[Senate Hearing 118-395]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-395
OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 13, 2024
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-489 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
ALEX PADILLA, California JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
Renae Black, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Charlie Shull, Counsel
Justin J. Memmott, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
John Tanner, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Lands
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
Wyoming........................................................ 4
WITNESS
Stone-Manning, Hon. Tracy, Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior................................ 6
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Opening Statement............................................ 4
Cramer, Hon. Kevin et al.:
Letter from Senators Cramer and Hoeven and Representative
Kelly Armstrong, addressed to BLM Director Stone-Manning,
May 2, 2024................................................ 32
Hawley, Hon. Josh:
Washington Post article entitled ``Tree Spiking an `Eco-
Terrorist' Tactic'' by Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta,
published March 5, 1990.................................... 38
Letter from Michael W. Merkley, Special Agent (retired), USDA
Forest Service, addressed to Chairman Manchin and Ranking
Member Barrasso, July 14, 2021............................. 41
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Chart entitled ``All U.S. Energy Projects Completing NEPA
Environmental Impact Statements: 2010-2018''............... 3
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
Political cartoon by Michael Ramirez of the Las Vegas Review-
Journal, published in the Washington Post, 2024............ 26
Stone-Manning, Hon. Tracy:
Opening Statement............................................ 6
Written Testimony............................................ 8
Questions for the Record..................................... 55
OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in Room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin III,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
I want to apologize upfront--I have to leave immediately
after I give my statement because we are in NDAA markup and I
have to be there, and Senator Heinrich will take over and
conduct the meeting from there on.
This morning the Committee is convening to conduct
oversight of the Bureau of Land Management, also known as BLM,
which is situated within the Department of the Interior. I
would like to welcome Director Stone-Manning back to the
Committee. Thank you for joining us this morning. I also sit on
the Armed Services Committee, which you know, and that is where
I am going to be going to.
Though West Virginia has very little BLM-managed lands as
compared to other states, as Chairman of this Committee and as
an American, I am always astonished at how much land in the
United States is managed by the Federal Government, especially
in the western states. My sympathy to all of you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
The Chairman. In total, the BLM is responsible for more
than one in every ten acres of land in the United States and
approximately 30 percent of the nation's minerals. That is
approximately 245 million acres of surface land and 700 million
acres of subsurface mineral estate. This land, together with
all its natural resources and beauty, is owned by the American
people, and it has been entrusted to the BLM to ``sustain its
health, diversity, and productivity for the use and enjoyment
of present and future generations.'' This includes managing
wildfires and drought and protecting and restoring watersheds,
native and recreational fisheries, and ecosystems across BLM-
managed lands. BLM also plays a significant role in providing
for our nation's energy and mineral security. Roughly ten
percent of U.S. oil and gas production occurs on BLM-managed
lands. In Fiscal Year 2023, we produced 516 million barrels of
oil from federal onshore lands, and 3.7 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas. This is why it is so important that the Inflation
Reduction Act ensured onshore oil and gas leasing will continue
by tying BLM's authority to issue rights-of-way for solar and
wind projects to whether substantial oil and gas lease sales
are also occurring on public lands. And really what it's about
is an all-in energy policy, using everything we have in the
cleanest fashion. And we are producing this energy more cleanly
than ever while also addressing the legacy impact on our energy
communities through initiatives like the $4.7 billion Congress
provided in the Infrastructure Law for the Orphaned Well
Program, which is managed by the BLM.
I was also pleased to see the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals earlier this year finally overturn the Executive
Branch's decade-long moratorium on new federal coal leasing,
given that nearly 40 percent of our nation's coal comes from
the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana, much of it on
BLM-managed lands. But unfortunately, the BLM quickly followed
that up by choosing ``no more coal leasing'' as their preferred
option on those federal lands. I guess when you look at the
regulations this Administration is putting out, it's clear they
think that coal won't be needed anymore, which I disagree with,
respectfully. But I am here to tell you that what it's actually
doing is putting our grid reliability at risk right now, and
the problems aren't limited to fossil fuels. The Administration
doesn't want to talk about that. There is nearly a 300-mile
transmission project across Oregon and Idaho that has been
trying for over 18 years to get permitted and constructed. When
complete, the 500-kilovolt line would deliver badly needed
energy and increased reliability to the nation's electric grid.
