that you 
added analysts, I would think that you would have those numbers 
readily available to support your sales pitch.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I am happy to provide them for the 
record. We are going to focus on increasing staff in renewable 
energy, increasing staff in oil and gas, increasing funding for 
the wild horse and burro program.
    Mr. Collins. What percentage of that will go for oil and 
gas, since Mr. Hunt was asking about decreasing the time?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. The oil and gas program is asking for a 
$10 million increase, which is 5 percent of the overall 
increase that we are requesting in this budget.
    Mr. Collins. And you don't know how much of that will go 
toward people power.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. No, but I can find out for the record 
for you.
    Mr. Collins. OK. Yes, I would love to know that. How many 
people are still at home working?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we have people remote 
working, we have people teleworking, we have people working in 
the office. I don't have the breakdown of the numbers for you.
    Mr. Collins. When did you require them all to return back 
to the office and start working from the office?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. If I can be clear about one thing, the 
10,000 people at the Bureau of Land Management who have a 25 
percent vacancy rate are doing the work of two people at a 
time, and they work hard every day. Where they are working I 
think is less relevant to me than how they are working.
    Mr. Collins. Ma'am, I would like to say that just because 
you are working harder doesn't mean that you are productive. 
That is why we have offices, and the pandemic was over, I don't 
know if you realized it, earlier this week, and we have 
required that all Federal employees get back in the office to 
go to work.
    You are up here saying that you need more analysts, more 
analysts, I need more staff. We hear this every time somebody 
comes in. But then when we ask, where is everybody at? Well, a 
third of them are still at home watching The Price is Right 
when they should be working from the office where you can be 
more productive.
    We are $31 trillion in debt. How much debt is too much debt 
for this country?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I believe that is a job for 
the Congress to consider.
    Mr. Collins. No, I am sure you had input on getting the 
extra $200 million put into your budget. You are a part of this 
debt. So, how much is too much? Where do we stop?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I might respectfully say 
that a $1.7 billion budget is a lot of money, but equated to 
the overall budget of the United States of America, this Bureau 
is the biggest land management agency in the country, and we 
are the least funded.
    Mr. Collins. I think a dollar is a dollar to the American 
people, which you say you are committed to do the American 
people's work. I also think that you have leased fewer acres 
for drilling oil. And I think that just because you say you 
need analysts but you can't answer the questions of how many is 
a prime example of what we face up here every day when we have 
hearings that we can't get true answers on.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 
Rosendale for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to be here today.
    Director Stone-Manning, always good to see you. We continue 
to hear about transparency and the perception of self-interest 
in this Committee in regards to the Directors and senior staff. 
As a known former collaborator with ecoterrorists, it is hard 
for me and many of my constituents to be confident that your 
decisions are guided by what is best for this country instead 
of being guided by what is your political activism and 
extremism.
    Two prime examples of this are the most recent rule 
disregarding 70 years of best range management practices to 
benefit one lessee in North Central Montana better known as the 
APR, which you and I have discussed many times over. The other 
is the new proposed rule that conflicts with the Taylor Grazing 
Act which hurts Montana's significant ranching industry and 
threatens the long-standing relationship between our ranchers 
and public lands managements.
    In 2008, while you were the regional director for Senator 
Tester, you received a large loan from one of his major donors 
at a below market rate that you had previously undisclosed 
until you were up for Senate confirmation for your current 
post. We had a lot of information brought out during that 
hearing that we had never heard before.
    Just 2 years prior to receiving that loan, while you were 
executive director of the Clark Fork Coalition, you made what 
you yourself described as an unprecedented act of supporting 
this donor's development project in Missoula. This, combined 
with your past history of collaboration with ecoterrorism, 
further gives the perception that you do not have the best 
interest of the American people in mind, and instead, will 
prioritize your own personal beliefs and friendships over those 
of the American people and this country.
    The new rule proposed by the BLM is in direct conflict with 
the Taylor Grazing Act, and the people that are going to be 
impacted by it the most are being severely deterred from 
participating and testifying because of the selected hearing 
locations being so far away from the areas that it is going to 
impact. Will you accommodate the request from this Committee, 
several of the Members individually and the Committee as a 
whole, to change or add locations to hold hearings in the 
actual communities that are being impacted by this proposed 
rule?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, last evening, we had our 
first Public Lands Rule meeting. It was virtual. Over 300 
people came. It lasted until 9 eastern time in the night.
