[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S EFFORTS TO LIMIT
ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) 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
52-418 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
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, CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ Ruben Gallego, AZ
Garret Graves, LA Joe Neguse, CO
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Mike Levin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Katie Porter, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Pete Stauber, MN Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
John R. Curtis, UT Kevin Mullin, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI Val T. Hoyle, OR
Jerry Carl, AL Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT Seth Magaziner, RI
Lauren Boebert, CO Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Cliff Bentz, OR Ed Case, HI
Jen Kiggans, VA Debbie Dingell, MI
Jim Moylan, GU Susie Lee, NV
Wesley P. Hunt, TX
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 OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
MIKE COLLINS, GA, Vice Chair
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, NM, Ranking Member
Matt Rosendale, MT Ed Case, HI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Ruben Gallego, AZ
Mike Collins, GA Susie Lee, NV
Anna Paulina Luna, FL Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, May 24, 2023.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 1
Stansbury, Hon. Melanie A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Mexico.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Devlin, Hon. Todd, Prairie County Commissioner, Terry,
Montana.................................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Goicoechea, J.J., DVM, Director, Nevada Department of
Agriculture, Sparks, Nevada................................ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Richard, Stephanie Garcia, New Mexico Commissioner of Public
Lands, Santa Fe, New Mexico................................ 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Lingenfelter, Hon. Travis, Chairman, Mohave County Board of
Supervisors, Kingman, Arizona.............................. 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar
American Exploration & Mining Association, Letter to
Committee dated May 24, 2023........................... 42
National Mining Association, Statement for the Record.... 49
Submissions for the Record by Representative Lee
Las Vegas Sun article titled, ``White House rejects
Lombardo's criticism on monument designation'', March
22, 2023............................................... 28
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE
BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S EFFORTS TO LIMIT ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS
----------
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gosar, Rosendale, Collins;
Stansbury, Gallego, Lee, and Grijalva.
Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
will now come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
examples of the Biden administration's efforts to limit access
to public lands.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members testifying today
be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee, give their testimony,
and participate from the dais. I ask that the gentlewoman from
Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee
at today's hearing. I also ask that the gentleman from
California, Mr. LaMalfa, be allowed to sit with the
Subcommittee and participate in the hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
are submitted in accordance with the Committee Rule 3.
Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Thanks again to all the members and witnesses
for their time today.
This is a very important issue not only in Arizona, but for
all who have an interest in our public lands.
I would especially like to thank Chairman Lingenfelter for
coming from Kingman today. I know you had to take a red-eye to
get here. In fact, it sounds like you all had to do the same
thing to make it here. It is appreciated.
Everyone on the panel today is serving their local or state
government in some capacity, either elected or appointed, and,
for the most part, while also running a second business by
doing what they call another day job at the same time. I know
this can be thankless work, but county and state governments
have the pulse of our communities, so we thank you for your
service.
This weekend, at the invitation of Ranking Member Grijalva
and Senator Sinema, Secretary Haaland toured the Grand Canyon's
south rim to discuss a proposal--now I am going to say this,
and hopefully not hack it up so much--Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah
Kukveni Grand Canyon National Monument. I butchered it, I am
sure.
While I am generally in the business of encouraging
visitation to the Grand Canyon and Arizona's public lands,
Secretary Haaland and my friends on the other side of the aisle
apparently like to keep their tours a bit more exclusive.
During this particular visit, they failed to include those who
represent the local communities, including officials from
Mohave County, who would have been impacted most by the
designation of yet another national monument in the state of
Arizona.
Instead, elected officials from communities much farther
away, known to be friendly toward both the Secretary and this
proposed designation, were invited to attend. Nothing about
this is surprising and, in fact, tracks with the manner in
which the Biden administration continues to lack transparency
and expand the power of the executive branch, and ignore the
will of the people, all while espousing grandiose ideas like
social and environmental justice that far too often leave our
rural communities further behind.
Time and again, this Administration, whether through
monument designations or through the recently proposed BLM
conservation and landscape health rule, is looking for ways to
slowly restrict access to our lands. It is a bit like the old
frog in the pot of boiling water. At first you are just in cold
water, nothing to see here, just a small monument designation
with 100 percent support from the stakeholders. A great thing,
right? Before you know it, the frog is boiling, Americans have
lost access to nearly all Federal lands for permitted
activities like hunting, grazing, snowmobiling, timber
harvesting, mining, and oil and gas leasing.
While this might seem like a reach, it is our
responsibility in this Committee to prevent the proverbial frog
from boiling. I can tell you that my constituents are very
concerned about access. They are worried about this frog
boiling. They do not want another national monument to block
access to their favorite hunting spots, to draw away from
development and tourism in far northern Arizona, and perhaps,
more importantly, the opportunity to provide critical minerals
and careers in underserved communities in our state in an
environmentally sound manner, free from Chinese influence and
unsound labor practices.
My constituents and stakeholders in Arizona are also
worried about the proposed BLM conservation and landscape
health rule that we will discuss here today. This proposed rule
would fundamentally change the way the BLM carries out its
multiple use and sustained yield mandates without, I may add,
authorization from Congress, a very important detail.
In response, stakeholders across the industries and across
the country have expressed concern that the Biden
administration will use this rulemaking to determine that
currently-permitted activities on BLM lands such as grazing,
energy production, and recreation are incompatible with the
conservation lease or areas identified as intact landscapes.
Despite what is being labeled as a seismic shift in land
management by the media, BLM cannot answer basic questions
about the proposed rule. Sadly, BLM's ignorance on implementing
this proposed rule is not a surprise, given the lack of
stakeholder engagement, its development, as well as its limited
time frame for comments and feedback.
Since his first day in office, President Biden has abused
the authority of the Antiquities Act to add large swaths of
acreage to the Federal estate, reducing public access in the
process. Instead of adding to the Federal estate, as these
proposals suggest, we should be discussing the real issue at
hand: the multiple use and sustained yield doctrine as
authorized by Congress. Over time, the executive branch
continues to slowly but surely chip away at this doctrine. The
result? Our local states, counties, and communities are paying
the price.
Do you think that search and rescue, fire service, or
schools in rural areas are free? No, they are not. Do you enjoy
hunting or riding an e-bike on a nice trail? Good luck with
that.
I will do you one better. I bet every single person in this
room uses a cell phone. These phones require components that
must be mined. And I would argue that we can do that better
here in the United States than they do in China.
We can hardly afford the upkeep on our vast Federal estate
as it is. Former Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid once
fought hard to enact the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act, which sold off excess BLM lands in his home state and
reinvested the proceeds into Nevada State Educational Fund,
conservation projects, preservation of sensitive areas, and
unlocked Las Vegas. I would make the argument that, if this is
good enough for Harry Reid, it should be good enough for us.
I would argue the Biden administration to work with
Congress to once again look at this model, rather than to use
their time in attempting to unlawfully circumvent Congress to
rewrite FLPMA, expand its mandate, and restrict the Americans'
public access and use of Federal lands.
With that, I will recognize Ranking Member Stansbury for
her statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE A. STANSBURY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to
welcome all of our witnesses who are here with us today.
We know you traveled at great lengths to get here, and we
are really grateful that you are able to be with us. Hearing
from individuals across our communities who represent states
and local governments is, indeed, very important.
But I will note, as we are getting started on this hearing,
that this is an oversight hearing over, primarily, a BLM rule.
And I think it is noticeable to note that BLM is actually not
present in the room because they were not invited. So, while it
is important to hear from our communities, I think in our
oversight role it is also important to hear from the agencies
themselves.
We all have places that are important and even sacred to
us. For me, in my hometown of Albuquerque, New Mexico, it is
the Sandia Mountains, which I live near. For many of our
communities, these spaces are not only important to their
cultures, to their history, but also to the continuation of
their identities as people.
For Indigenous communities, it is places like Chaco Canyon,
Bears Ears, and Oak Flat. For our land grants and other
communities that use these lands as working lands, they are
important places to gather firewood for sustaining ranching and
for other resource needs.
And, of course, these lands are vital to the continued
conservation not only of special places, but also the lands,
water, and habitat that sustain us on this planet. And that is
really what is at the heart of today's conversation.
Our communities began a movement more than a century ago to
manage our lands at scale. The goal of this management was to
make sure that we were preserving those important places and
sustainably managing those so that we could ensure the
integrity of those landscapes.
To manage these places effectively at scale, we need the
best science, the best management tools, and the best ability
to collaborate at the local level. That includes working with
Federal, state, and tribal policies, through grants and
partnerships, tribal co-management, sustainable stewardship,
and public-private partnerships with private landowners.
To help provide the Federal Government with these tools and
make clear that the lands were to be managed for multiple uses,
Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act in 1976.
And while Congress mandated the lands be managed for multiple
uses, conservation has long been pushed aside. In fact, 90
percent of all lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management--
which I will note were actually Indigenous lands long before
the United States arrived--are actually open for oil and gas
leasing. Most BLM lands are also open to hardrock mining, and
more than 60 percent of BLM lands are leased for grazing.
Up until now, there has not been an effective mechanism to
also ensure effective landscape level and conservation needs.
BLM's proposed rule, which we are here to discuss today, will
help to fulfill the congressional mandate of multiple use by
creating conservation leases. By allowing Federal lands for
mitigation of harms from other developments like energy
infrastructure and other development, the rule will help to
accelerate transitions to renewable energy, while encouraging
restoration of sensitive lands and protection of cultural
landscapes. It is helpful for land managers, as well.
As we will hear today from our various witnesses--and I
especially want to welcome the one and only Stephanie Garcia
Richard, who is the Commissioner of Public Lands from New
Mexico. New Mexico has boldly initiated a pilot conservation
leasing program of its own under her leadership. And like so
many other things, New Mexico is leading the way, thanks to
leaders like Ms. Garcia Richard.
Another Federal land management tool which we are going to
discuss today is the Antiquities Act. When Congress has failed
to act, 17 of the last 21 Presidents, including the previous
administration, have used the authorities under the Antiquities
Act to create 161 monuments. These monuments include iconic
landscapes that we cherish. In New Mexico, it is places like
Chaco Canyon, El Moro, Gila Cliff Dwellings, and Tent Rocks,
places that are not only beautiful but sacred and culturally
important. Nationally, it is the Grand Canyon, Olympic Park,
Natural Bridges, and Devils Tower.
These are places that are not only sacred and important,
they are part of the iconic landscapes that define us as a
country. And the Antiquities Act is a crucial land management
tool to help ensure that we are able to protect these lands.
The public lands rule that we are discussing here today
will help to bring us closer to the goal of a climate-
resilient, ecologically intact, and culturally preserved
landscape. It will correct biases in current practices which
Congress intended when it passed the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) and, along with the Antiquities Act,
which is widely popular across the West, will help to protect
sacred places and ensure that we are preserving these
landscapes that are important for our communities for
generations to come.
And with that, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady. I just wanted to remind
you, you do have a witness here. There was no suggestion of
BLM. They were here last week, and if we would have had them,
we would have added a second panel.
Now, I am going to introduce the witnesses. First of all,
we have--going from left to right--Mr. Todd Devlin, Prairie
County Commissioner; then Dr. J.J. Goicoechea, Director of
Nevada Department of Agriculture; third, Ms. Stephanie Garcia
Richard, New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands; and then,
from my own district, the Honorable Travis Lingenfelter,
Chairman of the Mohave County Board of Supervisors.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, please push the ``on'' button on
the microphone.
You will see timing lights appear. When you begin, the
light will turn green. At the end of the 5 minutes, the light
will turn red. I will ask you to try to complete your statement
at that time.
I will also ask and will allow all witnesses to testify
before Member questioning.
I now recognize Mr. Devlin for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TODD DEVLIN, PRAIRIE COUNTY COMMISSIONER,
TERRY, MONTANA
Mr. Devlin. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and
members of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on the
Bureau of Land Management's proposed public lands rule.
My name is Todd Devlin, and I have served as the
Commissioner in Prairie County, Montana since 1995. I am past
President of the Montana Association of Counties, and currently
serve as Chairman of the National Association of Counties
Public Lands Steering Committee. I am testifying today as a
Prairie County Commissioner on behalf of the Montana
Association of Counties.
Prairie County is in eastern Montana, with a population of
1,100. Our economy is reliant on agriculture, especially public
lands grazing, with some oil and gas development and some
seasonal hunting. The BLM manages 430,000 acres in Prairie
County, or 43 percent, including a 45,000-acre wilderness study
area and a few areas of critical environmental concern. Use of
these lands is critical for our existence.
The proposed rule from the BLM would fundamentally change
the BLM's multiple-use mandate under FLPMA without the
necessary initial input from state and county governments,
private industry, recreationalists, and impacted stakeholders.
Proposing a rule with such drastic implications for the land
and resource management across the West with a 75-day comment
period, treats the concerns of intergovernmental partners as
second tier.
BLM should withdraw the rule or, at a minimum, extend the
public comment period to 180 days.
Furthermore, the BLM's public sessions must also be
expanded to allow the public to offer verbal comments, rather
than selecting questions submitted as they wish to address.
This effort to re-implement FLPMA should also be subject to
the NEPA process. This would require the Federal Government to
treat state, county, and tribal governments as cooperating
agency status in the development of the rule from the
beginning, and mandate the issuance of an EIS. The new
conservation easement leases and expanded opportunities to
create ACECs, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, will
impact all aspects of land management in the implementation of
BLM's multiple-use mandate.
Major changes in FLPMA implementation should be subject to
thorough environmental analysis, including potential economic
impacts, just as BLM conducts when studying specific projects.
The proposed rule would completely change the way ACECs are
designated by the BLM. FLPMA mandates that ACECs can only be
designated when the resource management plan is finalized or
amended. The proposed rule would grant the BLM the authority to
manage lands of unlimited acreage as ACECs without the
requirement of a new or updated RMP. This gives the BLM new
ability to create de facto wilderness study areas of any size
without the input of state and county governments by
sidestepping the RMP establishment or revision process mandated
under FLPMA.
Another key concern from the public lands rule is the vague
definition of intact landscapes. BLM's unclear definition,
combined with the proposed rule mandate to analyze landscapes
for protection from activities that negatively impact them.
This would encapsulate untold millions of acres around the
United States as intact landscapes, and potentially disrupt
necessary actions to make our landscapes and watersheds healthy
and resilient, as well as further restricted uses.
The final component of the proposed public lands rule is
the new authority to grant conservation leases. This could
severely limit the active management to combat invasive
species, improve forest health, limit the feasibility of
livestock grazing, restrict infrastructure maintenance, or even
recreational opportunities on Federal lands, thus elevating
conservation as a use above the rest of these critical aspects
of the agency's mandate.
To put it blunt, the BLM is word-crafting in this proposed
rule that would allow a new round of wilderness characteristics
inventory that has been prohibited by FLPMA since 1991, and
create de facto wilderness study areas.
Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and Subcommittee
members, thank you again for the opportunity to testify today,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Devlin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd Devlin, Prairie County, Montana Commissioner
Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury and members of the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify at today's hearing on the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) proposed Public Lands Rule. I appreciate the chance
to discuss this attempt to rewrite the Federal Land Policy Management
Act (FLPMA) and the consequences it would have for public lands
counties.
My name is Todd Devlin, and I have served as a Commissioner in
Prairie County, Montana since 1995. I am Past President of the Montana
Association of Counties and currently serve as Chairman of the National
Association of Counties' (NACo) Public Lands Steering Committee. I am
testifying on behalf of NACo.
The proposed rule from the BLM would fundamentally change the BLM's
multiple use mandate under FLPMA without the necessary initial input
from Congress, state and county governments, private industry,
recreationists and other impacted stakeholders. Additionally, this
proposed rule would exclude counties from land designation processes,
includes vague definitions, and empowers the agency to approve
conservation leases without acreage limitations which could limit
critical vegetation management and infrastructure maintenance projects
on federal lands. This rule will mandate the BLM manage for
preservation rather than meet their multiple use mandate.
About Prairie County
Prairie County is in eastern Montana with a population of
approximately 1,100. 43 percent of Prairie County is owned by the
federal government with approximately 80% of our federal land falling
under the jurisdiction of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937.
The federal government also owns 60 percent of our county's mineral
rights. Prairie County also contains the 45,000-acre Terry Badlands
Wilderness Study Area still sitting in limbo and a few Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).
We work closely with the BLM on both their and the county's land
use plans, as cooperating agencies during the NEPA process and on the
environmental impact statements for protecting the Greater Sage Grouse
and developing solar energy. Our economy is reliant on agriculture,
especially public lands grazing, and some oil and gas development.
Without the ability to wisely use these federal lands, Prairie County
simply would not exist.
Intergovernmental Partnerships
The proposed rule was written behind closed doors without the
necessary formal input from states, counties or impacted stakeholders.
Proposing a rule with such drastic implications for land and resource
management across the West with a 75-day comment period treats the
legitimate concerns of states, counties, other intergovernmental
partners and the public as second tier. BLM should withdraw the rule
or, at a minimum, extend the public comment period to 180 days.
Furthermore, BLM's public sessions must also be expanded to allow the
public to offer verbal comments, rather than selecting questions by
agency representatives that they desire to address.