But just when the developer thought they were about to cross
the finish line, BLM decided to restart the previously
completed cultural and historical surveys.
I have heard similar challenges with geothermal developers,
where nearly 30 percent of their capital is tied to just the
environmental reviews. They simply cannot afford to be stuck in
the endless permitting nightmare while their remaining
financial support rides on whether they can ever obtain a
permit to start their commercial operations to produce
geothermal energy. To show how bad the problem is, this chart
behind me is based on work from Stanford University, and looked
at every single environmental impact statement completed from
2010 to 2018 across the entire Federal Government.
[The chart referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The BLM led more of these EISs than any other
agency. Stanford found that solar is the most frequently
litigated and canceled project type, with wind a close second
in terms of cancellation. In almost all of these cases, the
litigants were environmental groups. As evidenced by the
research from Stanford, comments submitted to BLM's
regulations, and feedback I have heard directly from
developers, it is clear there remains a major challenge
permitting energy projects on BLM-managed lands, regardless --
and I will say that again--regardless of the type of energy
that will be produced. Unfortunately, the situation for
critical minerals on public lands is just as bad.
Put that up again, if you will. I don't know if--kind of
move it around. If you all are able to see--where it's coming
from, what has been litigated, and what has been canceled. It
is astonishing, and I think people don't realize--we all need
permitting reform. And some people think that helps one group
more than the other, and it really doesn't. It basically levels
the playing field so we can have reliable energy and a grid
system that works.
Some estimates say that more than 300 new mines will be
needed in order to meet projected demand for critical minerals.
According to the International Energy Agency, demand for
electric vehicle batteries will increase from around 340
gigawatt-hours today to over 3,500 gigawatt-hours by 2030,
requiring as many as 50 new lithium mines, 41 new nickel mines,
and 11 new cobalt mines. This demand simply cannot be met
through recycling alone, and new mines must be built in the
U.S. and on BLM-managed lands. We directed the BLM in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to provide us with a report on
how we can do that and how we can improve and expedite the
permitting around our domestic critical minerals supply chain.
The report we received, which was many months late, recognized
the hard truth that demand for critical minerals will at least
double by 2040, but then it clearly failed to meet the
requirements set by Congress. It barely contained any concrete
recommendations to actually accelerate mine permitting.
Instead, it calls for more regulations, more staff, more
funding, less mining wherever BLM believes permitting will take
longer, and a multi-year effort to completely overhaul the
entire mining regulatory system. The report was so bad, in
fact, that Interior's own Inspector General found the
Department failed to meet Congress's direction and instructed
Interior to provide the additional legally required
information. We really need you to do better.
Director Stone-Manning, I fully appreciate your
responsibility to manage our nation's precious resources. I
also implore you not to forget your role in our nation's
economic and energy security.
Now I am going to recognize Senator Barrasso for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for holding this important hearing. This is the first time
that Ms. Stone-Manning has appeared before the Committee in
three years. The Director of the Bureau of Land Management has
a profound impact on the people of my home State of Wyoming. I
saw it and heard about it last weekend in Wyoming as I met with
the Wyoming Mining Association and with the Wyoming Stock
Growers Association--our ranchers. I heard about it again last
night on a conference call with each of our Wyoming County
Commissioners from each and every one of our 23 counties. And
it's because nearly half of the land in Wyoming is owned by the
Federal Government, and nearly 70 percent of the minerals in
Wyoming are owned by the Federal Government, and the Director
manages most of this land.
In Wyoming, the Director's decisions have a significant
effect on people's jobs, on their family budgets, on the
quality of public education, and on our entire state's economy.
That is why I find Ms. Stone-Manning's record and her
unwillingness to appear before us until now so very troubling.
Since 2021, Ms. Stone-Manning has been busy making decisions
which will crush Wyoming's economy and lay waste to our local
communities in the years ahead, and the examples abound. In
August 2023, the Bureau's Rock Springs Field Office issued a
resource management plan that would devastate communities in
Southwest Wyoming. This is the home of some of the nation's
largest deposits of natural gas and a mineral called trona.
These resources support tens of thousands of good-paying jobs.