    Mr. Rosendale. I am not concerned about the previous 
meetings for this proposed rule. What I am asking you is that 
the locations that you have proposed to hold the hearings for 
this rule are in locations that are in urban areas that are far 
removed from the people that are going to be impacted. You just 
heard Representative Fulcher request, I have requested, and 
this Committee's letter will probably hit your desk tomorrow, 
that says will you add additional locations or change the 
locations so that the people that are going to be impacted, 
such as Fergus County, Montana in Lewistown, would be added on 
to your hearing locations?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I look forward to that 
letter, and we will consider it.
    Mr. Rosendale. Will you commit to this body that you will 
hold the hearings in the communities that are going to be 
impacted?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I am going to take that request back to 
the team and consider it.
    Mr. Rosendale. In your testimony, you mentioned how your 
agency manages 700 million acres of mineral estate, yet the 
Biden administration has just canceled and withdrawn some 
leasing from some of the most mineral-rich land in the country. 
Do you believe that this withdrawal was proper?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I am sorry, do I believe this 
withdrawal----
    Mr. Rosendale. Withdrawal from leasing was proper.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I do, Congressman.
    Mr. Rosendale. And why is that?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. We have 700 million acres of subsurface 
minerals, and there are the right places to mine in this 
country and there are some places that are just too special and 
the watershed above the Boundary Waters is one of those places.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, that is not the only place, is my 
understanding----
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Rosendale, would you yield to me?
    Mr. Rosendale. I will yield, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Stauber. Director Stone-Manning, you just said the 
Boundary Waters is not a place where you mine, is that what you 
just said?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I said the watershed above the Boundary 
Waters.
    Mr. Stauber. You said the Boundary Waters. Do you know 
there is going to be no mining in the Boundary Waters or the 
buffer zone around it? And let's be clear about that.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman----
    Mr. Stauber. I yield back to Mr. Rosendale.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. There was a preposition there. Above the 
Boundary Waters, because everybody understands that water flows 
downhill.
    Mr. Stauber. Above the what? Would you yield?
    Mr. Rosendale. I yield, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Stauber. Tell me the watershed above the Boundary 
Waters, explain that to us.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. The Rainy Creek Watershed is 
hydrologically above the Boundary Waters.
    Mr. Stauber. The Rainy River Watershed.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
    Mr. Stauber. And what is below? What is the watershed 
below?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. The Rainy River Watershed flows into the 
Boundary Waters.
    Mr. Stauber. Director Stone-Manning, Lake Superior 
Watershed, Rainy River Watershed are the two watersheds we are 
dealing with the mining. The Biden administration pulled the 
leases for purely political reasons, and I can specifically say 
that, Director, because they wouldn't let an EIS go through, 
which as you know, is the highest scrutiny the Federal 
Government can give a mine plant of operation. They won't even 
let that go through.
    Mr. Rosendale, I yield.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much. I see that I am out of 
time, Mr. Chair, but if I could, could I ask one last question?
    Mr. Stauber. Go ahead.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much.
    Director Stone-Manning, as we see that you are trying to 
elevate conservation above just best management practices in 
these new rules, do you see similar withdrawals in the pipeline 
of what you have already shared with us?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thanks for the question. 
You may know that we are currently analyzing one at a place 
called the Thompson Divide in Colorado. We are currently 
analyzing one in a place called Chaco.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, you do see similar withdrawals in the 
pipeline because you have elevated conservation measures above 
best management practices.
    Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gosar 
from Arizona for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
    Good morning, Director. The Administrator of ORIA makes a 
determination of whether or not a rule is major, although this 
information would have been submitted by the BLM. Major rules 
include those that are likely to result in: (1) an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major 
increase in costs or prices for consumers, individuals, 
industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or 
geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment investment, productivity, innovation, 
or on the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
    The proposed Conservation Rule was not determined to be a 
major rule. Yet, in 2023, BLM published a blog noting the 
recreation activities on the BLM public lands contributed about 
$11.4 billion to the national economy. In fact, your own 
testimony states, and I quote, ``Programs administrated on 
public lands managed by the BLM supported on an estimated $201 
billion in economic output and approximately 783,000 jobs.''