The BLM also chose to issue this proposed rule under a categorical
exclusion to avoid triggering the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process, which would require the federal government to treat
state, county and tribal governments as cooperating agencies in the
development of the rule from the beginning and mandate the issuance of
an environmental impact statement (EIS). BLM stated that the proposed
rule's effects would be ``too broad, speculative or conjectural.'' Even
a surface-level reading of the proposed rule calls this justification
into question, as the issuance of newly established conservation leases
or expanded opportunities for the BLM to create areas of critical
environmental concern (ACEC) will negatively impact all aspects of land
management and the agency's multiple use mandate. Any attempt to
rewrite FLPMA implementation in a wholesale manner should be subject to
the most thorough environmental analyses, including potential economic
impacts, just as the BLM would conduct when studying a specific
project's impacts. Counties stand ready to work with BLM on ways to
better conserve our lands and resources, but we deserve the chance to
formally engage with the federal government from the beginning,
especially when the wholesale reimplementation of federal law is in the
balance.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
The proposed rule also completely changes the way ACECs are
designated by the BLM. FLPMA mandates that ACECs can only be designated
when a resource management plan (RMP) is finalized.\1\ The proposed
rule would grant the BLM the authority to manage proposed lands of
unlimited acreage as ACECs without the requirement of an updated RMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 43 U.S.C. 1711(a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This gives the BLM a new ability to create de facto Wilderness
Study Areas of any size without the input of state and county
governments by side-stepping the RMP establishment or revision process
mandated by FLPMA. This is another example of the BLM bypassing the
input of states, counties and the public. Counties are willing to work
with BLM to develop a more standardized approach for ACEC designation,
but any updated regulations must meet the statutory requirements of
FLPMA.
Intact Landscapes
Another key concern with the proposed rule is the vague definition
of ``intact landscapes.'' BLM defines them as ``an unfragmented
ecosystem that is free of local conditions that could permanently or
significantly disrupt, impair, or degrade the landscape's structure or
ecosystem resilience, and that is large enough to maintain native
biological diversity, including viable populations of wide-ranging
species. Intact landscapes have high conservation value, provide
critical ecosystem functions, and support ecosystem resilience.'' \2\
This vague and unclear definition, combined with the proposed rule's
mandate to analyze landscapes for protection from activities that
negatively impact intact landscapes, would encapsulate untold millions
of acres around the United States as ``intact landscapes'' and
potentially disrupt necessary actions to make our landscapes and
watersheds healthy and resilient. For example, will the BLM now prevent
necessary fuels treatments on the landscape, such as the creation of
firebreaks to stop the spread of wildfire, because the landscape would
suddenly no longer be ``intact?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ htps://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/03/2023-06310/
conservation-and-landscape-health
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, local BLM managers would be required to track
disturbances to the landscape from BLM-authorized activities on a
``watershed scale.'' However, according to the BLM's own Water Resource
Program Strategy document, currently posted to the BLM's website, ``The
term watershed does not define a scale--thus, there is no such thing as
`watershed scale' analyses.'' \3\ BLM expects its field staff to
perform analyses the agency says in its public document cannot be
conducted. If BLM plans to conduct watershed scale analyses--which
their own strategy document says do not exist--would that give a
downstream BLM office the ability to veto a valid permit under the
jurisdiction of a separate upstream office? This is one of many parts
of the proposed rule that are ripe for misinterpretation and
inconsistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ htps://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
WaterResourceProgramStrategy.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Leases
A final major component of the proposed rule is a new authority to
grant conservation leases of up to 10 years and unlimited size to
tribes, non-profits, individuals and private entities. Inexplicably,
counties and states are excluded from conservation leases. Counties
work with BLM every day to meet our mutual goals of improving our
landscapes and watersheds. As co-regulators and environmental stewards
with extensive expertise in natural resources management, it is
perplexing and damaging to federalism that counties and states are not
included in this new effort.
While conservation leases may be an effective tool to support
landscape and watershed health goals, the proposed rule not only grants
them for terms of up to 10 years but ensures that no uses beyond those
allowed by the conservation lease can be conducted on the landscape in
question. This could severely limit opportunities to manage landscapes
to reduce wildfire and invasive species threats, livestock grazing,
infrastructure maintenance and even recreational opportunities on
federal lands, while elevating conservation as a use above the rest of
these critical aspects of the agency's mandate. Here, the BLM runs into
another legal issue, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
wrote in Public Lands Council v. Babbitt that relevant statutes,
including FLPMA, do not allow for the issuance of permits ``intended
exclusively for `conservation use.' '' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287 (10th. Cir.
1999)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and Subcommittee members,
thank you again for the opportunity to testify. It is imperative that
federal lands agencies coordinate and cooperate with state and county
governments as mandated under federal law when proposing sweeping new
regulations impacting our environment and economy. Counties look
forward to working with our federal partners on ways to better
implement FLPMA and improve ecosystem health and economic outcomes.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Devlin. I now recognize Dr.
Goicoechea for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF J.J. GOICOECHEA, DVM, DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, SPARKS, NEVADA
Dr. Goicoechea. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member
Stansbury, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Dr. J.J.
Goicoechea, and I am the Director of the Nevada Department of
Agriculture.
Having previously served as a state veterinarian for nearly
5 years under two governors, I had my own mixed animal practice
for nearly 25 years. In my career, I have held a wide variety
of leadership positions in state and national agriculture
organizations as a rancher and as a County Commissioner. For 10
years, I served three governors as Chairman of the Nevada
Sagebrush Ecosystem Council. I have spent my life as my father,
grandfather, and great grandfather did before me, stewarding
the lands that today are part of my family ranch on lands
managed by the BLM and United States Forest Service.
The Federal Government owns or manages more than 85 percent
of the state of Nevada, which means that when the Federal
agencies make rules or change policies, Nevada is often the
bellwether for their success or failure. The BLM has the lion's
share of these lands in Nevada at 63 percent.
The BLM's legal requirement to manage for multiple use is
alive and well in Nevada: mining, agriculture, recreation,
tourism, hunting, fishing, energy, and an abundance of
environmental stewardship happens on these lands. Public access
is a key component of successful multiple use.
Several of the agency's recent actions have made public
access to multiple use much more difficult, if not altogether
impossible. These policies also have the potential to
compromise ecosystem health. I am concerned, if the BLM
continues current trends they could be putting vast ecosystems
at risk from reduced stewardship, and compromise their ability
to do long-term landscape-level planning, all while
compromising food security nationwide.
At the beginning of April, the BLM published the proposed
rule that would change the way they operate in the West. The
proposal adds an entirely new use to Federal law, and creates a
never-before-seen leasing system. They proposed to change
agency-wide regulations to evaluate land health and to codify
the most restrictive management tool they have, ACECs. All this
would be done through this proposal, which has had no advanced
discussion or notification of stakeholders, no analysis under
NEPA, and no economic analysis or interagency consultation
because the BLM claims there will be no significant economic
impact.
They also propose to do all of this without congressional
authorization and a totally new use under FLPMA. The BLM claims
that the proposal would put conservation use on par with other
uses under FLPMA, but the rule doesn't level the field. It
makes it so that conservation leases would be far more powerful
than any other use. The proposed rule would give conservation
and these lessees the ability to prevent other users from
accessing and using public lands if the use is incompatible
with the conservation lease.
It is also extremely concerning that the BLM currently
doesn't see an interest in gathering the input necessary to
improve the proposed rule. While I appreciate that one of the
five public information sessions is in Nevada, I am concerned
that in-person sessions are in locations that discourage input
from people who actually use these landscapes, like my
neighbors, who would have to drive more than 4 hours to ask a
question. Ranchers in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and the Dakotas are simply out
of luck, or will have to drive 10 or 12 hours. Even then, the
BLM only appears to answer questions about their
interpretation, not take comment or engage in dialogue.
The Nevada Department of Agriculture and our stakeholders
want to have meaningful engagement on a proposed rule that will
undoubtedly have generations of impact. Quite frankly, when you
are not at the table, you can't help but feel that you are on
the menu.
Unfortunately, this isn't a new trend, as we have heard.
Earlier this year, the Biden administration designated a
national monument without consultation with Governor Lombardo's
administration, and his comments are in my written testimony.
The BLM has also taken other actions to make broad changes
to the management. They are currently looking at an additional
25 gigawatts of energy on Federal land, and Nevada will play a
significant portion. This is concerning for Nevada agricultural
community, because solar developments largely require
conversion of a multiple-use to a single-use landscape.
Public lands and agriculture are linked. The success of
agriculture depends on access to BLM lands and keeping them
healthy. Agriculture is conservation, and that is the
conservation this Committee needs to be defending. If grazing
is removed from these landscapes, ranches will go under,
landscapes will be taken over by invasive species, and will
burn. Wildlife will suffer, and other multiple-use will become
impossible. This will be crippling to Nevada, the West, and our
country as a whole.
The BLM should not forge blindly ahead because they believe
conservation leases can be a new business venture for them.
Their business, their mission is to ensure they manage
multiple-use and sustained yield long into the future.
I thank you for the time today, and will stand for
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Goicoechea follows:]
Prepared Statement of Julian Joseph (J.J.) Goicoechea
on behalf of the Nevada Department of Agriculture
Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is J.J. Goicoechea. After serving as interim
state veterinarian in 2022, a position I held from 2016 to 2019, I was
appointed by Governor Lombardo of Nevada to serve as the Director of
the Nevada Department of Agriculture in January of this year. I had the
opportunity to appear before another House Natural Resources'
subcommittee in 2018, when I was Chairman of the Eureka County Board of
County Commissions. I testified on issues related to the stewardship of
public lands and how the decisions made by federal agencies have direct
and lasting effects on people, communities, economies, and ecosystems
in the West. It is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss
challenges of the same nature.
In addition to my current role as Director of Agriculture, I am a
past president of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, serve as a
regional Vice President for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
am a member of the Board of Directors of the Public Lands Council, and
am a past board member of the Nevada Association of Counties. I served
under three Governors on the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council,
chairing that body for 10 years until my appointment as Director of
Agriculture. I have operated a mixed animal veterinary practice for
more than 20 years, and have spent my life--as my father, grandfather,
and great-grandfather did before me--stewarding the lands that today
are part of my family ranch and the lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS).
When federal agencies develop policy or issue directives, Nevada is
often the bellwether for its success--or failure. More than 85 percent
of the state is owned or managed by the federal government. The BLM
owns or administers more than 63 percent--48 million acres--of my home
state. The remaining percentage can be attributed to the USFS, National
Park Service, Department of Defense, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This means that for the 3 million
people who call Nevada home, and for the tourists who come to see more
than the incomparable lights of Las Vegas, access and utility of those
landscapes is managed by policies developed here in Washington.
Nevada is home to a productive mining sector, a diverse energy
portfolio, and an agriculture industry that has weathered incredible
hardship over the last several decades and continues to contribute more
than $1 billion \1\ to the state's economy annually. In Nevada, as is
the case in much of the West, it is impossible to separate oil; natural
gas; recreation; agriculture; hunting; fishing; solar, wind, and
geothermal energy, and environmental stewardship from public lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nevada Department of Agriculture, 2017 Economic Impact Summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To have success in any one of these spaces, federal policy must be
predictable, consistent, and flexible enough to allow managers to adapt
to changing conditions.
As a county commissioner, I managed people. As a rancher, I managed
land and all the factors that affect land health. As a veterinarian, I
managed animals--and the people making decisions about their pets and
livestock. As a state official, I manage all these things. The BLM is
tasked with similarly complex challenges: managing landscapes and the
people who use them, for sustained productivity, and it is often the
implementation of this directive that is the greatest source of
conflict on federal lands.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) governs
the BLM's administration of lands under their purview. After nearly a
century of piecemeal management of each of the multiple uses of federal
lands, FLPMA was enacted to coordinate the many uses of lands at that
time, including mining, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed,
wildlife, and fish.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(c)
For the last 50 years, FLPMA has been amended by Congress and
federal agencies have developed guidance to provide greater clarity on
how the federal land managers should create a balanced multiple use
landscape, but the underlying directive of the 1976 act has remained
the same: manage these landscapes under the ``multiple use'' mission,
meaning ``. . . the management of the public lands and their various
resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will
best meet the present and future needs of the American people.'' \3\
Today, I'm here to share a few examples where the BLM has diverted from
their FLMPA directive to the detriment of the landscape--as well as the
present and future benefits of the American people. For the purposes
and scope of today's discussion, I'd like to highlight three components
of ``public access'' as directed under FLPMA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(c)
individual benefit--that is, the public's ability to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
access and directly benefit from landscapes;
involvement in the planning process--stakeholders' ability
to engage in the planning and management process to ensure
agencies are maximizing benefit; and
societal benefit--ensuring that agencies are considering
all factors and optimizing the benefit to society writ
large.
BLM Public Lands Proposed Rule
On April 3, 2023, BLM published a proposed rule entitled
``Conservation and Landscape Health.'' \4\ In the days immediately
following the announcement of the rule, the contents have been
described as a ``seismic shift in lands management,'' \5\ as the
proposed rule seeks to fundamentally alter the expectations of how
multiple uses are balanced on public lands. The proposed rule seeks to
codify and promote the agency's process around designating Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), adds an entirely new use to the
balance of uses managed under FLPMA, and establishes a new, non-
competitive leasing system for conservation. The agency proposes to do
all this without having advanced discussions or consultation with the
State of Nevada, our local governments, and Nevada stakeholders and in
failing to conduct analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Conservation and Landscape Health; BLM Proposed Rule, 88 Fed.
Reg. 19583-19604 (April 3, 2023) (to be codified at 43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.)
\5\ S. Streeter, ``BLM proposes seismic shift in lands
management'', E&E NEWS PM, 2023, https://www.eenews.net/articles/blm-
proposes-seismic-shift-in-lands-management/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process--States, Stakeholders, and Public
The BLM has fundamentally failed to meet their statutory
obligations under the regulatory process. Understanding the BLM is
currently accepting comments on the proposed rule, the agency has been
negligent in adequately consulting with the State, stakeholders,
cooperating agencies, and the public in its development of this rule.
Stakeholders first learned that the agency was considering
promulgating a rulemaking during publication of the semi-regulatory
agenda this spring. Further hints were given in the White House's
notice of summary action following President Biden's ``Conservation
Summit'' at the Department of the Interior (DOI) on March 21, 2023.
Outreach to the BLM to determine what would constitute the
``proposed rule that will . . .. Modernize the agency's tools and
strategies for managing America's public lands'' \6\ yielded no
information. Stakeholders, including the federal lands grazing
community, received no advanced notice of publication. Similarly, the
State of Nevada, despite the significant BLM footprint, broad impacts
of such a rule on the State, and ongoing discussions about other BLM
failures to collaborate, also received no advanced notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ White House Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Takes New
Action to Conserve and Restore America's Lands and Waters. March 21,
2023.
Advanced notice, consultation, and stakeholder engagement plays an
essential role in drafting a durable rule. The BLM has mechanisms in
place to conduct stakeholder outreach, such as issuing a Request for
Information (ROI), an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), or
a Notice of Intent (NOI) to accompany development of a NEPA analysis.
The agency has elected to use these tools in a number of other
regulatory changes to existing programs that affect significant swaths
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of public lands:
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Revision of Grazing Regulations
for Public Lands, January 21, 2020
Notice of Intent to Conduct a Review of the Federal Coal
Leasing Program and to Seek Public Comment, August 20, 2021
Notice of Intent to Amend Land Use Plans Regarding Greater
Sage-Grouse Conservation and Prepare Associated
Environmental Impact Statements, November 22, 2021
Notice of Intent to Amend Multiple Resource Management
Plans Regarding Gunnison Sage-Grouse (Centrocerus minimus),
July 6, 2022
Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement to Evaluate Utility-Scale Solar Energy
Planning and Amend Resource Management Plans for Renewable
Energy Development, December 8, 2022
These actions are among the thousands of other examples when the
BLM has elected to use an NOI to gather relevant information related to
rulemaking prior to promulgating regulatory change.
Notably, in each of these cases, the proposed regulatory change was
offered as part of a robust NEPA analysis. In most cases, the agency
elected to use the most comprehensive NEPA analysis, an Environmental
Impact Statement. The agency's approach appears consistent: changes to
a national program that would affect lands and stakeholders in multiple
states rise to the highest level of NEPA analysis, even if there would
be individual Records of Decisions or subsequent actions.
In the case of the proposed Public Lands Rule, however, the BLM
elected to forego NEPA altogether, claiming that despite the creation
of an entirely new use under FLPMA, the codification of a land
designation tool, and the establishment of a new leasing system, the
rule was not significant enough to warrant environmental analysis.
By moving straight to publishing a proposed rule, the agency
bypassed their responsibility to truly evaluate potential impacts of
such actions, eliminated the opportunity for anyone, other than those
employed by senior BLM leadership, to meaningfully contribute to the
proposal, and reduced stakeholder confidence in the implementation of a
final rule.
Further, the BLM appears intent to avoid substantive discussion
with the public, stakeholders, and state and local governments under
the agency's 75-day public comment period for the proposed rule. The
BLM has scheduled only five public information sessions. The first
session was a webinar, during which BLM staff provided a briefing on
the contents of the rule and offered additional narrative to give shape
to their interpretation of how the rule would be implemented, if
finalized. A significant portion of the narrative was based not on the
components of the rule, but clearly spoke to the agency's contemplation
of subsequent guidance that would guide how the rule would be applied
to federal lands. BLM presenters answered a limited number of attendee
questions that were typed into the chat box, many of which did not
address substantive questions about the rule. There was no opportunity
for discussion with any attendees.