Under this plan, the Bureau would lock up over two million
acres of federal land from productive use. It would prohibit
future energy and mineral development, prohibit grazing, and
even recreation--recreation. The governor, the state
legislature, our entire congressional delegation, and the
county commissioners all strongly oppose the Bureau's plan. We
know what will happen if the plan goes forward.
The Director is making similar decisions in other parts of
our state. Last month, the Buffalo Field Office issued a
proposal to end new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin.
Last year, the Powder River Basin supplied 45 percent of all of
the coal mined in the United States of America. Wyoming's coal
production is the lifeblood of Gillette and Northeast Wyoming.
It supports tens of thousands of jobs, it helps fund K-12
public education in our state, and there is absolutely no
reason to pursue this irresponsible and irrational proposal.
We all know that President Biden wants a carbon-free grid.
As of now, this is a pipe dream. And according to experts the
world over, without an extraordinary technological
breakthrough, it will likely never happen--never. In the
meantime, we must not block access to the nation's single
richest area of abundant, available, and reliable energy. The
Bureau is also wreaking havoc in other areas of the state. In
March of this year, the Bureau issued a resource management
plan to address the greater sage-grouse. For over 15 years, the
State of Wyoming has been at the forefront of efforts to
protect the species and conserve and restore its habitat.
Wyoming has done so while balancing the need for economic
development. The Bureau is now proposing to undo Wyoming's
efforts and block access to millions of acres of federal land.
The list goes on. In April, the Bureau finalized its so-
called Public Lands Rule. This rule turns multiple-use--the
Bureau's decades-old bedrock principle of federal land
management--turns it on its head. It will allow third parties
to lease federal lands in order to block the productive use of
the land. This is land which by law is to be used for grazing,
for energy, for mineral development, and for recreation. Again,
families and communities in Wyoming and throughout the West
depend on federal lands for energy and mineral development, for
grazing, for forest management, and for recreation. Multiple-
use is enshrined in federal law. Yet, Ms. Stone-Manning is
attempting to repeal it all on her own. If this were not
enough, Ms. Stone-Manning is also sabotaging her own Bureau's
oil and gas program. She has failed to hold quarterly lease
sales, she has nearly tripled timelines for permits, and she
has refused to deliver leases to the winning bidders. She has
issued a series of regulations to make it prohibitively
expensive to explore and produce on federal lands. None of this
should surprise us. I fought her nomination because Ms. Stone-
Manning has long shown her hostility to the people of this
country who live near and depend on federal lands. And I am
glad today that the Committee will finally call her to account.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich [presiding]. Ms. Stone-Manning.
STATEMENT OF HON. TRACY STONE-MANNING, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Stone-Manning. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso,
and members of the Committee, I am Tracy Stone-Manning, and I
have the honor of serving as the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
priorities and mission of the BLM. We are the nation's largest
land manager, responsible for one in ten acres in this country.
The multiple-use, sustained-yield mission established by the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, directs us to
sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of 245 million
acres of public lands and 700 million acres of the mineral
estate for multiple uses. These lands provide food, fiber,
minerals, energy, clean water, habitat, and lifetime memories
for countless families. We owe a great deal of gratitude to the
nearly 10,000 BLM civil service employees that do the hard
work, day-in and day-out, of balancing our mission.
New and growing challenges over the past few decades have
made it more difficult for the BLM to achieve this careful
balancing of the many resources and uses of public lands and
what they offer to all Americans. As the stewards for more land
than any other agency, we have experienced increasingly
negative effects associated with climate change, including
extreme drought, elevated and longer fire seasons, and greater
disruption to sensitive species of wildlife and plants. To
address these challenges, the BLM aims to prioritize landscape
health in order to ensure that our public lands can provide the
countless resources and experiences that they always have.
While the BLM has taken many actions to prioritize landscape
health during this Administration, I am going to focus on two:
restoring public lands and waters and facilitating the
transition to a clean-energy economy.
Prioritizing landscape health means ensuring future
generations inherit public lands in as good or in better shape
than we found them. It means making public lands more resilient
to the impacts of climate change. It means fulfilling our
mission. Healthy, resilient landscapes sustain numerous
communities and economies and they are essential to the BLM's
ability to manage public lands for multiple-use and sustained-
yield. The BLM is working to improve the health of our lands
and waters and enhance overall ecosystem function through key
regulatory updates that will help safeguard the health of
public lands and waters for current and future generations. We
are also making historic investments on the ground for land and
water restoration.