    As conservation leases will potentially lock off these 
lands to current BLM permittees, I would like to understand how 
the Bureau determined that this proposed rule did not have the 
impact of more than $100 million per year on the national 
economy or would potentially create an impact in cost for state 
and local governments as their local tax revenue could 
potentially dry up from all of this economic output. Will you 
share the entire economic analysis conducted by the agency and 
submitted to ORIA to make that determination with the 
Committee?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thank you for the question. 
As we were discussing earlier, the Public Lands Rule is largely 
procedural in nature, implementing existing law through FLPMA, 
and therefore, it received the determination that it received 
from ORIA.
    Dr. Gosar. I mean, this is a major impact, and it should 
have the valuation because of its impact to state and local 
communities, so let's talk about this. Arizona came into the 
Constitution as statehood. It was first rejected by Taft. In 
the second attempt, Taft required that Arizona take the Federal 
estate and then coerced Arizona, said in lieu of we would have 
the multiple purpose aspects of the land in respect. So, 
forming a contract with Arizona.
    So, withdrawal of this is huge, and the impact on Arizona 
would be immense. I don't know why it bypassed that because it 
has special designation to it. I want to know that you are 
going to show how you came about that this was not a major 
rule.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, again, thank you for the 
question. ORIA made that determination, I believe, because this 
rule is largely procedural in nature.
    Dr. Gosar. But it is a major economic impact, so doesn't 
that take that rule and change it?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Any work that we do to restore the 
landscape to ensure our multiple use and sustained yield 
mission into the future, in fact, adds economic benefit. For 
example, say we restore 250 acres of cheatgrass and get it back 
into a bunch grass community that is good forage, that actually 
is of economic value. Any time we invest in the landscape to 
make it more productive in the future, which is what this rule 
is going to do, it benefits the American people.
    Dr. Gosar. OK, so let's go there. BLM did not schedule a 
listening session in my state of Arizona on this proposed rule, 
which has, like I said, the potential to dramatically alter the 
way in which many of my constituents engage with the agency on 
a day-to-day basis. Not to mention its longer-term impact on 
their businesses, which are often generally owned. I understand 
that BLM is offering two virtual sessions, but you are making 
the assumption that everyone either has the ability to travel 
hundreds of miles in person to attend a listening session or to 
access broadband that is strong enough for these virtual 
sessions.
    For an administration that proclaims to value input from 
tribal communities and rural communities, I would think you 
would understand the challenges of Wi-Fi in rural areas, or the 
lack thereof. I am not sure if you have ever visited these 
areas, but often there is not even running water, much less 
reliable Wi-Fi. I would like you to commit to holding a 
listening session in my state of Arizona for all those impacted 
by this proposed rule.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, again, I will take that 
back to the team, and we will get back to you.
    Dr. Gosar. Last question. Have you ever been contacted by 
an entity on behalf of a foreign entity or government or a 
group representing an interest in a BLM decision?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I am sorry, can you repeat that?
    Dr. Gosar. Have you ever been contacted by an individual or 
foreign person representing a foreign entity or government 
representing their interest in a BLM decision?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Representing our interest in a BLM 
matter?
    Dr. Gosar. Yes. Their interest. Have you ever been 
approached by a foreign entity or those representing a foreign 
entity on behalf of a BLM decision?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Not to my knowledge, Congressman. I know 
that there are some companies that are in Canada, for example, 
or in Australia that I have met with over mining interests.
    Dr. Gosar. Just really curious, if you remember Rob Bishop 
looking into some of the antics of China and Russia in regards 
to some decisions, trying to push money in publicity of these 
events, so we are just trying to make sure what is going on in 
those lines. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Porter from 
California for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Stone-Manning, the Bureau of Land Management has a 
really important job. Your bureau is responsible for making 
fossil fuel companies clean up the messes that they make, and 
to do that, you have to make them pay for it so that taxpayers 
are not. As you may know, the typical cost of actually plugging 
an oil well and doing surface reclamation is $76,000. 