At this time, BLM has announced just three in-person public
information sessions. These sessions are in Denver, CO; Reno, NV; and
Albuquerque, NM. I appreciate the opportunity for Nevadans to attend
the meeting in Reno. However, the schedule for meetings precludes many
rural Nevadans as well as stakeholders in Washington, Oregon,
California, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
and Arizona from having an accessible meeting to attend, especially
provided the connectivity challenges in rural areas that limit virtual
engagement.
The meeting schedule, coupled with the unidirectional briefing
style, has left stakeholders, some of which will be most impacted by
the proposed rule, and federal partners alike with the impression that
this process is designed to tell the multiple use community what is
happening to them, rather than being an active, transparent, and
collaborative partner.
In this process alone, BLM neglected public input in the
development of the rule; and thus far, is limiting public engagement
through the meeting structure and limited availability of meeting
locations.
Process--Congress and Federal Agency Oversight
BLM is alleging that the proposed rule would not have an economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities; and therefore, is not
subject to review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\7\ and
that the proposed rule does not constitute a major federal rulemaking
and is, therefore, not subject to the Congressional Review Act
(CRA).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.
\8\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nevada Department of Agriculture fundamentally disagrees and
interprets this as BLM circumventing Congress' ability to represent the
best interests of their constituencies and denying other federal
agencies the opportunity to ensure BLM is adequately considering the
full breadth of stakeholder impacts.
The proposed rule contains actions that could substantially alter
the multiple use balance on public lands, including substantial
revision or elimination of mining, grazing, energy development, and
other activities that the agency could deem incompatible with the new
use established under a final rule. In the state of Nevada, economic
output derived from BLM lands totals $29.3 billion (from Fiscal Year
2021): \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Bureau of Land Management, Socioeconomic Impact Report 2022,
https://www.blm.gov/about/data/socioeconomic-impact-report-2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreation: $554.2 million
Renewables: $607.1 million
Nonenergy Minerals: $27,630.1 million
Oil and Gas: $19.9 million
Grazing: $206.2 million
Timber: $1.5 million
Other: $314.2 million
In addition to the direct and labor revenue generated from grazing
on public lands, cattle production in Nevada generates an additional
$66.2 million in total ecosystem services on an annual basis, which is
approximately $356.81 per cow.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Taylor, D., Efrain, N., Ashwell, Q., et al. (n.d.). National
and State Economic Values of Cattle Ranching and Farming Based
Ecosystem Services in the U.S. Retrieved May 24, 2023, from http://
www.sustainablerangelands.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/B-1338-
economic-value_ web.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opportunity cost of the rule is high. According to the agency,
BLM-administered lands ``supported $201 billion in economic output and
nearly 783,000 jobs across the country in Fiscal Year 2021.'' According
to the BLM's Sound Investment 2022 publication, grazing generates
$1.439 billion on an annual basis and supports more than 2 million jobs
across the West.\11\ Modelling conducted by the University of Wyoming
about the economic consequences that would result from removing grazing
from federal lands in three western states (Idaho, Oregon, and Nevada)
showed crippling losses in rural communities. Combined, the data set
modelled losses on 5,389 active grazing permits that, if removed, would
result in a 60 percent decrease in ranch sales, a 50 percent decrease
in labor income, a 65 percent decrease in personal income (from $33,940
to $11,812) and billions of dollars in direct economic losses. This
doesn't even take into account the impacts on our nation's food supply
chains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Bureau of Land Management, Socioeconomic Impact Report 2022,
https://www.blm.gov/about/data/socioeconomic-impact-report-2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the proposed rule has a limiting effect on even half the grazing
allotments in Nevada, 20 percent of renewable energy projects, 25
percent of recreation, or less than 1 percent of the nonenergy mineral
production in Nevada alone, the BLM will have met the threshold for a
significant rule and both the RFA and CRA would apply.
The likelihood of such significant impacts appears high. The
proposed rule makes clear that conservation leases will not necessarily
operate within the context of land use plans,\12\ and would not
override the subsequent authorization of valid and existing rights ``so
long as the subsequent authorizations are compatible with the
conservation use.'' \13\ The Nevada Department of Agriculture has
serious concerns about allowing a new leasing system to operate outside
the bounds of a land use plan (which includes statutory requirement for
the role of the public) and preemptively confirming that certain uses
are likely to be precluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Conservation and Landscape Health; BLM Proposed Rule, 88 Fed.
Reg. 19591 (April 3, 2023) (to be codified at 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
See Section 6102.4--Conservation Leasing: ``The BLM will determine
whether a conservation lease is an appropriate mechanism based on the
context of each proposed conservation use and application, not
necessarily as a specific allocation in a land use plan.''
\13\ Conservation and Landscape Health; BLM Proposed Rule, 88 Fed.
Reg. 19586 (April 3, 2023) (to be codified at 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With BLM failing to include the RFA analysis in the proposed rule,
the agency is preventing federal agencies from considering the rule
prior to its publication and limiting the ability of these agencies to
consider impacts on larger constituencies.
Content
At first blush, BLM's proposed Public Lands Rules appears to offer
a solution to a challenge many in the grazing community have grappled
with--allowing ranchers to extend conservation practices on private
land to abutting public lands. However, upon further investigation, the
content of the rule raised questions and piqued concern among the
Nevada public and the ranching community.
The proposed rule seeks to elevate conservation as a ``use'' ``on
par with other uses of the public lands under FLPMA's multiple-use and
sustained yield framework.'' \14\ All other uses under the multiple-use
and sustained yield framework have been clearly established and defined
under FLPMA.\15\ Each of these uses had been previously authorized on
lands that would ultimately be managed by the BLM after 1976 through
other laws like the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Mining Law of
1872, and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. Each time a ``use'' was added
to the multiple-use management portfolio under FLPMA, Congress
authorized parameters and directed the BLM to develop programming to
address the use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Conservation and Landscape Health; BLM Proposed Rule, 88 Fed.
Reg. 19585 (April 3, 2023) (to be codified at 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
\15\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(c)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While balancing conservation with responsible development of our
public lands is at the core of FLPMA, in this instance, the BLM is
seeking to add a new use without Congressional direction and defines
the new use so narrowly that it could create conflicts with other
Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies and U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) interpretations of conservation. The proposed rule
entirely reimagines the balance of multiple use with no advanced public
notice and limited public input.
Further, the proposed rule justifies the reimagining of the
multiple use mandate of a novel interpretation of conservation as a use
in order to justify a non-competitive leasing system that will make
conservation leases a tool that will necessarily be inaccessible to a
significant portion of the adjacent public and will simultaneously make
public lands less accessible to both user groups and the public at
large.
In every action authorized under FLPMA, the BLM is directed to
provide early public notice and opportunity for comment: land use
plans,\16\ withdrawals of land,\17\ and more. The BLM has poised
conservation leases to avoid these same requirements under FLPMA by
bypassing land use plan applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1712(c)(9)
\17\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1714(c)(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the agency has failed to define what is considered a
``compatible'' use or an ``incompatible'' use with an underlying
conservation lease. While the BLM has previously stated they believe
grazing is a conservation tool, the rule contains no text that would
make the industry confident that this rule is not targeted to remove
grazing access. Further, the rulemakes clear that uses like hunting,
fishing, and recreation, when done with a commercial component--like
outfitting, guiding, and other conservation activities--would not be
defined as a ``casual use'' \18\ and could be precluded due to the
presence of a conservation lease. In sum, the BLM has proposed a system
that will be rife for abuse and litigation without consistent standards
and application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Conservation and Landscape Health; BLM Proposed Rule, 88 Fed.
Reg. 19598 (April 3, 2023) (to be codified at 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
See Section Sec. 6101.4 Definitions, ``Casual Use means any short-term,
noncommercial activity that does not cause appreciable damage or
disturbance to the public lands or their resources or improvements that
is not prohibited by the closure of the lands to such activities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule also seeks to codify the agency's use of ACECs.
The State of Nevada is currently home to 48 ACECs, many of which
preclude public access or preclude multiple activities. I have
significant concerns with BLM's proposed changes to the ACEC process
that would make the process less transparent and more restrictive.
Let me be clear, Western agriculture--grazing management of public
lands across the West--is conservation. The State of Nevada and the
livestock grazing industry are committed to landscape health, continued
productivity, improved partnerships, and conservation of public lands--
and we're committed to doing it while following the law and including
public input. Thus far, the BLM's proposed rule appears to deemphasize
and discourage fair public access, public involvement, and stakeholder
input.
Utilization of the Antiquities Act
Nevada is home to three national monuments: the Basin and Range
National Monument, encompassing 704,000 acres; the Gold Butte National
Monument, encompassing 296,937 acres; and one of the system's newest
monuments the Avi Kwa Ame National Monument, encompassing 506,814
acres. All told, the last three presidents have changed the management
of at least 1,507,751 acres in Nevada.
Despite the significant impact in the state, President Biden
recently designated the Avi Kwa Ame National Monument in Nevada. The
announcement came without any consultation with my department or
adequate engagement with the State of Nevada. In the wake of the
designation, Governor Lombardo issued the following statement:
Since I took office, the Biden White House has not consulted
with my administration about any of the details of the proposed
Avi Kwa Ame national monument which, given the size of the
proposal, seems badly out of step. Upon learning that the
President was considering unilateral action, I reached out to
the White House to raise several concerns, citing the potential
for terminal disruption of rare earth mineral mining projects
and long-planned, bi-partisan economic development efforts.
While I'm still waiting for a response, I'm not surprised. This
kind of `Washington Knows Best' policy might win plaudits from
unaccountable special interests, but it's going to cost our
state jobs and economic opportunity--all while making land more
expensive and more difficult to develop for affordable housing
and critical infrastructure projects. The federal confiscation
of 506,814 acres of Nevada land is a historic mistake that will
cost Nevadans for generations to come.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Lombardo, J. [@JosephMLombardo]. (2023, March 21)., Since I
took office, the Biden White House has not consulted with my
administration about any of the details of the proposed Avi Kwa Ame
national monument, which, given the size of the proposal, seems badly
out of step. My full statement on the designation below. Twitter.
https://twitter.com/JosephMLombardo/status/1638257593134247937/photo/1
The Antiquities Act of 1906 provides for the President of the
United States to establish national monuments by public proclamation,
provided the lands be ``confined to the smallest area compatible with
the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 431
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Avi Kwa Ame footprint far exceeds the smallest area compatible;
and in this case, appeared motivated by the Administration's desire to
avoid development and utilization of resources consistent with the
BLM's multiple use mission. The Antiquities Act should not be used as
yet another tool for the BLM to avoid fulfilling their multiple use
mission.
Renewable Development
Nevada has a broad portfolio of energy resources totaling 4,488.3
megawatts of geothermal, solar, hydro, wind, and other sources. Many of
these projects are developed on public lands managed by the BLM.
Conflicts have arisen when siting new energy projects on public lands
and each of these are managed according to FLPMA guidance.
In April 2023, the BLM announced further development of 23,675
acres in southern Nevada for development of solar resources; and if
fully developed, the project could produce 4 gigawatts of renewable
energy. The announcement was part of the Administration's strategy to
permit 25 new gigawatts of renewable energy on public lands throughout
the nation by 2025, a fairly significant endeavor given the acreage
required to site solar facilities.
Using the proposed development in Nye County as a reference, solar
developments can require between 4,000 and 7,000 acres to develop a
single gigawatt. This means the BLM's efforts could result in the
conversion of 100,000 to 175,000 acres of multiple use landscapes to
solar development.
FLPMA directs the agency to manage public lands in a manner that
will provide ``food and habitat for fish, wildlife, and domestic
animals.'' \21\ When conflicts or concerns are raised with the siting
of new energy projects, NEPA analysis on the proposed project usually
thoroughly addresses likely impacts on habitat for fish and wildlife.
However, the impacts on other uses, including the impacts of the
proposed actions on food and habitat for domestic animals, fail to rise
to the same degree of analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701(a)(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide, utility-scale solar developments have been sited on
prime agriculture lands, often displacing livestock grazing and with
it, the natural resource benefits derived therefrom. The considerations
and effects on public lands are no different. In seeking to site
additional energy resources on federal land, the BLM should consider
the impacts from the loss valuable grazed forage or the ecosystem
services provided by the grazing permittees; development (and periodic
adjustments in use) must be done ``without permanent impairment of the
productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the
relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the
combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the
greatest unit output.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(c)
Analysis of the direct and indirect effects upon livestock grazing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
management:
large areas of disturbance and fencing,
decreased Animal Unit Months (AUMs) multiplied by the life
of the project,
potential water quality and quantity impacts,
increased off- and on-road traffic,
construction of new roads and all ancillary
infrastructure,
potential vehicle/equipment conflicts with livestock,
decreased palatability of vegetation and forage from road
dust during development activities,
unsuccessful reclamation that does not return to healthy
rangeland conditions,
introduction and spread of noxious and invasive weeds, and
other social and economic impacts to livestock grazing
permittees and livestock management operations.
Each of these impacts should be fully evaluated as part of a
project proposal on federal lands.
With the BLM's proposed Public Lands Rule, the risk to agricultural
operations in Nevada is compounded. In addition to the risk of loss of
access to forage on grazing allotments due to siting of energy
projects, the proposed rulemakes clear that efforts to use a
conservation lease for mitigation will also have the ability to remove
lands from grazing use in order to mitigate energy project disturbance,
in effect completely removing a prior valid grazing right. This
potential is not limited to livestock grazing. These impacts will not
only have an effect on livestock grazing, but will also affect mineral
claims, recreation, hunting, fishing, and all other uses that are in
areas that are currently being analyzed for construction of renewable
energy projects and would be the site of future proposed conservation
leasing.
Closing
I remain concerned that the current trajectory of federal policy
for BLM lands in Nevada, and West-wide, will compromise the viability
of agriculture in the West. In the western United States, public lands
and agriculture are inextricably linked. The health of the 245 million
surface acres and 700 million acres of subsurface minerals of federal
land directly depends on the stewardship of grazing permittees, like
those in Nevada, who have managed these lands for years, if not
generations like my family.
The recent actions and proposed rule fly in the face of the
multiple use mandate; and while the BLM will argue that this is
bringing all uses to an equal level, we are already seeing this not be
the case in Nevada.
The proposed rule outlines that conservation leases ``would not
override valid existing rights or preclude other, subsequent
authorizations so long as those subsequent authorizations are
compatible with conservation use.'' \23\ The qualifying statement ``so
long as'' negates all of the previous statements, demonstrating BLM's
clear intent that uses such as solar, wind, oil and gas, mining, and
livestock grazing will never meet the BLM's compatibility clause. This
undermines the development and stewardship of all BLM lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Conservation and Landscape Health; BLM Proposed Rule, 88 Fed.
Reg. 19586 (April 3, 2023) (to be codified at 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without access to public lands and the forage and water they
provide, cattle and sheep producers in Nevada would not be able to
sustain viable operations, putting the national beef and lamb markets
at risk of increased volatility. In Nevada alone, the result would be
$202.6 million in lost grazing economic activity, $66 million in lost
ecosystem services, and an incalculable loss to the culture, rural
communities, and land values across the state. Without stewardship of
these ranchers, the BLM would simply be unable to take care of these
landscapes--with or without conservation leases. The greatest threat to
sage grouse, mule deer, trout, and other key species in the state is
habitat loss due to fire and invasive species encroachment. Grazing
reduces fire risk, particularly in years like this, where ample
moisture will result in an explosion of late-season forage. Without
grazing, that forage will dry up and become fuel for catastrophic
wildfire. Grazing reduces these fuels as part of normal operations,
preventing the BLM from applying chemical or other treatments that cost
an average of $150 per acre. The cost savings for acres treated across
the West totals billions of dollars annually.
When considering policies that touch every corner of my state, I
implore the BLM to increase public input and public access to ensure
they are drafting durable regulations and policies that motivate
stakeholder that are working to keep these landscapes productive. If
BLM continues current trends, they could be putting vast ecosystems at
risk from reduced stewardship and compromise their ability to do long-
term landscape-level planning, all while compromising food security
nationwide. I encourage the Subcommittee to continue its rigorous
oversight of the BLM, and I encourage each of you to look at your
states and the stakeholders affected by each of these actions.
I thank you for your time and am happy to answer any questions.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Dr. Goicoechea. I now recognize Ms.
Garcia Richard for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE GARCIA RICHARD, NEW MEXICO COMMISSIONER
OF PUBLIC LANDS, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
Ms. Richard. Good morning, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member
Stansbury, and distinguished Subcommittee members. Thank you
for the opportunity to join you today and express my support
for BLM's efforts to better incorporate conservation and
landscape health in its management of our nation's public
lands.
I am a native New Mexican, born on the vast eastern plains
of our state, and raised in the beautiful Gila wilderness
located in the southwestern part of New Mexico. I have family
that raised cattle both on those eastern plains and in the
northern mountains. And most of the public land I manage has
more cows than people.
