[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]