Currently, the Bureau only requires Big Oil to put up a $10,000 
bond to reclaim a well.
    So, let's do a little math. Roughly what percentage of 
clean-up costs would $10,000 cover for the typical well?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, not enough.
    Ms. Porter. Not enough. The true answer is 13.2. $10,000 
bond, $76,000 actual cost. Would you say an oil or gas company 
is cleaning up their mess if they only pay for like one-eighth 
or even less of the cost?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I would not.
    Ms. Porter. So, with requirements like this $10,000 bond, 
companies are sticking the American taxpayers with the bill for 
their mess. Today, I am asking the Bureau that is supposed to 
be protecting taxpayers exactly what you have been doing to 
stop this. What are BLM field offices supposed to do if they 
find the $10,000 minimum bond for an oil and gas lease is not 
enough to likely cover the cost of cleanup in their region?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thank you for the 
question; it is an important line of questioning. As I hope you 
know, we have a forthcoming rulemaking on oil and gas that 
includes looking at our old bonding provisions.
    Ms. Porter. I appreciate that, Director Stone-Manning, but 
before we get to the forthcoming rule, let's look at what the 
law currently says before we go make a new regulation.
    BLM's policy as of at least since 2013 says, ``It is the 
responsibility of the BLM state office to raise the bond amount 
above the minimum, $10,000, required by the regulations when 
there is an unacceptable degree of risk and potential liability 
to the Federal Government for the plugging and reclamation cost 
of non-plugged wells.''
    So, BLM offices have had now for at least a decade not only 
the authority to raise the bond, but they are required by their 
own policy that I just read to raise the bond above the minimum 
requirement when the $10,000 minimum is not covering the actual 
cost of cleanup and reclamation. So, what percent of BLM's own 
proposed bond increases, because they have the authority to ask 
for more, the duty, the requirement to ask for more, what 
percentage of BLM's own proposed bond increases has it actually 
secured from fossil fuel companies?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, I do not have that in 
front of me. I would happily get it to you.
    Ms. Porter. According to the Bureau's own 2019 memo, it was 
16 percent. 16 percent. So, if BLM can't enforce its own rules, 
and you are telling us you are going to write new ones, how do 
I have confidence that we are not going to have a repeat of the 
exact same problem? How do we trust that BLM this time is going 
to actually collect from fossil fuel companies an appropriate 
bond when it has failed to do so in the past?
    I agree that raising the minimum bond would help, and I 
heard from Secretary Haaland that they are working on a 
proposed rule for the revision. So, first, can you confirm 
today that your proposed rule will raise the $10,000 bonding 
minimum?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I look forward to sharing it with the 
public once it is through all of its internal review.
    Ms. Porter. So, that is a no, you can't confirm it yet. 
Second, what factors should you be considering as part of your 
rulemaking to make sure that the bonding minimum actually 
covers the cost of cleanup and reclamation?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Thanks for that question. There have 
been a handful of reports, including from the GAO, that we are 
taking a very close look at on this very topic to inform the 
work that you will see and, I hope, comment on shortly.
    Ms. Porter. Because in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law we 
had to obligate $10 million, $20 million to cleaning up these 
oil wells, to cleaning up the mess of the fossil fuel 
companies, and while I know it is tempting to point the finger 
at fossil fuel companies, and I have and will do so when they 
break the rules, we have to also be willing to hold ourselves 
to accountable as environmental stewards, including at the BLM.
    I would just urge you to think about how you are going to 
reassure Members on both sides of the aisle of this Committee 
that when the new regulation comes out, we will have a better 
system and a better structure, so that when BLM asks for a 
higher bond, they are not getting 16 cents on the dollar.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Duarte from California for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Hello, Director, thank you for being here 
today.
    Reading about wild horses. Great American visual, but a 
bigger problem than what we are actually addressing. In your 
report here, you are asking for $154 million to keep the ponies 
in a corral, 60,000 of them. We have agreed upon, I think it 
was quite a process that agreed that 27,000 wild horses on the 
American plains was an ideal number, at least that was the 
compromise.