I have the great honor of serving as the Commissioner of
Public Lands for the state of New Mexico. And with about 13
million acres under management at the State Land Office and a
responsibility to steward our lands for current and future
generations, we work every day to ensure our land management
practices are sound and reflective of the most current
conservation science.
There is a lot in this proposed rule we could discuss
today, but I want to focus my remarks on what this means for
New Mexico from a land management perspective.
First, the rule recognizes the fundamental reality that our
public lands are fragmented, and our ability to create
resilient and healthy ecosystems requires a landscape-level
approach. In my home state of New Mexico, Federal, state,
tribal, and private lands are all extensively checkerboarded.
We need to look for ways to maintain intact landscapes and
prioritize the protection of habitat and other natural
resources that our ecosystems rely on.
Second, the rule clarifies that conservation is a use on
par with other types of land practices. This effort is
consistent with the approach we are taking in New Mexico. The
mission of the New Mexico State Land Office is somewhat
different from BLM, in that our primary mandate is to earn
money for education from leasing lands.
But there is also a lot of similarity with BLM's multiple-
use framework. We have recreational users, agricultural
lessees, extractive industries, renewable energy projects, and
pretty much any other land use you can imagine on our state
land. And from those activities we are on track to earn a
record $3 billion this year alone.
Our ability to continue to generate money for education is
directly tied to the health and productivity of these working
state lands. Conservation leasing must be a part of a balanced
portfolio of uses as we work to ensure the health and
resiliency of our public lands for current and future
generations.
I would also like to emphasize that this rule isn't about
taking public lands away. It is about explicitly allowing
another type of use which can often occur alongside other land
uses. There may be times where various uses are incompatible,
but there are also going to be many instances where there are
not any conflicts.
Lastly, the rule recognizes the importance of making sound
management decisions based on science, and incorporating
Indigenous knowledge shared by tribal communities. The pressing
challenges of climate change cannot be understated. We need
more resilient lands and ecosystems, and to get there we should
learn from our traditional and tribal communities.
Let me be clear. This proposed rule is not perfect. For
example, state agencies and local governments are not able to
hold conservation leases. Landscape connectivity could be
better enhanced if the option to lease for conservation
purposes is made available to state and local partners.
Additionally, the rule shouldn't just prioritize ACEC land
acquisitions. There are non-conveyance means like leasing, co-
management that could also accomplish the objective of
protecting these resources on a landscape level. Working with
private, tribal, state, and local partners is often easier,
less costly, and at times could be more effective than land
acquisition in expanding the reach of conservation efforts and
ultimately protecting more resources.
But overall, this rule is a significant step forward in
improving how we manage our public lands. It would be good for
New Mexico and a positive step in modernizing our nation's
approach to public land management. I look forward to working
through this rulemaking process with the BLM regarding my
concerns and suggestions.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today,
and I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Richard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephanie Garcia Richard, New Mexico Commissioner
of Public Lands, New Mexico State Land Office
Good morning, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and
distinguished subcommittee members. Thank you for the opportunity to
join you today and express my support for BLM's efforts to better
incorporate conservation and landscape health in its management of our
Nation's public lands.
I am a native New Mexican born on the vast eastern plains of our
state and raised in the beautiful Gila Wilderness area located in the
southwestern part of New Mexico. I have family that raised cattle both
on those eastern plains and in the northern mountains; and most of the
public land I manage has more cows on it than people.
I have the great honor of serving as the Commissioner of Public
Lands for the State of New Mexico. With about 13 million acres under
the management of the State Land Office, and a responsibility to
steward our lands for current and future generations, we work every day
to ensure our land management practices are sound and reflective of
conservation science.
There's a lot in the proposed rule that we could discuss today, but
I wanted to focus my remarks on what this means for New Mexico from a
land management perspective.
First, the rule recognizes the fundamental reality that our public
lands are fragmented, and our ability to create resilient and healthy
ecosystems requires a landscape level approach.
In my home state of New Mexico, federal, state, Tribal and private
lands are all extensively checkerboarded. We need to look for ways to
maintain intact landscapes and prioritize the protection of habitat and
other natural resources that our ecosystems rely on.
Second, the rule clarifies that conservation is a ``use'' on par
with other types of land practices. This effort is consistent with the
approach we are taking in New Mexico.
The mission of the New Mexico State Land Office is somewhat
different than BLM's in that our primary mandate is to earn money for
education from leasing lands, but there is also a lot of similarity
with BLM's ``multiple use'' framework.
We have recreational users, agricultural lessees, extractive
industries, renewable energy projects, and pretty much any other land
use you can imagine. And from those leases we're on track to earn a
record $3 billion this year.
And our ability to continue to generate money for education is
directly tied to the health and the productivity of state lands.
Conservation leasing must be part of a balanced portfolio of uses as we
work to ensure the health and resiliency of our public lands for
current and future generations.
I would also like to emphasize that this rule isn't about ``taking
public lands away.'' It is about explicitly allowing another type of
use, which can often occur along side other lands uses. There may be
times where various uses are incompatible, but there are also going to
be many instances where are not any conflicts.
Lastly, the rule recognizes the importance of making sound
management decisions based on science and incorporating Indigenous
Knowledge shared by Tribal communities. The pressing challenges of
climate change cannot be understated. We need more resilient lands and
ecosystems. And to get there, we should learn from our traditional and
Tribal communities.
Let me be clear, the proposed rule isn't perfect. For example,
state agencies and local governments are not able to hold conservation
leases. Landscape connectivity could be enhanced if the option to lease
for conservation purposes is made available to all state and local
partners.
Additionally, the rule shouldn't just prioritize ACEC land
acquisitions. There are non-conveyance means, such as leasing and
collaborative management, that could also accomplish the objective of
protecting these resources on a landscape level. Working with private,
Tribal, state and local partners is often easier, less costly, and at
times, could be more effective than land acquisitions in expanding the
reach of conservation efforts and ultimately protecting more resources.
But overall, this rule is a significant step forward in improving
how we manage our public lands. It would be good for New Mexico, and a
positive step in modernizing our Nation's approach to public land
management. And I look forward to working through the rulemaking
process with BLM regarding my concerns and suggestions.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I would
be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Ms. Garcia Richard. I now recognize
Chairman Lingenfelter for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TRAVIS LINGENFELTER, CHAIRMAN, MOHAVE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, KINGMAN, ARIZONA
Mr. Lingenfelter. Thank you, Dr. Gosar, Ranking Member
Stansbury, and honorable Subcommittee members.
As Chairman of the Mohave County Board of Supervisors and
the District 1 County Supervisor, I am here this morning to
speak in opposition to the proposed executive action utilizing
the Antiquities Act to designate 1.1 million acres of land in
northern Arizona as the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni National
Monument. This latest proposed executive action would devastate
the future economic development growth potential of northern
Arizona, and would have long-lasting adverse economic effects
on the human environment within Mohave County.
The proposed Baaj monument land coverage within Mohave
County District 1 alone is 445,160 acres. Land currently
managed by the BLM comprises 88 percent of the proposed
monument at 391,936 acres. Arizona State Trust Land comprises
9.2 percent of the proposed monument at 41,090 acres. The
proposed monument also includes privately-held land comprising
2.7 percent, or 12,133 acres. These private lands would be
forever stripped of their ability to be developed to their full
economic potential within a rapidly growing area within my
district. Within my district and directly bordering the
proposed national monument are the city of Colorado City,
Arizona, Centennial Park, Arizona, and Cane Beds, Arizona.
The current poverty rate in Colorado City, Arizona, which
is experiencing an incredible economic resurgence after so many
years under the thumb of monster Warren Jeffs is a whopping
42.4 percent. Within Centennial Park and Cane Beds, Arizona the
poverty rates are 22 percent and 18.8 percent, respectively.
The current suicide rate is many times higher than that of the
national average, and community mental health is slowly on the
mend after experiencing generational trauma.
Their story is a real tale of resilience and of rising up
from the ashes and rebuilding, and that should be applauded and
supported at all levels of our government. These communities
will be harmed by the unintended consequences of designating
yet another national monument right in their backyard, as
national monument designations typically have the unintended
consequence of dooming the local residents to living in what I
like to call poverty with a view.
The state of Arizona already has 18 national monuments in
existence today. That is more than any other state in our
nation. Mohave County, Arizona alone has only 10 percent
privately-owned land. The state of Arizona and Mohave County
simply cannot afford to lose any more lands to the Federal
Government. Nearly 50 percent of the state of Arizona is now
managed and owned by the Federal Government. Designating
another 1.1 million acres as a national monument will further
reduce private ownership and harm hardworking rural Americans
within Arizona and Mohave County.
As I stated previously, almost 90 percent of the proposed
acreage is already under BLM control, and Mohave County fails
to understand why the current level of Federal oversight and
management and working collaboratively with tribal, state,
county, and local elected officials and agencies, as has worked
well for so long, is no longer sufficient.
Also, as a matter of public policy, is forever locking down
known American natural resources really the wisest course of
action to take when faced with an uncertain future with
international players like China and Russia? The only thing
placing Keep Out signs on the land does is that it forever
hamstrings our citizens from making a living and enjoying the
land with multiple uses as they are now.
On August 28, 1984, as Public Law 98-406, the Arizona Strip
Wilderness Act was at the time thought to have, once and for
all, addressed all questions of wilderness and conservation on
the Arizona Strip in northern Arizona.
The Arizona Strip Wilderness Act specifically recognized
the uranium potential of over \1/2\ million acres of BLM and
U.S. Forest Service lands in northern Arizona by releasing them
from wilderness classification so they could be explored and
mined with overwhelmingly bipartisan support at the time from
across the entire political spectrum. The U.S. Congress had
finally spoken, and clearly defined the disposition of public
lands in northern Arizona.
Then 26 years later, in 2010 and 2011, the Obama
administration's Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, requested the
National Park Service to evaluate nearly 1 million acres of
lands now being proposed as the new Baaj monument for a 20-year
moratorium on uranium mining, which was enacted and is still in
place today.
Internal National Park Service e-mails from Park Service
employees at the time showed that they could not identify a
threat to the lands or watershed leading into or surrounding
the Grand Canyon and, further, that breccia pipes inside the
Grand Canyon National Park, which no one intends to mine, are
in fact naturally occurring.
If the Federal Government is looking to prevent uranium
mining, it does not require a new national monument designation
to deny permits, as we believe the Federal Government already
has that authority. Approximately 90 percent of these proposed
lands are currently held in trust and managed by the Federal
Government for all American citizens. Abusing the Antiquities
Act to designate a new national monument would strip away the
ability of all interested American citizens to participate in a
public process and to have their comments accepted and publicly
heard by the Federal Government.
Dr. Gosar. Can we summarize, please?
Mr. Lingenfelter. Yes, sir. The County of Mohave takes
great pride in the fact that we are rich in natural amenities,
and we hold the utmost respect and reverence for the Grand
Canyon National Park and for our serious responsibility in
protecting the park from harm.
We understand that tourism generates significant economic
activity annually from visitors.
We are aware that, as of today, over 60 percent of the
uranium used in domestic nuclear plants is unnecessarily
shipped through ports in Russia. At a time when the United
States of America has abundant supplies of uranium in our
backyard, this reliance on Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,
Communist China defies common sense. For those that understand
modern mining, it makes no sense when Americans are told that
mining domestic uranium supplies is bad, but mining, lithium,
cobalt, and nickel is good.
Dr. Gosar. Supervisor, let's cut it off there, and we will
get to the questions.
Mr. Lingenfelter. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lingenfelter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Travis J. Lingenfelter, Chairman, Mohave County
Board of Supervisors and District 1 Supervisor
Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni National Monument is asking for 1.1
million acres to be permanently protected.
As Chairman of the Mohave County Board of Supervisors and the
District 1 County Supervisor, I am here this morning to speak in
opposition to the proposed executive action utilizing the Antiquities
Act to designate 1.1 million acres of land in northern Arizona as the
Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni National Monument. After past failed
attempts, this latest proposed executive action would devastate the
future economic development growth potential of northern Arizona and
would have long lasting adverse economic effects on the human
environment within the County of Mohave.
The proposed Baaj Monument land coverage within Mohave County
District 1 alone is 445,159.7 acres.
Land currently managed by the BLM comprises 88% of the proposed
Monument at 391,936 acres.
Arizona State Trust Land comprises 9.2% of the proposed Monument at
41,090 acres.
The proposed Monument curiously also includes privately held land
comprising 2.7% at 12,133 acres. These private lands would be forever
stripped of their ability to be developed to their full economic
development potential within a rapidly growing area. Within my District
1 and directly bordering the proposed national monument to the north
are the City of Colorado City, Arizona, Centennial Park, Arizona, and
Cane Beds, Arizona. The current poverty rate in Colorado City,
Arizona--which is experiencing an incredible economic resurgence after
so many years under the thumb of monster Warren Jeffs--is a whopping
42.4%. Within Centennial Park and Cane Beds, Arizona, the poverty rates
are 22% and 18.8% respectively. The current suicide rate is many times
higher than the national average, and community mental health is slowly
on the mend after experiencing generational trauma. Their story is a
real tale of resilience and of rising up and rebuilding from the ashes
that should be applauded and supported at all levels of government.
These communities will be harmed by the unintended consequences of
designating yet another national monument right in their backyard--as
national monument designations have the unintended consequence of
dooming the local residents to living in ``poverty with a view''.
The State of Arizona already has 18 national monuments in existence
today--more than any other state in our nation. Mohave County, Arizona,
alone has only 10% privately-owned land. The State of Arizona and
Mohave County simply cannot afford to lose any more land to the federal
government. Nearly 50% of our State of Arizona is now managed and owned
by the federal government. Designating another 1.1 million acres to the
federal government will further reduce private ownership and hurt hard
working rural Americans within Arizona and Mohave County District 1.
As I stated previously in my testimony, approximately 90% of the
proposed acreage is already under BLM control, and Mohave County fails
to understand why the current level of federal oversight and
management, and working collaboratively with state, county and local
elected officials and agencies as has worked well for so long is no
longer sufficient? Also, as a matter of public policy, is forever
locking down known American natural resources really the wisest course
of action to take when looking at an uncertain future with
international players like China and Russia? The only thing placing
``keep out signs'' on the land does is that it forever hamstrings our
citizens from making a living or enjoying the land.
On August 28, 1984, as Public Law 98-406, the Arizona Strip
Wilderness Act was, at the time, thought to have once and for all
addressed all questions of wilderness and conservation on the Arizona
Strip in northern Arizona. The Arizona Wilderness Act specifically
recognized the uranium potential of over one-half million acres of
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service lands in
northern Arizona by releasing them from wilderness classification so
they could be explored and mined. With overwhelmingly bipartisan
support at that time from across the entire political spectrum, the
U.S. Congress had finally spoken and clearly defined the disposition of
public lands in northern Arizona.
Twenty-six years later in 2010 and 2011, the Obama administration's
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar requested the National Park Service to
evaluate nearly 1,000,000 acres of lands--now being proposed as the new
Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni monument--for a 20-year moratorium on
uranium mining, which was in fact enacted and is still in place today.
Internal National Park Service emails from Park Service employees at
the time showed that they could not identify a threat to the lands or
watershed leading into or surrounding the Grand Canyon--and further
that breccia pipes inside the Grand Canyon National Park, which no one
intends to mine, are in fact, naturally occurring. If the federal
government is looking to prevent uranium mining, it does not require a
new national monument designation to deny permits--as the federal
government already has that authority.
Approximately 90% of these proposed lands are currently held in
trust and managed by the federal government for ALL American citizens.
Abusing the Antiquities Act to designate a new national monument would
strip away the ability of all interested American citizens to
participate in a public process and to have their comments accepted and
publicly heard by the federal government. The County of Mohave also has
the following questions as a part of this process which we are still
looking for answers to:
Mohave County is interested to learn how the boundaries of
the proposed new national monument were drawn up--as we
cannot help but notice that the proposal affects both
Arizona State Trust Lands and privately-held lands, but not
the Reservations of the Havasupai, Hualapai, or Kiabab
Paiute Tribes or the other Tribes lobbying to restrict this
land.
Mohave County would like to know if the federal government
has taken a hard look at the cumulative effects that a new
monument designation would have on the human environment
and the natural environment.
Mohave County would also like to know what the Biden
administration has done regarding vitality of commerce in
this proposed area within Arizona and Mohave County
District 1.
Designating this land as a national monument will take away future
economic opportunity for the taxpayers of Mohave County and the State
of Arizona. Rather than the Biden administration designating this
unnecessary new national monument, continuing to work together
collaboratively as we have will protect the land far better than no
trespassing signs and forever harming the economic development future
of the real human beings that actually live there.
The County of Mohave takes great pride in the fact that we are rich
in natural resources, and we hold the utmost respect and reverence for
the Grand Canyon National Park and for our serious responsibility in
protecting the Park from harm. We understand that tourism generates
significant economic activity annually from visitors, and that most of
that activity is at the south rim and miles away from the proposed
national monument. Most of the accompanying jobs are low-wage and
seasonal jobs which is consistent with tourism employment which is
typically at poverty level.