    Currently there are 80,000 by your estimates, plus. And I 
believe from wild horse seminars I have been to, odd as that 
is, they grow by about 20 percent in population a year if left 
unchecked, and the detriment of these uncontrolled wild horse 
herds on the western plain, these are non-native wild horses, 
so they interrupt with native species, they interrupt with 
grazing plans where ranching families are attempting to 
sustainably graze their rangeland, make sure the wild horses 
don't eat too much of the feed stock around the water holes 
lest their cows can't get between the forage and the water 
hole.
    And young horses and old horses can't get between the 
forage and the water hole in many of these areas, and they 
simply die of either dehydration or starvation, so this is an 
ugly thing. This is ugly. The only real way to deal with it is 
to eradicate wild horses from the plains. That is the reality, 
I believe.
    You can put them on trains and send them to Mexico for 
horse slaughter, we can revise our horse slaughter laws here in 
America, or we can appropriate $154 million this year per your 
budget request, and something more next year, and something 
more again the following year until we have 120,000 horses in 
captivity and 160,000 horses on the plains.
    Do you have a plan otherwise?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I appreciate the question, 
and I appreciate you understanding the rock and the hard place 
that we find ourselves between with the Wild Horse and Burro 
Program. We are, in fact, responsible for 150,000 animals, 
82,000 of them on public lands and 60,000 of them either in 
corrals or off-range pastures. We use every tool that we are 
given, and we are asking for your help in more funding so that 
we can do the work of getting especially that 82,000 number 
back down to 27,000 both for the health of the horses and the 
benefit of the range.
    Mr. Duarte. And to do that, you are looking at 
sterilization, you are looking at birth control for wild 
horses.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Fertility is a big part of our work.
    Mr. Duarte. So, a wild horse takes, what, 2 or 3 years to 
get to gestational age? At this point, we have tens of 
thousands of horses. We all know we are heading into a budget 
crunch here, so we can either eradicate the horses, which I 
know is not something any of us want to watch, but it is the 
reality, or we can appropriate hundreds and hundreds of 
millions of dollars over the next 5 to 10 years, maybe up to a 
billion total to provide birth control for wild horses and 
store up excess inventory, or we can open up capture and export 
for horse slaughter.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, that is a question for 
Congress.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you. I will take the challenge.
    I will waive back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Carl from Alabama for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to begin by thanking the witnesses for being 
here today. As you both know, there is a mine operating in my 
home state of Alabama, the name Warrior Met Coal, that has been 
working on a lease by application for years. The LBA began its 
scope in 2014, and it is still pending. After a number of 
discussions with individuals at your department, I understand 
we are working toward a resolution on this issue, and I thank 
you for that.
    I appreciate you working with me and the Members of my 
Delegation on this issue. I look forward to receiving the 
information about approval timeline on the LBA later this week, 
so I am told.
    Ms. Owens, I have a question on another issue. I understand 
your agency published a proposed rule on April 25 known as the 
10-day notice to modify existing regulations to address 
potential violations under the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act as well as how citizens complain, I think that 
is right, are handled in the manner they are handled. I believe 
the states are doing a great job in this position right now, 
given their borders.
    Given the 10-Day Notice Rule that was just updated in 2020, 
and is working well I might add, why do you need to make such 
major changes to balance the state and Federal authority in a 
new proposed rule?
    Ms. Owens. Thank you for the question, Congressman. As you 
mentioned, a 10-Day Notice Rule was published in 2020. In 2021, 
the Department took a look, we wanted to review and examine the 
2020 rule. After that review, it was determined that there are 
areas in which the rule could be improved, so we engaged in the 
rulemaking and have, as you also mentioned, on April 25 
published a revised 10-Day Notice Rule.
    And among the reasons for the revision to the 10-Day Notice 
Rule is that there remained burdens on citizens who wanted to 
file complaints or share information with the state regulatory 
authority or OSMRE regarding potential violations at mining 
sites. And there was also a need for clarity for the procedures 
of issuing and receiving responses in determining whether 
appropriate actions had been taken in response to those 10-day 
notices.
    So, the recent 10-Day Notice Rule was published to address 
all of those concerns that were disclosed upon a re-examination 
of the 2020 rule.
    Mr. Carl. So, you think the Federal Government can do a 
better job than the state in processing those complaints?