We are aware that as of today, over 60% of the uranium used in
domestic nuclear plants is unnecessarily shipped through the Port of
St. Petersburg. At a time when the United States of America has
abundant supplies of uranium in our backyard, this reliance on Russia,
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and communist China defies common sense. For
those that understand modern mining, it makes no sense when Americans
are told that mining domestic uranium supplies is ``bad'', but mining
copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel is ``good''. It is wrong for
American electricity rate payers to be financing Russia's war against
Ukraine through international uranium purchases. President Biden has
provided strong support for Ukraine. Why then would the Biden
administration even consider placing off-limits our nation's largest
sources of high-grade domestic uranium by designating yet another
national monument.
It is, in fact, a national security choice. Thank you.
______
Dr. Gosar. I thank the witnesses for their testimony. I
will now recognize Members for 5 minutes. I want to thank the
witnesses for everything they have done so far. So, we will now
go to the questions. First on the list is Matt Rosendale from
Montana.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Unfortunately, Director Stone-Manning and Secretary Haaland
have refused to hold hearings in the communities most impacted
by this rule, which is what has forced this Committee to bring
these witnesses here so that their voices can be heard.
Otherwise, those states, those communities would be silenced.
It is clear that the BLM has turned into a climate activist
organization under this Administration. I am glad we are
holding this hearing to uncover the unlawful and unprecedented
actions taken by the Bureau. The proposed conservation and
landscape health rule is just another example of this
Administration trying to take authority vested in Congress and
place it with the Administration's extremist agencies. This
Administration is threatening Montanans' access to public lands
to advance their own environmentalist agenda.
Changing the BLM's multiple-use mandate without the proper
input from Congress as well as state and county governments is
an unprecedented power grab. It will empower the Bureau to
approve acreage limitations that could limit critical
vegetation management and infrastructure maintenance projects
on Federal lands.
Furthermore, this rule will mandate that BLM manages for
preservation, rather than meet the multiple use mandate
provided under FLPMA. The fact that BLM had only a 75-day
comment period for this rule shows that they are not serious
about receiving public input on this issue, and why this
hearing is so important so that we can hear from the people
that are going to be impacted the most.
The BLM has also refused to provide the rural counties most
affected by this rule with a chance to be heard. Instead, they
are holding listening sessions only in the major metropolitan
areas of Denver, Reno, Albuquerque, far removed from those
stakeholders who feel the results from this destructive rule
when it clearly contradicts the intent and the language of the
Taylor Grazing Act and the law.
Rule cannot change law. The law is the law. I seriously
hope that they will hold an in-person session in Montana, as I
have urged.
I would like to start off with Commissioner Todd Devlin.
Thank you so much for being here today. It is always good
to see you. You mentioned in your testimony that this proposed
rule gives the BLM a new ability to create a de facto
wilderness study area of any size without the input of the
state and county governments. What would be the short-term and
long-term results of giving the BLM this power in your county,
which about 43 percent of it is currently owned by BLM?
Mr. Devlin. Thank you, Representative Rosendale, for the
question. It is a good question that is difficult to answer,
but I will try to answer it from a hometown point of view.
My county is Bankhead-Jones land. A lot of the Federal land
is Bankhead-Jones, which means it is checkerboard ownership. It
is not in blocks. The only block that we have in my county is
probably the Terry Badlands Wilderness Study Area. Other than
that, it is private, Federal, private, Federal, checkerboard
throughout.
So, by using the ACECs and conservation, if you take the
Federal land and put a conservation easement on it, or protect
it in some way that maybe restricts grazing, or prohibits you
from feasibly grazing because of the difficulty to take care of
your cattle or sheep, it would be devastating. It would force
private to go and get conservation easements, and then you have
it all locked up. That is my personal opinion.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you. The new rule allows the BLM to
grant conservation leases of up to 10 years and unlimited sizes
to tribes, non-profits, individuals, and private entities, but
not the counties and states. For what possible reason do you
think the states and counties were excluded from this grant
program?
Mr. Devlin. Because we probably opposed it in the first
place, Representative.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chair, I am on the button, so I will yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Montana. The
gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Lee, is recognized.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is great to see the
witnesses today, especially my fellow Nevadan, Dr. Goicoechea.
Nice to see you. Thanks for being here. Before I get
started, I just want to address Mr. Rosendale.
I am perplexed that Director Stone-Manning and Secretary
Haaland are not here if it was so important to hear from them
today, that they did not receive an invite.
I also want to----
Mr. Rosendale. Would you yield to a response?
Ms. Lee. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. Rosendale. What I said is that it is important to hear
from the communities. We already know what the Director and the
Secretary, what their initiative is. We know what their agenda
is. I think it is important to hear from the communities----
Ms. Lee. OK, thank you.
Mr. Rosendale [continuing]. Which is why I was so stunned
that they didn't hold a hearing----
Ms. Lee. I will reclaim my time now.
I also want to clear up something with respect to the
Antiquities Act.
First of all, the Antiquities Act was created in 1906, and
since then it has been used by 18 Presidents, 9 Democrats, 9
Republicans. When a designation is made using it, there ensures
continued access to multiple use and, more importantly, it has
been used by President Trump just recently to designate the
Camp Nelson National Monument.
And when a monument is designated through the Antiquities
Act, such as Avi Kwa Ame in Nevada, it is designated on Federal
land. It does not give the authority to the President to
condemn land from private landowners or states. It simply
increases the level of production for important cultural,
biological, scientific, and other resources. The Antiquities
Act has been and remains a bipartisan success story.
Speaking of bipartisanship, it appears today that this
hearing is designed to divide. But I think there is so much
that unites us when it comes to public lands. Just last month,
for instance, this Committee unanimously advanced the Biking on
Long Distance Trails Act. This bill, the bipartisan, bicameral
that I co-led, will help develop new bike trails on Federal
lands, and make existing trails safer and more accessible.
Dr. Goicoechea and Commissioner Garcia Richard, we come
from states that have bipartisan administrations, where our
outdoor recreation adds billions of dollars to our economies
each year. Could you please lend your perspective on what those
dollars mean to places like Nevada and New Mexico, and how
bipartisan support for recreation sector helps deliver good
jobs and other benefits to our states?
Ms. Richard. Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman, what a great
statement and question.
We say that recreating outdoors is not a red or blue issue.
We all recreate. But in New Mexico in particular, we have 11
national monuments, 2 of which are our most recent. And around
those we see increased visitorship to the tune of a million
extra visitors per year in our southern monument, Organ
Mountains-Desert Peaks.
And from the long lines that we see at our national parks,
we know that these outdoor spaces, as was mentioned, are
iconic, are really drawing tourists to our area.
So, just really briefly, in New Mexico $9.9 billion in
annual consumer spending from this industry, $2.8 billion in
annual wages and salaries, and $6.23 million in tax revenue.
For a small state like ours--we have 2 million people--that is
a big boon.
Dr. Goicoechea. Congresswoman Lee, thank you for the
question. And yes, obviously, recreation is a huge part of
Nevada, and that is part of why I guess we are frustrated with
the conservation rule as proposed. We really feel that we can
be an active player in that. We don't want to jeopardize that.
At the first virtual meeting on the rule that was heard, a
comment was received and the answer was we may have to move a
hiking trail if it is non-compliant with the conservation
lease. That concerns me. If you move that, you are going----
Ms. Lee. Excuse me. My question was on what the value of
recreation is in the state, not about the rule. I am sorry.
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, ma'am. Well, it is very valuable, very
similar numbers to what New Mexico did. And along with
recreation, we would also add in the sportsman component of
that, which is tens of millions of dollars annually.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
And before I yield my time, I just wanted to enter into the
record a newspaper article in response to the statement that
the Governor was not consulted with respect to the designation
of Avi Kwa Ame, when, in fact, he was. So, I will enter that
into the record. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
White House rejects Lombardo's criticism on monument designation
LAS VEGAS SUN, March 22, 2023 by Casey Harrison
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2023/mar/22/white-house-refutes-lombardos-
outreach-claim-about/
*****
The White House is pushing back at a claim from Nevada Gov. Joe
Lombardo that President Joe Biden's administration had not contacted
the governor's office about designating Avi Kwa Ame a U.S. national
monument.
A White House official said the president's team had long coordinated
with members of Nevada's federal delegation. It also coordinated with
former Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak's administration. Lombardo defeated
Sisolak November's general election and took office in January.
``We initially reached out to the governor's office in January about
protecting this tribal site, and our team spoke with the governor's
office yesterday as well,'' the White House wrote in a statement today
to the Sun. ``DOI (U.S. Department of Interior), CEQ (Council on
Environmental Quality), and the White House have also been working with
Nevada Tribal state leaders since the Avi Kwa Ame monument was
proposed.
``DOI staff traveled to Nevada for meetings with stake holders and
state leaders in addition to public meetings. Tribal consultations took
place in both Nevada and Arizona. We worked diligently with Nevada
government leaders including members of the federal delegation.''
Biden on Tuesday declared more than a half-million acres of federally
owned land south of Las Vegas--which spans to state lines with
California and Arizona and encompasses nearly all the surrounding land
outside Laughlin and Searchlight--would earn protections from
development projects in one of the most sweeping federal land
conservation efforts in decades.
Shortly after Biden's announcement, Lombardo sent a release stating the
Biden Administration had not responded to ``several'' concerns raised
by the governor.
Lombardo's administration denied the White House's claim that the
president's team reached out to the governor. Repeated attempts by
Lombardo to speak with Biden were ignored, they said.
Additionally, Lombardo officials were not invited to participate in
stakeholder meetings about Avi Kwa Ame, they said.
Lombardo's chief of staff, Ben Kieckhefer, received an email in mid-
January from an unknown individual to discuss a topic that did not
specifically include Avi Kwa Ame, they said.
There was a brief exchange of emails, but no further follow-up from the
White House and no mention of the monument's potential designation,
they said.
``No one at the White House reached out to consult Gov. Lombardo
specifically about Avi Kwa Ame and no one at the White House responded
to Governor Lombardo's repeated attempts to get in contact about this
issue,'' wrote Elizabeth Ray, communications director for Lombardo, in
an email to the Sun. ``The Biden Administration had no interest in
Nevada's position on this issue, and unfortunately they made that very
clear.''
Lombardo in his statement Tuesday said that the ``federal
confiscation'' of the 506,814 acres for Avi Kwa Ame would jeopardize
economic development in the area while making it more difficult for the
state to acquire new land for affordable housing. Approximately 85% of
the land within Nevada's borders is federally-owned, including most of
the Avi Kwa Ame designation.
In his full statement, Lombardo said:
``Since I took office, the Biden White House has not consulted with my
administration about any of the details of the proposed Avi Kwa Ame
National Monument which, given the size of the proposal, seems badly
out of step. Upon learning that the president was considering
unilateral action, I reached out to the White House to raise several
concerns, citing the potential for terminal disruption of rare earth
mineral mining projects and long-planned, bipartisan economic
development efforts. While I'm still waiting for a response, I'm not
surprised. This kind of `Washington Knows Best' policy might win
plaudits from unaccountable special interests, but it's going to cost
our state jobs and economic opportunity--all while making land more
expensive and more difficult to develop for affordable housing and
critical infrastructure projects.
``The federal confiscation of 506,814 acres of Nevada land is a
historic mistake that will cost Nevadans for generations to come.''
A spokeswoman for the governor did not respond to a request for
clarification, including whom Lombardo considered ``special
interests.''
A tribally led campaign to legally protect Avi Kwa Ame dates to at
least 1999, when Spirit Mountain was placed on the National Register of
Historic Places as a Traditional Cultural Property. Biden announced at
the White House Tribal Nations Summit in December that he would
designate Avi Kwa Ame as a national monument.
Avi Kwa Ame's designation all but halts a proposed 68 wind-turbine farm
by Crescent Peak Renewables, though the White House asserts the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management has identified more than 9 million acres of
public land throughout the state's borders for solar energy projects.
The BLM is also in the process of reviewing more than three dozen
proposed renewable energy projects in the state that could generate up
to 13 gigawatts of electricity if constructed. Crescent Peak submitted
an application to BLM for the 308-megawatt wind farm, which would have
been about nine miles west of Searchlight. Those efforts, however, we
generally met with opposition.
Biden is able to declare the site a national monument under authority
given to him via the Antiquities Act of 1906.
______
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize Mr.
Collins from Georgia for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Devlin, in your testimony you mentioned that the
Federal Government owns 60 percent of your county's mineral
rights. What minerals are located there?
Mr. Devlin. Gravel. But more than gravel, there is oil and
gas. There is the Cedar Creek Anticline, which was an oil
formation in the southern part of the county that we know of.
And industry is coming back to rejuvenate those wells.
Mr. Collins. What percentage of that land is used for
mining?
Mr. Devlin. Very little. I think we have two producing
wells.
Mr. Collins. OK. Is there any concern that this proposal
rule is going to prevent mining in your county?
Mr. Devlin. It could, possibly. It all depends on how you
interpret this rule. That is the problem. It is very cloudy.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Lingenfelter--I think I pronounced that
right, or did I get close? The same question is to you. I would
like to get an answer from you on that.
Mr. Lingenfelter. If I could get the question repeated, was
the question on the minerals?
Mr. Collins. Yes, what minerals are located in your area?
Mr. Lingenfelter. Mohave County has a long history of
mining, actually. A lot of copper. We have some international
companies that are doing some exploratory lithium mining in my
district, actually, copper, turquoise. We have some world-
renowned turquoise mining.
Mr. Collins. Yes, I think the copper is what----
Mr. Lingenfelter. Gold, and also silver.
Mr. Collins. With this proposed rule, is it going to
prevent any of that from being mined?
Mr. Lingenfelter. Again, as the other witness said, it
depends upon how that is interpreted.
Mr. Collins. OK, all right. If I pronounce your name wrong,
I am sorry. I am from Georgia, and Rosendale is about as hard
as we get.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Collins. Is it Mr. Goicoechea?
Dr. Goicoechea. Very good.
Mr. Collins. OK. If I read your bio right, you are a fourth
generation cattle rancher?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes sir, that is correct, fourth
generation.
Mr. Collins. Is there a fifth generation?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, sir, there are. There are two little
girls at home.
Mr. Collins. Is good stewardship of the land important?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes sir, absolutely. If it wasn't, we
wouldn't be here.
Mr. Collins. Well, that was what I was going to follow up
with. It looks like you have done a good job, since you have
been sustaining it through the fourth generation.
Also reading, it looks like you have been a state
veterinarian, county commissioner, head of the local
Cattlemen's Association. So, I would say that you probably care
very much not just about your ranch, but the community and the
environment, as well.
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes sir, that is right. And in addition,
chairing the Sagebrush Ecosystem Council for 10 years that runs
our conservation credit system for the state of Nevada and
managing sagebrush habitat for the sage grouse.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, it seems like that we have seen
this time and time again. And I am a freshman. I am new here,
150 days into this thing. But every time we have a hearing and
we hear from people in the places that this stuff is being
affected by, we see people that are concerned, just like that
gentleman right there, for the fifth generation coming along,
of being able to make a living.
We see an economy being destroyed for no reason other than
some left-wing social agenda experiment that this
Administration is pushing on the American people. And I am
thankful that we have hearings and we have people like that out
there to bring in.
With that, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gallego.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The existence of national monuments is directly relevant to
communities in Arizona and across the West, and I was proud to
work on the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition to push multiple
administrations to use the Antiquities Act to protect Bears
Ears National Monument. It is an area of enormous significance
to tribes and its protection is an important part of honoring
our responsibility.
I also introduced legislation to establish permanent
protections for Bears Ears, so that we do not have to rely
solely on administrative action.
Closer to my home, I have been proud to co-sponsor the
Grand Canyon Protection Act to protect one of Arizona's and the
country's crown jewels. And now, Arizona tribes, likely voters,
and elected officials in Coconino County all agree that part of
the Grand Canyon outside of the national park should be
protected through monument status. It will bring revenue to an
area that needs it, and protects sacred tribal sites at the
same time.
There have been other recent monument designations that we
can learn from, including in New Mexico. Commissioner Garcia
Richard, how has the Rio Grande del Norte Monument designation
affected the region economically?
Ms. Richard. Thanks so much for that question, Mr. Chairman
and Congressman, and I will just echo what you said before I
give my answer, that that monument designation was very
important to Pueblo. It is a native tribe that we have in the
northern area of the state. Taos Pueblo was instrumental in the
recognition of that particular monument.
In terms of the increase to the area--and let me just
remind folks this is a very rural part of New Mexico, not used
to seeing a lot of visitors, not used to this infusion of
economic development, they saw a 6 percent increase in their
lodger tax. And as a gateway community, that was very important
to that small community of Taos.
In addition, the first 6 months after the monument was
created, the tax receipts for food and other services rose also
by 21 percent. So, that was an infusion, like I said, of kind
of life into this community that relies on the monument for
that visitation and those tax dollars.
Mr. Gallego. I actually lived up in northern New Mexico for
a couple of years, in Espanola. So, I traveled that area. I
know, I am a little surprising sometimes. I traveled that area
a lot, and you are right. In terms of economic development, it
is very beautiful country, beautiful people. Outside of Los
Alamos, there is not really any big employee base. So, tourism
is still creating jobs, especially further away from Santa Fe.
It is really important for that area, so I am very happy to
hear that occurred.
Are there any kind of other non-economic benefits that came
from the monument designation?
Ms. Richard. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, absolutely.
There are sort of the non-tangible pieces that we can talk
about. And I will just say, New Mexico is a very small state, 2
million people, the bulk of which live in that Rio Grande
corridor. The rest of us live in small towns like Espanola,
like Taos. For us, the areas that we live in and the landscapes
that we were raised in have that feel that is part of our
identity. So, the protection of those landscapes can't be
overstated.
Mr. Gallego. If you could rewind several years and have the
chance to reconsider the monument designations knowing what you
know now, would you still support monument designations for Rio
Grande del Norte and Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks?
Ms. Richard. Thank you, and absolutely I would. And it is
not just me, Mr. Chairman and Congressman, that would support
those. The support for the designation, when a poll was taken
in southern New Mexico for the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks by
the Chamber there, actually rose. Support for the monument rose
6 months after the designation.
Mr. Gallego. Excellent. Thank you.
And I would also like to welcome a fellow Arizonan,
Chairman Lingenfelter.
Thank you for coming and joining us.
He is actually a great commissioner, as well as quite a
water expert, if you ever need to really talk about the water
scarcity issue of the West. This guy has the brain for it.
Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. And just a
note, Presidents that used the Antiquities Act to reduce the
size of designations: Trump, Eisenhower, Truman, Wilson,
Coolidge, and someone more importantly for future designation
is Taft.
I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking
Member, and to all the guests that have come to provide
testimony, thank you very much for the travel and the time.
As I see the rule that is the topic of this hearing, it is
an effort with the conservation rule and the discussion around
it to create some balance, landscape balance, period, to bring
conservation and the attendant protections that that brings to
sensitive areas and areas that deserve that protection. It
creates a balance between the extractive industries--fossil
fuel, mining--that have had the upper hand on decisions that
are made around BLM and the usage of the land. This creates a
balance. It is a necessary balance.
And then also the attendant discussion about the
Antiquities Act and, in particular, the Grand Canyon
designation that the tribal coalition is seeking. The tribal
proposal is a by-product, a very direct by-product of the toxic
legacy that uranium mining inflicted on those areas, those
peoples. Industry still has not cleaned it up. And as they
walked away, they left a legacy of contaminated water, land,
the health impacts, the illness, the chronic legacy.
Commissioner, is the mining industry's track record in
Arizona, as I described it, an isolated incident, or have they
taken full responsibility to protect land, water, and public
health in New Mexico after mining is gone?
Ms. Richard. So, Mr. Chairman and Congressman, it is
exactly like you described. The situation in Arizona is the
situation in New Mexico, as well. There have been decades of
uranium mining, which we now live with the legacy of. And I am
just going to give two quick examples because one of them
actually is on the land that I manage.
There was a Tronox mine there. The tailings from that mine
still to this day remain on state land. There is no clear path
forward to clean up those tailings or who is going to pay for
that cleanup.
The other issue I would like to raise is the largest
tailings spill in the history of this country actually occurred
in the 1970s in Churchrock, New Mexico, right on the border of
the Navajo Nation. It was a devastating tailings spill that
reverberates and echoes through today in the health of the
folks that live in that community.
Mr. Grijalva. And that legacy, what it has meant to the
people of New Mexico and the efforts to protect Chaco Canyon,
those efforts parallel to a great degree to the efforts to
protect the Grand Canyon for the long term. Could you reference
that, or any comment on that?
Ms. Richard. Yes, Mr. Chairman and Congressman, there is a
lot of overlap. I think you said that the decision on this
newly proposed monument is a direct result of the legacy. I
think you could say the same thing for New Mexico.
The land that the uranium mining occurred in is sacred to
the people of New Mexico, most particularly the Indigenous
groups. So, there is Mount Taylor, right smack in the middle of
uranium country, that is sacred to a number of tribes who
reside in that area.
And then you mentioned Chaco Canyon. Folks see it as a
landscape resource that, essentially, is meaningful to not only
Navajo Nation, but also New Mexico's 19 pueblos. So, actually,
in the State Land Office, we have placed a moratorium on all
new oil and gas drilling in the Chaco Canyon area.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, and the discussion around the Grand
Canyon, it will go on. Stakeholder engagement will occur, and
people will be given the opportunity to comment on the proposal
that the tribal coalition has brought forth.
But there was a similarity, one of our witnesses said about
we want to be at the table and not the menu. It was the exact
same comment that the leader of the Zuni Pueblo said at that
discussion with Secretary Haaland. We come to the table, but we
are always the menu. And on this instance, there is some
balance being created there, as well.
The Mayor of Flagstaff supports it, Coconino Board of
Supervisors supports it. And where most of the proposed
monument lies in Coconino County, I should add, hunters,
anglers, conservationists, the dozen tribes that are associated
with the canyon, 75 percent of likely Arizona voters support
the designation.
And this discussion will go on. But real facts and real
opinions are going to guide this decision, I am gratified by
that.
Thank you, Commissioner, for your response.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I will recognize myself
now.
Supervisor Lingenfelter, there is a thing about trust, I
have always had the definition of trust as trust is a series of
promises kept. And I want you to think about that with the
following answers.
I know that some of my friends on the other side of the
aisle are very passionate about this, and the other proposed
monument designation, quite frankly. But I think we need to
keep areas inside their own congressional districts to
themselves.
Let's talk about some facts when you went over your
testimony. Is it true the state of Arizona already leads the
nation in national monuments?
Mr. Lingenfelter. Dr. Gosar, yes, that is accurate.
Dr. Gosar. And you said, of the 1.1 million acres proposed,
40 percent of it would be in Mohave County, right?
Mr. Lingenfelter. Dr. Gosar, that is accurate.
Dr. Gosar. And 90 percent of the proposed acreage is
already under BLM control.
Mr. Lingenfelter. Dr. Gosar, again, that is accurate.
Dr. Gosar. And you have very little private land in Mohave
County.
Mr. Lingenfelter. Dr. Gosar, Mohave County has 10 percent
privately owned----
Dr. Gosar. This isn't unusual. How about Gila County? There
I think they are 6 percent private. So, it is very, very
predicated to Arizona.
Do you think that the further restrictions by the monument
designation and what type of additional restrictions
anticipated on Federal lands in your communities, what would
the impact potentially be?
Mr. Lingenfelter. Thank you for the question, Dr. Gosar.
As you know, Mohave County, and specifically in the Kingman
area, we have a history of that. We had a mine that closed
down. It was the Duval mine, I believe, and a major employment
loss. Mohave County has had a history of mining operations,
various different minerals. And when we lose that ability to
extract the raw materials, the minerals that our country needs,
that industry needs, Mohave County has suffered.
Dr. Gosar. So, it goes back to my definition of trust. Has
the Federal Government kept their promise?
Mr. Lingenfelter. In Mohave County's view? I believe that
they have not. These lands, we believe, are held in trust for
all Americans, and for multiple uses.
Dr. Gosar. So, going back to it, I also am good about good
process builds good policy, builds good politics. So, if it was
decided that this was a good idea, why not invite the local
people?
Mr. Lingenfelter. Thank you, Dr. Gosar. Mohave County was
disappointed that we did not receive an invitation from
Secretary Haaland.
Dr. Gosar. I find it fascinating that the other side can
say, ``Why isn't the Secretary here, along with others that
were invited?'' Well, I mean, I guess fair play and fair game,
from that standpoint.
Dr. Goicoechea, the proposed rule extends landscape health
analysis across the landscape. In your testimony, you sounded
critical of this, but the BLM has argued that this is what the
livestock grazing industry has been asking for for years. Can
you explain this?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, thank you for the question, Chairman.
It is important to note that land health standards need to be
analyzed, and those impacts need to be fully analyzed.
I am not sure that the way this proposed rule, as written--
and again, I have read it so many times, I am as confused as
everyone here is about what exactly it is trying to get at. But
we can't, with a rule that puts conservation leases down, get
to the underlying cause if we are not meeting land health
objectives. We must analyze those, and that needs to be done
through NEPA.
Dr. Gosar. I thoroughly agree. And along with the BLM, we
also have Forest Service looking at leasing issues, like in
Arizona, where we are mis-utilizing a tool from the University
of Arizona on animal units per acre. So, it is not just the BLM
that is after this, it is also the Forest Service.
Dr. Goicoechea, as a state official, you know what it takes
to develop a rulemaking that can withstand legal scrutiny and
will achieve desired ends. In your written testimony, you
talked about how BLM has created a system rife with abuse. Can
you explain that?
Dr. Goicoechea. Sure, yes. Rulemaking is, obviously, very
critical, and there is no state agency that would propose a
rule such as this without going through the process and without
knowing what those sidebars are.
I think it is important to note that the Supreme Court has
been very clear about what the Federal agencies can and can't
do outside their congressionally-set sideboards. I believe that
they are here, they are amending FLPMA without using Congress,
and it will not stand up to a legal challenge, nor would a rule
in the state of Nevada if we did not go through the proper
process.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
I am going to propose a lightning round, if you like. These
folks came for a long period of time. Why not do a lightning
round? Would you be able to do that?
Ms. Stansbury. Sure, I would like to do my questions first,
though.
Dr. Gosar. Oh, I forgot. I am sorry.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, I always appreciate the
Chairman's lightning round, so be prepared. You are all going
to be asked a question.
Again, I want to thank Commissioner Garcia Richard for
being here today. In addition to being our state's land
manager, she is an educator, comes from a multi-generational
family that has been on these lands since before the United
States entered these lands, and also is an incredible leader in
our state.
And one of the things that I really appreciate about our
Commissioner is the unprecedented effort that she has made to
modernize the way in which we are managing our lands in New
Mexico, so that the statutes that do exist at the state level
to manage these lands really reflect the values and needs of
contemporary people.
And as the Commissioner noted, the primary responsibility
of the State Land Commissioner in New Mexico is to manage these
lands. These are largely state land grant lands that came from
the Federal Government after the United States came in for
profit maximization, because those funds actually go into state
coffers. So, the addition of protection of cultural properties,
tribal consultation, management for conservation, all of those
things are modern interpretations of how we manage these
landscapes at scale, while also continuing to ensure that we
are maximizing our fiduciary responsibility to the people of
New Mexico.
So, I wonder, Commissioner, if you could just take a moment
to talk about how this BLM rule in some ways kind of parallels
what you have done at the state level, and how that has
enhanced your ability to manage those lands at scale for
multiple use, and what, if any, impact that has had on your
fiduciary responsibilities as the Commissioner.
Ms. Richard. Thank you so much for that question. I am just
going to give two really quick examples.
At the land office, what we call this is a lease over
lease. You have someone who already holds, primarily, a grazing
lease. And I am going to give an example of a birding location.
The Audubon Society has come in and actually, in partnership
with the grazing lessee, has developed a site where you can
visit the largest number of migratory bird sightings in the
western United States at this facility. The grazing lessee
actually helped us create the habitat around this facility, and
now we have this lease for multiple use.
The other example I am going to give is that we have an oil
and gas company in the southern part of our state, EOG
Resources, who has noted that there is the presence of an
endangered plant in one of their sections that they lease from
us. They are actually undergoing now the instrument of a
conservation lease to protect that area with the blue tharp
that is located there.
Ms. Stansbury. And Commissioner, when you began these
efforts to modernize the State Land Office, I think, similar to
many of the arguments that we hear at the Federal level, there
was a lot of fearmongering that, oh, my gosh, if we manage
these landscapes at scale, and we include conservation, it is
going to compromise our ability to do resource management and
to make revenue off these lands. But can you tell us what has
been the outcome of oil and gas revenues in New Mexico since
you took office?
Ms. Richard. The new conservation leasing has not come at
the expense of record revenue that we continue to enjoy into
the land office. This is merely creating another means for us
to draw revenue and care for the health of the land.
Ms. Stansbury. And, in fact, Commissioner, isn't it true
that actually the state of New Mexico has seen the largest
intake of oil and gas revenue on state lands ever in the
history of the state of New Mexico over the last 3 years?
Ms. Richard. Yes, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman, we broke
$1 billion my first year in office, $2 billion my second, and
we are on track to break $3 billion in one year for the first
time in our history.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you. So, this rule is another tool. It
is a tool in the toolbox.
And I do appreciate the comments today. I think all of you
have provided very useful comments. This is why we have
hearings, as was noted. And this is also why the Federal
Government uses the Federal Register and comment periods to try
to refine rules, as was noted. And I do think that there are
some improvements to this rule that can be had. That is why
this process exists. And, certainly, we will be following up
not only from some of the testimony today; we have also heard
from the solar industry.
But I also find it ironic that there has been some argument
here today about the need, and I agree wholeheartedly, as did
the Chairman, of using NEPA and our other permitting tools and
our regulatory tools to make sure we hear from the public. So,
it is ironic that we are having this conversation in this
Committee, because I have sat here for the last several months
listening to my colleagues talk about why we need to gut NEPA,
and expedite permitting, and not hear from communities. And
right now they are at the negotiating table with the President
trying to gut NEPA across Pennsylvania Avenue. So, it is a
little bit of a mixed message here.
Finally, I do want to thank folks who have come and
testified today from Arizona. And I do respect the Chairman's
comments about keeping a focus on what happens in your own
district. However, I do want to note that the greater Grand
Canyon, Chaco Canyon, Bears Ears, and Oak Flat areas, which are
in other districts other than my own, are sacred to the people
who live in my district, and they are a moral and an actual
legal trust responsibility of the Federal Government to make
good on our promises to protect these lands for Indigenous
communities, and to do proper consultation.
And I encourage folks who are seeking to develop areas for
uranium mining to have conversations with the communities that
are living with the legacies, because while it might provide a
few hundred jobs for this generation, I will tell you that
there are thousands of New Mexicans, multi-generational
families in New Mexico, who are living with the legacy of
cancer, who have died too young, and who are still living with
the legacy of toxic water in their communities. It is not worth
it, and it is not needed.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate today's
conversation and look forward to the continued conversation.
Dr. Gosar. I would like to do a lightning round, if you
guys wouldn't mind. We will go 3 minutes. How does that sound?
Ms. Stansbury. OK.
Dr. Gosar. The gentleman from Montana for 3 minutes.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, Montana, we have state trust lands, as well. And
everything, Ms. Richard, that I heard you referencing was the
state trust lands. And guess what? We do a great job managing
our state trust lands, as well.
I had the privilege of serving on the State Land Board for
4 years. I was the state auditor. So, I was responsible for
those lands, 4.7 million acres, and they were managed a lot
better than the Federal lands. We harvested our timber, we
mined our minerals, and we extract oil and gas. Additionally,
we protect our air and water the whole time that we do that.
We have tremendous access for public to enjoy these lands
for recreational purposes, and they do just that because they
are healthier. They are much healthier than the Federal lands,
which, in many cases, hundreds of thousands of acres look like
moonscapes because they haven't been managed properly. We
generate $40 to $55 million a year for our K-12 education
system because of proper management of those lands.
But I can tell you something. The people from Montana are
the ones that manage those lands, not some bureaucrat in
Washington, DC who doesn't know anything about the management
of those lands. Meanwhile, we are trying to impose additional
rules which, again, I will state are in complete violation and
contradiction of the Taylor Grazing Act, the law, the law that
says what those lands are supposed to be used for.
That being said, Mr. Goicoechea, in your testimony, you
mentioned that the BLM elected to forego the NEPA analysis
altogether in promulgation of the rule. Are you aware of any
other situation and in many years of your public service where
the BLM has foregone the NEPA process for a rule this
impactful?
Dr. Goicoechea. No, sir, I am not.
Mr. Rosendale. The BLM claims that this proposed rule will
not have an economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and thus is not subject to review under the RFA. Do
you disagree? And if so, how will small entities be affected
economically by this proposed rule?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. I
wholeheartedly disagree, as does the state of Nevada.
Without a thorough socioeconomic analysis, we cannot really
know what those economic impacts are. If you take a producer
off of a land for 5 or 10 years, whether it is grazing, mining,
a campground, for example, what are those economic impacts to
that community? They are great. And in the case of a rancher,
they will be out of business. They cannot sustain it if they
are removed because they are non-compliant with the conditions
of a lease. And to say that it will not have a financial impact
is erroneous.
Mr. Rosendale. And if we put the ranchers out of business,
what happens to the local automobile dealership, the grocery
store? What happens to those businesses?
Dr. Goicoechea. They go out of business. Probably just as
importantly is all the other stewardship of the lands around
that that are occurring are going to go away, as well. The
Bureau needs help to do this work, and it has always been
ranchers at the top that are doing that work. And if they are
gone, the landscape suffers, the local businesses suffer, the
grocery store suffers, the schools suffer. And then we end up
with isolated communities and poverty and suicide, and
everything else that we have heard about from my colleague to
the left.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you for your testimony today, Mr.
Goicoechea.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. The Ranking Member for the Full Committee is
recognized for his 3 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Commissioner Garcia Richard, let me go back
to a discussion that is kind of intertwined with everything
else we are talking about.
And I do admire and respect the work that New Mexico and
your office has done to deal with the issue of balance, to deal
with the issue of inclusion, and to look at your landscape in a
thorough way.
And monument designations under the Antiquities Act, the
nexus being the Indigenous community that drives that decision,
and I find that regardless of the support that a designation
might or might not have, the interest in limiting or preventing
that are always very strong.