    Ms. Owens. OSMRE, under SMCRA has a responsibility, SMCRA 
gives citizens the ability to file a citizen's complaint and, 
in fact, the 10-day notice process is established in the 
Surface Mining Act.
    Mr. Carl. Yes, ma'am. When you have a government that takes 
9 years to process an application, I don't think they are going 
to process complaints quite as fast as they would in the state. 
The state level has a way of moving quicker, and they still get 
criticized for time. Thank you for your response.
    Director Manning, let me hit you up real quick. 
Congresswoman Porter kind of touched a nerve when she was 
talking about the reclamation of the oil fields. What is the 
bond cost for the solar fields, and what is the bond cost for 
the wind farms?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we do bond for both of 
those activities, and I am going to have to talk with the team 
and get you those numbers. They are not in front of me.
    Mr. Carl. Do you think that is enough to clean that up, 
whatever the bond is on it?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I am under the working 
assumption that we have learned from the oil and gas program 
and we are carrying that forward to the renewable program.
    Mr. Carl. Well, I would be curious, because I don't know 
those numbers. It is not a trap question. I would really love 
to look at that.
    With that, Mr. Chair, thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. Boebert, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today.
    Director Stone-Manning, in Mesa County, one of the great 
counties that I represent, we have been waiting more than 5 
years for a particular parcel. We have been waiting for the BLM 
to sell this 31.1-acre parcel of land in Clifton. It would be 
sold at a fair market value, and it is on the disposal list 
currently. I am just curious if this is an issue that is on 
your radar?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, you just put it there, 
and I commit to you that I will look into it.
    Mrs. Boebert. I would love to work with you on this. This 
is a big deal for my constituents in Mesa County. I have toured 
the site and have legislation to support this, so if there is 
something that we could find to work together on, this parcel 
of land would be a great place to start.
    Now, my colleagues in this Committee and in the House, they 
have claimed numerous times during debate that wilderness 
designations don't prevent or restrict active forest 
management. I am curious if you agree with those sentiments.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, we do manage wilderness 
differently than we manage the front country, but we do have 
tools at our disposal.
    Mrs. Boebert. What are some of those tools? Because, 
particularly, mechanical thinning is something that is 
prevented in wilderness areas, and we are reduced down to old, 
long two-man hand saws. Do you think that that is enough to 
manage our forests with 6 billion standing dead trees in the 
West?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. That and prescribed fire I think is what 
is necessary for wilderness.
    Mrs. Boebert. A hand saw and prescribed fire rather than 
mechanical thinning? As a follow-up, if we are serious about 
actively managing our forests, and I believe that we all are to 
some degree, we just have different ideas on how to get there, 
we have to prevent these catastrophic wildfires, and certainly 
prescribed burns is one great way to do that, and forest 
cleanup, and reducing the fuels that are on the ground. But 
would you say that we need more mechanical thinning on a larger 
scale in these overgrown areas?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, we are focusing that work 
with great intent around the Wildland Urban Interface in order 
to protect people and communities. Last year, we did about a 
million acres of mechanical treatment. This year, we have a 
goal of about 1.3.
    Mrs. Boebert. And are you intending to increase the use of 
mechanical thinning?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Around communities, yes, we are. We are 
focusing the work in places that----
    Mrs. Boebert. Well, in my district, we don't have as many 
of those communities that would be affected, but we certainly 
have areas that my colleagues are trying to designate 
wilderness and already have, and that prevents us from actively 
managing our forests. And I believe that the greatest way to do 
this on a larger scale is to increase mechanical thinning.
    We have to reduce the 234 million acres of forest that is 
currently considered high risk for these dangerous and 
catastrophic wildfires. That is another thing that I would love 
to work with you on, because we have to be good stewards of the 
land that we have been given and actively managing our forests 
is one way to do that.
    Now moving on, mineral lease sales are required by law to 
take place at least quarterly. Accordingly, there should have 
been at least nine rounds of lease sales in the past 2 years. 