And I noticed almost every controversial issue dealing with
extraction, whether it is the Grand Canyon, whether it is
Chaco, whether it is Resolution, the list goes on, the
Boundaries, those controversies that come to light, there is
also a legacy there, and there is significant Indigenous
involvement, and presence, and demand on those issues. And that
is the balance issue, and that is why tools like the
Antiquities Act, the rule, and others are so vital and so
important.
The point and the question is, in this search for balance
and landscape balance New Mexico is a great example. Tell us
about that effort, and tell us about the difficulties in
getting to the point where you are at now.
Ms. Richard. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, New Mexico still
has, alive and well and thriving, 23 tribes, 19 pueblos, the
Navajo Nation, and 3 Apache Nations who have been there since,
as was spoken before, before New Mexico became a state, before
many of our families arrived in those areas. They managed that
land.
And I have a modern-day example, actually, to give you
today. They managed that land for pristine nature. The land
resource is part of their identity. And we have a modern-day
example in the Mescalero Apache, who manage probably one of the
region's most pristine forests. They have been able to
withstand wildfire damage from all areas because of the
management of that forest.
So, this is a resource that goes to the heart of Indigenous
culture and identity. So, when we are going back to looking at
what should occur in a certain landscape, what designation
should happen in a certain landscape, I believe it is always
Indigenous communities, Indigenous knowledge that we should
look to, first and foremost.
So, that is what we have done in the State Land Office.
When we decided to do a moratorium on Chaco Canyon on new oil
and gas leasing, we spent a year visiting Navajo chapter
houses, inviting pueblo tribal leadership to tell us where the
places were that needed protection.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady, the
Ranking Member, is recognized for her 3 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am actually going to follow on Ranking Member Grijalva's
questions, because I think that Commissioner, what you just
spoke to about the kind of consultation that you did with
tribal communities was new in the history of our State Land
Office and in some way, again, parallels what the Federal
Government is trying to do under Secretary Haaland's
leadership, and the BLM, and other Federal agencies, which is
to not only make good on our treaty and trust responsibilities
to our tribes, but also to ensure that they have a seat at the
table, and that their cultural values, their historic
landscapes, and their sacred places are a part of the planning
process.
So, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the
effort that you have undertaken since you have taken the role
as the State Land Commissioner to do tribal consultation at the
state level, which is actually quite unique, I think,
nationally, and how that has enhanced your ability to protect
those landscapes.
Ms. Richard. Thank you so much for that question.
Initially, what we did was pass a cultural protection rule,
which requires archeological surveys and tribal consultation
before a spade of dirt is moved on state land. And the reason
is because we don't have the expertise for cultural sites that
may exist on the land for landscape preservation.
We have heard from tribes that there are natural resources
that are considered to be tribal cultural properties, TCPs. I
don't have that knowledge. I am not an Indigenous person. So,
we look to those folks, we look to their background, we look to
their knowledge of this landscape to inform the work that we do
before we do the work.
Like I said before, we have been able to do this
preservation, this consultation, and not risk a dime of our
revenue. We still feel that it is important. It has not slowed
down our business, it has not impacted our revenues, but it is
necessary, nonetheless.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes, and I think one of the things that is
really important to talk about, especially since we don't have
any witnesses here today that are from tribal communities or
tribal leaders, is the ways in which that consultation has
helped to transform also not only the opportunity to protect
and preserve those spaces, but to revitalize their use for
cultural purposes.
I had the tremendous opportunity last fall to go join the
rest of the delegation and both pueblo and Navajo leaders at
Chaco Canyon with Secretary Haaland. And one of the things that
I was particularly struck by, talking to some of the pueblo
leaders, is the ways in which the cultural and religious
knowledge and connection to that landscape has been passed down
for dozens of generations. We are talking thousands of years.
And since there has been an effort under the current
Administration to invite tribes to the table not only for
planning purposes, the use of that space is now being used as a
cultural space again for dances and for other cultural uses,
which is so core to, as you said, the identity of the people of
New Mexico. So, I thank you for your work.
With that, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady.
Dr. Goicoechea, the Federal Government promised a Payment
in Lieu of Taxes and Secure Rural Schools. Do those exist
anymore?
Dr. Goicoechea. Do the two programs exist? Is that your
question?
Dr. Gosar. Yes.
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, they do exist, sir.
Dr. Gosar. And how much money that we were promised
actually comes out of those?
Dr. Goicoechea. Not nearly enough money to operate the
local governments.
Dr. Gosar. Probably less than a penny of what we were
promised of every dollar.
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Supervisor Lingenfelter, does PILT really
contribute to your bottom line these days?
Mr. Lingenfelter. Chairman Gosar, as I noted before, Mohave
County has 10 percent private landownership. So, PILT plays an
incredibly important role in providing the services of
government in Mohave County. We get probably a fraction of what
we should.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, a fraction. We want to make sure we
understand that.
Also, when you have a designation like this, you have a lot
of the oversight, search and rescue, hospitalizations. All
those kinds of things fall under you, right?
Mr. Lingenfelter. Chairman Gosar, that is absolutely
correct.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I acknowledge that tribal consultation is
something that we have a conversation about. It is long overdue
to have a conversation about the sovereignty issue of tribes
and the relationship with states in this country. I am very
much in favor of, I have been pushing for that.
Supervisor Lingenfelter, how would hunting, fishing, ATV,
and potential other uses be implicated by a monument?
Mr. Lingenfelter. Chairman Gosar, as we understand it, and
in speaking with our ranching community, our agricultural
community, those that come for outdoor recreation, Mohave
County is very strong in natural amenities. And obviously, we
have a lot of side-by-sides and those types of things.
There is a lot of concern about things that families do
together, and ranching communities that are generational
ranching families. In Mohave County we have five, six
generations of ranching, at least, that would be negatively
impacted.
Dr. Gosar. I am going to start from the far left. What was
the question that you wanted to be asked, and it wasn't asked,
and what is the answer to that question?
I will start with you.
Mr. Devlin. Why do you want cooperative agency status,
Representative and Mr. Chair? We want it so that our locals and
those that represent the locals have a seat at the table. That
is what it is all about, whatever the topic may be. When it
comes to management of Federal lands and affecting people that
are my constituents, I want to be at the table, and so do my
constituents.
Dr. Gosar. So, local consultation, right?
Mr. Devlin. Correct.
Dr. Gosar. Dr. Goicoechea.
Dr. Goicoechea. Well, thank you very much. Local
consultation is, obviously, a big one for me. But I guess the
question I would like answered is, ``What are the tools that
this is giving to BLM that they don't currently have?'' And my
answer to that would be: (1) I don't know, after reading the
rule five or six times; and (2) I don't believe any after
reading it that many times.
The BLM foundation is already in place. It can do a lot of
this work. It can enter into agreements. Nevada has
demonstrated it can effectively enter into agreements and have
meaningful conservation projects on the ground. Do we need them
on public land? Absolutely. I don't think we need to re-invent
the wheel. I think we have the tools we have now. An agency is
over-burdened. They can't do the work they are challenged with
now, and we are going to put another level on top of that, and
we are going to see other things slide.
I would love to be just like New Mexico, have consultation,
and I sure hope that the 63 percent of BLM lands are afforded
the same consultation as New Mexico affords their state lands.
Dr. Gosar. Commissioner?
Ms. Richard. Thank you for the opportunity. I was actually
hoping to have a little bit more of a conversation especially
around how state land uses our conservation leases. In
particular, it was mentioned that our ranching community
manages the land for conservation already, so what we have done
is take advantage of those practices, put them into our
conservation lease, and we are actually piloting a couple of
projects on rangeland health which our biologists, our
rangeland ecologists, have been a part of developing, and I
would like to see this particular rule have the same impact on
Ag. lessees.
Dr. Gosar. Great.
Supervisor?
Mr. Lingenfelter. Thank you, Chairman Gosar. As the first
gentleman said, Mohave County, we just want to make sure that
the local involvement is retained, and that we are involved.
Dr. Gosar. It makes a big deal.
I thank all the witnesses for their valuable testimony, and
the Members for their questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5
p.m. on Tuesday, May 30. The hearing record will be held open
for 10 business days for their responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, we
stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar
American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA)
Spokane Valley, WA
May 24, 2023
Hon. Paul Gosar, Chairman
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: May 24, 2003 oversight hearing titled ``Examining the Biden
Administration's Efforts to Limit Access to Public Lands''
Dear Chairman Gosar:
The American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA) submits the
following statement for the record for the above-referenced hearing.
Who We Are and the Importance of the U.S. Minerals Mining Industry
AEMA is a 128-year-old, 1,400-member national trade association
representing the mineral development and mining industry, with members
residing across 46 states, 7 Canadian provinces or territories and 10
other countries. AEMA is the recognized national representative for the
exploration sector, the junior mining sector, as well as mineral
developers interested in maintaining access to public lands. Thus, AEMA
represents the entire mining life cycle, from exploration to mineral
extraction and then to reclamation and closure. More than 80 percent of
our members are small businesses or work directly for small businesses.
American miners continue to play an indispensable role in building
and defending our Nation. From foundations to roofs, power plants to
wind farms, roads and bridges to communication grids and data storage
centers, America's infrastructure begins and ends with minerals and
mining. As just one example, steel resulting from mining operations
directly supplies the construction and development of roads, railways,
appliances, buildings, stadiums, bridges, airports, conventional and
renewable energy facilities, and other structures. Steel is used to
reinforce concrete and other construction materials and 6 billion tons
of steel are used across the U.S. National Highway System. Steel
requires iron ore for its production, and 65 percent of the global zinc
consumption is used to coat steel, for purposes of making it resistant
to corrosion. Other metals important to steel alloys, including
manganese, chromium, nickel, aluminum, vanadium, tungsten, titanium,
cobalt, and niobium, are specifically identified on the U.S. Geological
Survey's (USGS') final 2022 list of critical minerals.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/24/2022-
04027/2022-final-list-of-critical-minerals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example is copper, with its flexibility, conformity,
conductivity, and resistance to corrosion, that make it an ideal and
essential clean energy metal.\2\ Forty-three percent of U.S. copper
demand comes from the construction industry, as the average American
home contains 439 pounds of copper. An electric vehicle (EV) uses
approximately four times as much copper as a conventional car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ According to the World Bank, copper is used in ten low-carbon
energy technologies. https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/
961711588875536384/Minerals-for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-
of-the-Clean-Energy-Transition.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure improvement and development at all levels depends on
metals and mining. Beyond hard-rock mining, AEMA also represents the
industrial minerals industry. Industrial minerals include any rock or
mineral with economic value that is not used as a source for metals,
gemstones, or energy production. Industrial minerals are classified as
non-fuel minerals and differ from construction aggregates like sand,
gravel, and crushed stone. Many different types of industrial minerals
serve multiple uses, some of which are considered critical minerals and
many of which are essential to our nation's economic and national
security. The most widely used industrial minerals include limestone,
clays, diatomite, kaolin, bentonite, silica, barite, gypsum, potash,
pumice, and talc.
Similarly, there is no substitute for phosphorus in agriculture and
in the development of our Nation's food supply. Phosphorus is essential
for plant nutrition and plays a vital role in photosynthesis, energy
transfer, root formation, seed formation, plant growth and improvement
of the quality of fruits and vegetables. China has been the leading
producer of phosphates, followed by the United States. The Society for
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration's (SME) website \3\ provides a deeper
introduction to industrial minerals and explains why securing domestic
production is essential to America's future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.smenet.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question that the minerals we produce are indispensable
to modern society. They are also essential to fighting climate change,
and for zero-emission technologies such as wind turbines, solar panels,
storage batteries and EVs. As these technologies are deployed in ever-
greater numbers, the demand for minerals is skyrocketing, and our
Nation must do more to keep up. The International Energy Agency (IEA)
published a report at the end of July 2022 titled ``Global Supply
Chains of EV Batteries,'' and noted that demand for EV batteries will
increase from 340 GWh today to about 3500 GWh by the year 2030. To meet
that demand, 50 new lithium mines, 60 more nickel mines and 17 more
cobalt mines would need to come into production.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4eb8c252-76b1-4710-
8f5e-867e751c8dda/GlobalSupply ChainsofEVBatteries.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has taken note of this surge in demand, and through the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 and the Inflation
Reduction Act of 2022, has decided--and we agree--that it is
inappropriate, unwise and dangerous to rely on hostile, untrustworthy
or unstable countries to supply our country's minerals. Congress has
sent a clear message--Now is the time to get serious about building a
reliable mineral supply chain (emphasis supplied). AEMA and its members
stand ready to help build that supply chain right here in America.
Our members take great pride in producing the metals and other
important minerals America needs for national and economic security, as
well as the materials people use in their everyday lives. We are proud
of our members' contributions across the communities and regions where
they operate, many of which are rural areas facing significant economic
and social development challenges. Notably, the U.S. mining industry is
the safest, most environmentally responsible mining industry in the
world. Our members have repeatedly demonstrated that mining and
protecting the environment are compatible, as mineral producers make
possible the development of society's basic needs and consistently
minimize modern society's impacts on the environment.
We Need a Reliable Domestic Mineral Supply Chain
Recent global events have exposed the United States' supply chain
vulnerabilities, highlighting the importance of an abundant and
affordable supply of domestic minerals for America's future.
The fact is, global mineral demand is skyrocketing. As noted in a
report from the International Energy Agency, keeping global temperature
rise to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels will
quadruple the demand by 2040 for the minerals needed to build wind
turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. A faster energy
transition--reaching net zero globally by 2050 as the Biden
Administration has called for--would require critical mineral inputs to
increase sixfold by 2040.
Solar panels require silver, tin, copper, and lead; wind turbines
use rare earths, copper, aluminum, and zinc; electric vehicles are
built with copper, aluminum, iron, molybdenum; and rechargeable storage
batteries use lithium, vanadium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese.
Approximately 40 percent of the gold now produced is used in
electronics and computer chips that are needed for clean energy
technologies to meet carbon emission reduction objectives to address
climate change.
President Biden has promised to convert the entire U.S. government
fleet--about 640,000 vehicles by 2030--to EVs. That plan alone could
require a 12-fold increase in U.S. lithium production to manufacture
the lithium-ion batteries that power EVs, according to Benchmark
Minerals Intelligence, as well as increases in output of domestic
copper, nickel, and cobalt--and that's just for the U.S. government
vehicle fleet. The magnitude of the minerals needed for a 100 percent
EV market is even more staggering, and simply cannot be ignored.
Unfortunately, a lack of access to economically viable mineral
deposits and a lengthy, inefficient federal permitting system has
resulted in the United States being increasingly dependent on foreign
sources of strategic and critical minerals. It's time that we, as a
Nation, recognize this vulnerability and the vital importance of
minerals to our national security, our economy, and our everyday lives.
We have heard a lot over the years about the importance of energy
independence, but it is equally as important, if not more so, that we
are minerals independent.
The Department of Interior's recent mineral withdrawal on the
Superior National Forest is a painful example of a lack of coherence in
the Biden administration's strategy in establishing robust, secure
mineral supply chains that could contribute to their goals of ramping
up deployment of low-or zero-carbon energy technologies to fight
climate change. Projects such as Twin Metals, located within the
boundaries of the Superior National Forest withdrawal, and now in
serious jeopardy because of the withdrawal, could supply more than 90
percent of the United States' nickel, 88 percent of our cobalt, and
roughly 33 percent of the Nation's copper. Renewable energy
technologies simply do not function without these metals, especially
copper.
Made in America must include ``mined in America'' and sourcing
minerals from U.S. mines that use state-of-the-art environmental
protection measures, put a premium on worker health and safety, and
have financial assurances that guarantee reclamation when mining is
complete.
Recycling will play an important role in meeting increasing metal
demand, but it will not be enough. The IEA's report estimates that by
2040, recycling metals from spent batteries could only supply about ten
percent of the minerals that will be needed.
The United States and our economy simply need more mines. According
to the USGS' Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023, our country's import
dependence for key mineral commodities has doubled over the past two
decades, with the United States now 100 percent import-reliant for 15
of its key minerals and more than 50 percent import-reliant for an
additional 36 key mineral commodities. This foreign reliance continues
despite the existence of significant mineral deposits of many of these
commodities within our borders. Moreover, U.S. mineral import reliance
continues to increase as mineral demand from essential industries, such
as energy and transportation, soars. Notably, the World Bank sees
mineral demand for advanced energy technologies jumping by nearly 500
percent by the year 2050.\5\ Copper demand alone may rise as much as
350 percent by 2050, according to one estimate.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Minerals-
for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-Clean-Energy-
Transition.pdf
\6\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0959378016300802
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mineral Withdrawals Must be Limited
In the United States, most hardrock mining takes place on federal
land, after a lengthy and rigorous permitting process that involves
local, state and federal regulatory agencies and many diverse
stakeholders. Even after the mine begins operation, it must adhere to a
myriad of environmental laws and regulations, and financial assurance
instruments ensure that cleanup and restoration will take place when
mining activities cease. However, mineral deposits are unique and rare.
Unlike other economic development or infrastructure projects that have
some flexibility in choosing where they are sited and can move
accordingly--mineral deposits are where they are.
Almost every year, the federal lands available for mineral entry
shrinks. According to the GAO, the federal government manages about 650
million acres, or 29 percent, of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the
United States.\7\ Former Department of Interior Solicitor, John Leshy
(now a professor at the University of California Hastings College of
Law), estimated in 2021 that of the approximate 650 million acres of
public lands, roughly 400 million acres are set aside for conservation
and preservation purposes and are functionally off-limits to mining.\8\
He also calculated that during the period from 1980 to 2020, the acres
of conservation and preservation lands grew from 250 million acres to
400 million acres.\9\ Federal lands have been withdrawn from mineral
entry to protect a variety of ``special places,'' from national
monuments and wilderness areas to military bases. For example, the
National Conservation Lands System already includes 35 million acres of
pristine, culturally diverse and scientifically important sites that
have been withdrawn from mineral entry, including: 122 national
monuments, 28 of which are managed by BLM; 23 national conservation
areas; 30 National Scenic and Historic Trails; 200 designated Wild and
Scenic Rivers; 260 congressionally designated Wilderness areas; and 491
wilderness study areas.\10\ Congress has closed or withdrawn areas to
mineral exploration in favor of other uses, including for the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO Letter report to Senator Tom Udall entitled ``Hardrock
Mining: Availability of Selected Data Related to Mining on Federal
Lands,'' May 16, 2019, available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-
435r.pdf.
\8\ John D. Leshy, America's Public Lands--A Look Back and Ahead,
67th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, July 19, 2021.
\9\ Id.
\10\ BLM website: https://www.blm.gov/programs/national-
conservation-lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Parks;
National Monuments;
Indian reservations;
Various types of Bureau of Reclamation projects;
Military reservations;
Scientific testing areas;
Wildlife protection areas;
National Wilderness Preservation System and Wilderness
study lands; and
Wild and Scenic River designated and study areas.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See BLM website: https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-
minerals/mining-and-minerals/locatable-minerals/mining-claims/locating-
a-claim; see also Attachment 5, ``List of Select Federal Laws Amending
or Affecting the Mining Law of 1872,'' identifying principal laws under
which federal lands have been withdrawn from mineral entry.
After Executive Order 14008 in which President Biden set a goal of
preserving and restoring 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by
2030,\12\ AEMA grew concerned that more withdrawals were on the way.
That has proven to be true, as three withdrawals have been finalized in
the first half of 2023 already.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Executive Order 14008 ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at
Home and Abroad'' (January 27, 2021) and the ``America the Beautiful
Initiative.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shrinking the available land base where mineral exploration and
mining are allowed reduces the number of future mineral discoveries
that can become mines. This ultimately increases the Nation's reliance
on foreign minerals and thwarts the country's goals to increase
domestic production and become more mineral independent. A 1999 report
by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
notes that ``Only a very small portion of the earth's continental crust
(less than 0.01%) contains economically viable mineral deposits.'' \13\
The Academy further noted that, on average, 1,000 mineral targets must
be examined before discovering the deposit capable of becoming a mine.
Every time we declare land off-limits to mining, we shrink the playing
field and stack the odds higher against discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council,
``Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands'' (1999), P. 23-24, available at
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9682/hardrock-mining-on-
federal-lands
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than asking whether additional lands need to be withdrawn,
it would be more appropriate to ask whether some previously withdrawn
lands with high mineral potential should become available for mineral
exploration and development to address current critical minerals
availability challenges. In light of our untenable and dangerous
reliance on foreign minerals, it would be in the public's best
interests to determine whether certain withdrawn lands that are not
part of the National Park System or congressionally designated
Wilderness are more valuable for their mineral resources compared to
scenic, cultural, recreational or other land uses. This evaluation
should consider how the modern environmental protection standards that
would apply to potential mineral development would minimize
environmental impacts, maximize protection of cultural resources and
scenic landscapes, require reclamation when mining is complete, and
enable multiple uses on these lands for mining and nearby recreational
uses both during and after mining.
As one example of how mineral withdrawals play out to this nation's
detriment, in 2012, then-Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar, finalized
the withdrawal of 1 million acres of land well outside Grand Canyon
National Park in Arizona. Although there was already a buffer around
the park boundary in which many activities, including mining, were
prohibited, advocates of the withdrawal successfully argued that an
additional ``buffer beyond the buffer'' was necessary.
As AEMA noted in our comments on the Arizona withdrawal at the
time,\14\ the United States was already importing 90 percent of its
uranium in 2009, and northern Arizona holds ``42% of the nation's
estimated undiscovered uranium endowment . . . To withdraw this
critical resource from location and entry under the Mining Law, with no
environmental benefit or necessity, is short-sighted and dangerous.''
In the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the
United States has found the will to ban the import of all manner of
Russian goods and commodities, but it is unable to wean itself off of
Russian uranium imports--a troubling situation for domestic power
generation and national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Northwest Mining Association (now AEMA), Comment Letter on
Notice of Proposed Withdrawal, 74 Fed. Reg. 35887, October 19, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Grand Canyon withdrawal is a real-world example of a problem
AEMA has frequently raised in theory, and that is now playing out
before us. The federal government placed federal lands off-limits to
mineral entry that could have provided the uranium needed for power
generation and national security purposes from highly regulated, state-
of-the-art mining operations. The United States has often withdrawn
federal public lands from mineral entry before fully understanding the
mineral potential of the withdrawn lands. Although the United States
had a considerable understanding of the deposits in northern Arizona,
policy makers failed to fully weigh the long-term ramifications of the
withdrawal, which are now coming into clearer focus. At a time when the
need for carbon-free, baseload power is ramping up, some of the nuclear
power industry's best domestic sources of uranium are inaccessible.
This is a self-inflicted wound. Uranium is not currently listed as a
``critical mineral,'' but has been designated as such in the past and
given its strategic importance, should be returned to the list in the
future.
Instead of learning the lesson of the Arizona withdrawal, we see
history repeating itself, with the Department of Interior withdrawing
world class deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt and platinum group
metals, and with other withdrawals in South Dakota and Nevada this
year, it seems the train is picking up speed. All this in the immediate
aftermath of massive supply chain disruptions of a pandemic and a war
in Europe.
As you understand by now, AEMA and our members oppose removing
lands from mineral entry, but at the very least, every time a
withdrawal or land use restriction is proposed to remove federal land
from mineral entry, the decision makers should develop a full
understanding of the land's mineral endowment.
BLM Proposed Rule on Conservation and Landscape Health
The Bureau of Land Management's recently proposed rule on
Conservation and Landscape Health would significantly change the way
BLM manages the 245 million acres of public land it oversees, most of
it in western states. In this conservation rule, BLM asserts that the
Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) authorizes them to
``put conservation on an equal footing with other uses.'' After nearly
50 years of responding to FLPMA's directives for administering the
public lands, BLM has apparently had an epiphany that adds conservation
to the multiple uses enumerated in Section 102(a) of the statute.
The proposed rule focuses on three conservation measures: 1) an
expanded use of the highly restrictive Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACECs) designation; 2) creating conservation leases; and 3)
preserving intact landscapes. These measures are fundamentally
incompatible with many of the Section 102(a) multiple uses and will
functionally withdraw millions of acres of public lands from mining,
logging, ranching, renewable energy development, and other important
uses.
AEMA's concerns with BLM's proposed rule include, but are not
limited to:
The proposed rule violates the law. Despite BLM's claims
to the contrary, the ``plain language'' of FLPMA includes a
list of ``principal or major uses,'' including mineral
exploration or development, domestic livestock grazing,
timber production, and a few others. The law specifies that
its mandate ``includes and is limited to'' these uses.
Notably, conservation or ``nonuse'' was not listed.
o If Congress intended for conservation to be a
use ``on equal footing,'' they would have included it in the
statutory list. BLM cannot change that. FLPMA Section 102(b)
explicitly states: ``The policies of this Act shall become
effective only as specific statutory authority for their
implementation is enacted by this Act or by subsequent
legislation.'' Creating conservation leases and elevating
conservation to a major or principal use is a substantial
change, not a ``clarification,'' as BLM asserts.
o BLM acknowledges the novelty of the
conservation lease concept when it says ``FLPMA's declaration
of policy and definitions of `multiple use' and `sustained
yield' reveal [emphasis added] that conservation is a use on
par with other uses under FLPMA.'' The idea that this concept
is just now being ``revealed'' 50 years after the passage of
FLPMA is absurd and unlawful.
o The rule bears many similarities to the
Planning Rule 2.0 for landscape-scale planning, which Congress
repealed in 2017 through the Congressional Review Act. This
proposal gives landscape-level planning a facelift by saying it
is necessary to address climate change. This new justification
for landscape-scale cannot be used to resurrect a concept that
Congress has already rejected.
Conservation leases, ACECs, and preserving intact
landscapes are de facto land withdrawals that undermine
``multiple-use'' standards outlined in FLPMA.
o The proposal would allow leases for
conservation or compensatory mitigation. As worded, BLM could
extend mitigation leases indefinitely, precluding the balance
intended under FLPMA.
o Future uses under the proposed rule must be
consistent with the purpose of the conservation lease. In
testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee on May
17, 2023, BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning acknowledged that
``energy development and mining would likely not be deemed
compatible with a conservation lease . . .''
o As such, conservation would not just be ``on
equal footing,'' it would be elevated above other uses.
Use of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)
greatly expanded.
o Frequently abused to prevent development, the
rule would allow ACEC's to be larger and easier to designate.
Areas nominated are to be managed as an ACEC until the planning
process completed.
o No consideration of impacts to multiple use or
mineral resources within the nominated area required.
The rule will exacerbate permitting delays.
o Under the proposal, all lands will require a
``Fundamentals of Land Health'' review prior to authorization
for use, a process currently applied only to grazing lands. BLM
already struggles with large backlogs in grazing permit
renewals because of this review requirement. Applying it to all
uses would only serve to increase permitting backlogs for all
productive uses.
Creates a New Zero-Impact Standard that Ignores How
FLPMA's Unnecessary and Undue Degradation Mandate
Effectively Protects the Environment While Allowing
Multiple Use.
o The rule's unnecessary or undue degradation
definition restates what BLM has implemented for nearly five
decades to prevent excessive or disproportionate impacts.
o However, the new conservation measures demand
zero impact in ACECs, conservation leases, and intact
landscapes, which is contrary to FLPMA's acknowledgement that
some degradation is necessary for multiple use to occur and the
requirement to minimize that degradation.
The rule ignores more than 50 years of Congressional
intent and direction.
o The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970
(MMPA); FLPMA (1976); National Materials and Minerals Research
Policy Act of 1980 (MMPRDA); Infrastructure, Investment and
Jobs Act (2021); and the Inflation Reduction Act (2022) all
direct the executive branch agencies to respond to the Nation's
growing need for minerals. Instead, they are devising more ways
to put land off-limits to exploration and development.
o This will likely exacerbate our dependence on
foreign sources of minerals at a time when mineral demand is
skyrocketing. The Biden administration's own goals of fighting
climate change and reducing carbon emissions require more
domestic mining--not less. The rule fails to acknowledge any
potential effects on our ability to develop minerals in the
United States.
BLM's rule is incomplete, deficient, flawed and rushed.
o The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires
federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis,
subject to notice and comment under the Administrative
Procedure Act, if the rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small businesses. BLM did not
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis prior to its
arbitrary declaration that the rule ``will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities . . .''
o BLM also admits that, while they believe this
rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more, nor cause a major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, they ``did not estimate the annual benefits that
this proposed rule would provide to the economy,'' a
requirement under the Congressional Review Act.
o BLM arbitrarily determined there were no
federalism implications, so it did not prepare a federalism
summary statement of the effects on the States, such as
potential loss of economic activity or revenue.
o BLM plans to use a Departmental Categorical
Exclusion under NEPA, because the rule is ``too broad,
speculative or conjectural'' to lend itself to ``meaningful
analysis.'' This reasoning is flawed. The rule should be
subject to an EIS containing an analysis of the significant
socio-economic impacts, and the environmental effects of
foregoing critical and strategic mineral development.
BLM should withdraw this proposed rule.
Conclusion
Since 1970, Congress has consistently and repeatedly recognized
that minerals and mining are essential to all facets of our economy,
society, and national defense. For example, the Mineral and Mining
Policy Act (1970), FLPMA (1976), the National Minerals, Materials
Policy Research and Development Act (1980), the Energy Act (2020), the
IIJA (2021), and most recently the IRA (2022) all direct the executive
branch agencies to respond to the Nation's need for domestic minerals.
Unfortunately, these Congressional directives have gone largely
unheeded as more lands continue to be withdrawn from mineral entry and
permitting timelines, costs, and risks have become intolerable. Our
risky reliance on imported minerals is a direct result of five decades
of ignoring Congress' clear directives that minerals should be mined
from public lands to help satisfy the Nation's need for minerals.
Despite the urgent need to increase domestic mining and reduce our
dependency on foreign minerals, today it can take 10 years or more to
permit a mine.
The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture must start
complying with the law; compliance is not discretionary. Through their
land management agencies, BLM and the Forest Service, these departments
must reverse the trend of the last 50 years during which it has become
increasingly difficult to access potentially mineralized public lands
and to secure the necessary permits to explore for minerals and build
mines.
The findings in the IIJA that ``critical minerals are fundamental
to the economy, competitiveness, and security of the United States''
and that ``the Federal permitting process has been identified as an
impediment to mineral production and the mineral security of the United
States'' must result in constructive action to streamline permitting
and eliminate permitting impediments.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure America
has a secure and affordable supply of the minerals and metals needed
for our modern society.
Sincerely,
Mark Compton,
Executive Director
______
Statement for the Record
The National Mining Association (NMA)
The National Mining Association (NMA) is the official voice of U.S.
mining, representing all facets of the domestic mining industry and the
hundreds of thousands of American workers it employs before Congress,
federal agencies, the courts and the public. The NMA's members conduct
mining operations throughout the United States that are frequently
located on federal lands that are subject to the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) jurisdiction
under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). As such, NMA
members have extensive experience operating on federal lands and have a
long-standing commitment to environmental stewardship on these lands.
Land Access
Access to federal lands for mineral exploration and development is
critical to maintaining a strong domestic mining industry. These lands
historically have provided and will continue to provide a large share
of the metals and minerals produced in this country. That said, half of
these lands are either already off-limits to or under restrictions for
mineral development, rendering unknown amounts of resources on adjacent
state and private lands inaccessible because of existing federal land
restrictions. Further, despite our nation's abundant resources, the
U.S. continues to be increasingly reliant on foreign sources of metals
and minerals, including from geopolitical adversaries that do not share
our values when it comes to environmental, labor and safety standards.
The Biden administration's self-sabotage of domestic mineral supply
chains through mineral withdrawals like the one in Northern Minnesota,
which locked up more than 225,000 acres of world-class reserves of
essential battery minerals for two decades, is completely out of step
with the dramatic increase in minerals production that is needed in the
coming decades to keep up with new technologies, infrastructure and
manufacturing needs, let alone the administration's energy transition
goals. Instead of ceding our nation's mineral supply chain security to
other countries, the U.S. should utilize its world-class environmental
standards to ensure we need not choose between mining and environmental
protection.
BLM Proposed Rule on Conservation and Landscape Health
The BLM recently issued a proposed rule on Conservation and
Landscape Health, contending that it would advance the Bureau's mission
to manage public lands for multiple-use and sustained-yield by
prioritizing the health and climate resilience of ecosystems across
those lands. Alarmingly, if finalized, the proposed rule would be a
dramatic shift in how public lands will be managed and signal that
conservation is a use on par with other uses of public lands under
FLPMA's multiple-use and sustained-yield framework. The proposed rule
also prioritizes the designating Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACECs) and avoidance of impacts to federal lands.
Based on the testimony of BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning before
the House Natural Resources Committee on May 16, 2023, the BLM believes
that FLPMA provides this authority. Unfortunately, it is more likely
open the door to increased conflicts over development activities
resulting from the requirement for the BLM to plan for and consider
conservation on equal with other multiple uses and identify the
practices that ensure conservation actions are effective while also
emphasizing restoration across the public land.
Another concerning provision of the proposed rule requires
avoidance and mitigation, to the maximum extent possible, to address
impacts to important, scarce or sensitive resources, and sets rules for
approving third-party mitigation fund holders. This would result in the
BLM applying a mitigation hierarchy to avoid, minimize and compensate
for impacts to all public land resources, which the BLM has said would
be difficult or impossible to avoid.
The proposed rule also would require the BLM to consider a
precautionary approach for resource use when the impact on ecosystem
resilience is unknown or cannot be quantified and provide justification
for decisions that may impair ecosystem resilience. This would likely
lead to the preemptive denial of many mining projects.
The proposed rule also establishes conservation leases, with the
opportunity for limitless renewals of essentially unlimited acreage,
that would allow the preclusion of other multiple uses, such as
grazing, mining and recreation. Further, the creation of conservation
leases provides the federal government with the opportunity to pursue
de facto mineral withdrawals under the guise of allowing concerned
citizens and environmental groups to support conservation and the
landscape health of highly mineralized public lands.
Conclusion
While mining is certainly not appropriate on all federal lands,
unnecessary withdrawals and other land-use restrictions on mining
activities threaten access to essential minerals for U.S. economic,
national and climate security and should not occur without more
informed decisions regarding the mineral potential of the underlying
lands or the expressed consent of Congress.
Continued access to our public lands for responsible mineral
development must be allowed if the U.S. is to supply the essential
materials necessary for nearly every sector of our economy.
[all]