With gas prices as high as they are, there should have probably 
been more than nine, how many rounds of onshore lease sales has 
the BLM held in the last 28 months?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thank you for the 
question. We held a lease sale in Fiscal Year 2022 that was 
five sales, if I am remembering properly. We have regular sales 
coming starting this month. But I think that the----
    Mrs. Boebert. How many sales are scheduled for this month? 
Because I am showing that the answer is one. We have had one 
lease sale, and the BLM is not currently complying with the law 
here and truly hurting domestic energy production. So, how many 
sales do you have planned?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, oil and gas production is 
at an all-time high on Federal lands, and oil and gas corporate 
profits are at an all-time high, 14 percent of----
    Mrs. Boebert. I live in a drilling community, and I can 
testify that we have been regulated into poverty with our oil 
and gas production because politicians get into office, and 
virtue signal, and make these false claims about our good, 
clean energy production, and, unfortunately, it is hurting my 
constituents. So, if we could work together to increase these 
sales and increase future production, I think that would help 
the future revenues for essential services like schools, roads, 
firefighting, and all of the things that we care about so much.
    Director Stone-Manning, I am over my time, and I thank you 
so much for your answers.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Hageman from Wyoming for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    Ms. Stone-Manning, Governor Mark Gordon of my home state 
sent a letter on April 25 to Secretary Haaland asking when the 
mine plan amendment for the Black Butte Mine near Rock Springs 
would be forthcoming from the Department. This application was 
approved by the state in 2021, but OSMRE has continuously 
requested more and conflicting information from the operator. 
The amendment has been through three NEPA reviews, all of which 
have been completed, but I understand it is still pending at 
the Office of the Solicitor.
    Why does this approval continue to be delayed, and when can 
we expect it to be completed?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thank you for the 
question, but I believe that is a question for Deputy Director 
Owens.
    Ms. Owens. Yes.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Deputy Director Owens.
    Ms. Owens. Yes, thank you for the question. We are 
processing the Black Butte Mining Plan Modification. As you 
noted, it is with the solicitors. We have had some recent 
adverse court decisions on our mining plan decisions, so we 
want to make sure that as we move forward the decisions that we 
make are going to be durable, they are going to be legally 
defensible.
    Ms. Hageman. Do you have an estimated date by when you will 
have it completed?
    Ms. Owens. I don't have an estimated date, but I can say 
that we are hoping that it will be out soon.
    Ms. Hageman. Before the end of the year?
    Ms. Owens. I can't say that today, but I can get a better 
understanding and give you a better answer.
    Ms. Hageman. Director Stone-Manning, are you aware that the 
USDA Forest Service has administrative responsibility to manage 
the Taylor Grazing Act grazing districts in the National Forest 
System under the Federal Land Policy Management Act?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
    Ms. Hageman. When writing the Conservation and Landscape 
Health Rule, did BLM confer with USDA Forest Service?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thank you for the 
question. We did confer with several different departments 
across the Federal Government.
    Ms. Hageman. Did you confer with the USDA Forest Service?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. We did.
    Ms. Hageman. Are you aware that NEPA requires agencies to 
assess and resolve programmatic conflicts before moving forward 
with a rule, yet BLM has claimed a categorical exclusion for 
this rule under NEPA, is that correct?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, yes, this rule is 
procedural in nature which is why it only requires a cat ex.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, that doesn't seem right. Director Stone-
Manning, another question has to do with the conservation 
leasing system proposed by the BLM Conservation and Landscape 
Health Rule. Under the current Interior system, oil and gas 
leases on BLM lands are valued using a market analysis and 
FLPMA requires the Secretary of the Interior to maximize 
revenues for the benefit of the American people. Are you aware 
of that?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Can you repeat that?
    Ms. Hageman. Are you aware that the FLPMA requires the 
Secretary of the Interior to maximize revenues for the benefit 
of the American people?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, and I am also aware that FLPMA asks 
us to balance those uses.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. And to my knowledge, there is no system 
currently that exists for determining how conservation lease 
values would be established which will then leave it to 
valuation by third parties or pure speculation. That seems by 
definition to be arbitrary, wouldn't you agree?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, I would not agree with 
that.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Director Stone-Manning, we have a chart--I 
guess we don't have a chart in here, oh, right over here--that 
shows oil production on tribal lands has decreased during this 
Administration and consequently approval of tribal drilling 
permits has declined significantly under your watch. In fact, 
in Fiscal Year 2020, under the Trump administration, the BLM 
approved 405 trial APDs, and since you have been here, there 
have only been 158 that have been approved. The revenues from 
energy production on tribal lands are very important for tribal 
economies, as I am sure you are most likely aware.
    This Administration often talks about equity and about how 
energy development and production are somehow racist, yet the 
Department of the Interior itself estimates that undeveloped 
reserves of coal, natural gas, and oil on tribal lands could 
generate nearly $1 trillion in revenues for tribes and 
surrounding communities. For many tribes, energy development is 
the primary revenue generator to fund education, 
infrastructure, and other public services on tribal land. 
Getting those permits approved is essential for many tribes. 
And I think it is worth pointing out that this Administration's 
policies are very destructive to the interests of our tribes 
and our Native populations.
    Will you commit to working with Congress and the tribes to 
expedite approval of tribal applications for permits to drill?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thank you for the 
question. We work very closely with our colleagues at BIA in 
implementing Indian allotments. And I would also proffer, 
again, that we are at an all-time high of production on our 
Federal lands.
    Ms. Hageman. You haven't answered my question. Will you 
work closely with Congress and the tribes to ensure that we can 
expedite the tribal applications for permits to drill?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, I would happily work with 
your office and with your tribal constituents on implementing 
the law fairly.
    Ms. Hageman. Again, you didn't answer my question, but that 
is just the way that it goes with this Administration.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I would like to thank all 
the witnesses for the valuable testimony today and the Members 
for their questions.
    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, 
May 19. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business 
days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman

                        Statement for the Record
                      Alton Coal Development, LLC
                  Addressing Coal Mine Bonus Payments

    The Department of the Interior has a long history of leasing 
federal land containing coal deposits to mining companies willing to 
mine those deposits under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Successful 
bidders pay a per-acre lease rental as well as ``bonus payments'' that 
represent the fair market value of the lease. Coal mining, however, is 
presently facing multiple challenges in the United States.
    Environmental NGOs often bring lawsuits seeking to stop coal 
leasing broadly, or to impede or stop individual leases as has 
happened, for example, in Utah. (See, Utah Physicians for a Healthy 
Environment et al v. Bureau of Land Management, Case No. 2:29-cv-00256 
(D. Utah)). Further, in August 2022 the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Montana reinstated a federal coal leasing moratorium 
nationwide. These lawsuits and the coal leasing moratorium can make it 
difficult for lessees to continue mining operations.
    At one mine in Utah, the mine plan progresses by mine block and 
requires a mine plan amendment for each added block. To progress from 
one completed mine block to another, the mining company is required to 
have approval of its submitted mine plan amendment from the State of 
Utah and the Department of Interior's Office of Surface Mining 
Reclamation and Enforcement. In view of the lawsuit and the moratorium, 
approval is unlikely. Without these approvals, the coal company will be 
prevented from exercising its exclusive rights under the lease to mine 
the coal within the lease. Under this scenario, however, a coal company 
cannot terminate and return the lease, and reclaim and close the mine.
    The company in Utah paid a ``bonus payment'' of over $12,000,000 at 
the time the lease was issued. If it terminated the lease because of 
the moratorium and environmental lawsuit, the company would be owed 
more than $11,000,000 based on the amount of coal left in the ground. 
However, the coal leasing law--the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 
amended (30 U.S.C. Sec. 181-287--has no statutory provision for 
reimbursing bonus payments for early mine closures. This breach of 
contract and simple fairness principles warrant reimbursement under 
these circumstances (e.g., energy transition, moratorium, policy-driven 
litigation).
    In cases where a company has paid the required ``bonus payment'' 
for a federal lease well in advance of coal being extracted, but is 
unable to operate that mine, fairness and good faith requires that the 
U.S. reimburse any advance payments for coal that cannot be mined. In 
the face of potential mine closures due to the coal leasing moratorium, 
OSMRE and the Department of the Interior ought to reimburse companies 
that are not able to fully mine their leases.

                                 ______
                                 

Visuals Shown During the Hearing by Rep. Hageman

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               [all]