Last month, the BLM finalized the Public Lands Rule, which
will help guide balanced management of public lands. This
important rule provides tools for the BLM to help improve the
health and resilience of public lands in the face of a changing
climate, conserve important wildlife habitat and intact
landscapes, and facilitate responsible development and better
recognize unique cultural and natural resources on our public
lands. The BLM's efforts to prioritize the health of our public
lands and waters also include historic on-the-ground
investments. As part of President Biden's Investing in America
agenda, the BLM has identified 21 large landscapes across the
West for targeted efforts to restore degraded or damaged public
land resources. These efforts include restoring wildlife
habitat in the sagebrush steppe of the high desert, recreating
wetland meadows, and repairing watersheds on former industrial
timberlands, just among many other projects.
As we work to keep public lands and waters resilient from
the effects of a changing climate, we must ensure we do our
part to help reduce carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas
emissions, the primary drivers of climate change impacts to our
public lands. President Biden has asked us to ensure an
electricity sector free of carbon pollution by 2035, and
economy-wide by 2050, and our public lands play an important
role in that work. During this Administration, the BLM has
approved over 7.3 gigawatts of renewable energy projects,
helping to surpass the Administration's goals of permitting 25
gigawatts of clean energy projects on public lands by 2025. To
help foster this work, the BLM finalized the renewable energy
rule last month, which will help guide where renewable energy
development occurs, improve project application processes, and
incentivize developers to continue responsibly developing solar
and wind projects on our public lands. While the BLM has made
great progress transitioning to the clean energy future, oil
and gas production continues to be a substantial part of BLM's
energy portfolio. Our work, which has included the first
comprehensive update to our oil and gas leasing regulations in
many decades, has ensured that conventional energy development
is as environmentally responsible as possible and that it
provides a fair return to the American taxpayer.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
important work the Bureau is undertaking to manage the nation's
public lands for present and future generations. I welcome any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stone-Manning follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Heinrich. Thank you for your testimony, and I want
to start by just thanking you and all of the employees of the
BLM for your stewardship of places that are particularly
important to my constituents, from the Rio Grande del Norte
National Monument to the Oregon Mountains-Desert Peaks, Cabezon
Wilderness Study Area to Chama River Canyon, the BLM manages
some of the places that New Mexicans have the most identity
with, the most pride with. And then I want to thank you for
your work on permitting transmission and renewable energy
projects. The Arizona and New Mexico offices of the BLM have
been critical in moving the SunZia project forward. And for a
little context, SunZia is going to facilitate about three and a
half gigawatts of clean energy onto the grid. That is bigger
than the Hoover Dam. That is the single biggest renewable
energy project ever built in the Western Hemisphere, and it
would not have been possible without the employees at the BLM.
Can you tell us a little bit about, you know, we have heard
a lot of hyperbole about the Public Lands Rule. Talk about how
the Public Lands Rule fits into the multiple-use mandate of the
Bureau of Land Management.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
The Public Lands Rule is going to help BLM build and maintain
the health of public lands in three important ways. It's going
to ensure that we protect the most intact landscapes, it's
going to help us restore the degraded lands that need it, and
it's going to help us make wise decisions across our
development portfolio that are backed by data and science to
make those decisions durable. The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, as you know, tells us to do many things, and in
those multiple uses, it tells us to manage for fish and
wildlife habitat, for conservation, for natural and scenic
values. FLPMA tells us to do these things, and for the first
time, we are going to put some consistency to how we deliver
the conservation part of FLPMA's charge to us.
Senator Heinrich. Great. Yeah, I don't think it's too much
to ask that the BLM manage for fish and wildlife habitat.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yeah.
Senator Heinrich. That is something near and dear to many
of my constituents.
I hear more and more from tribes in New Mexico who want to
help care for and steward public lands alongside federal
agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management. And I know
the BLM and the Forest Service are working with Tesuque Pueblo
on an agreement for the Caja del Rio area. I believe you met
with Tesuque leadership when you were in New Mexico last month.
Can you give us a little update on those discussions?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I
did meet with the Tesuque Pueblo--here in DC, actually--but I
have been out on the Caja and recognize the need for us to work
together to improve that habitat and maintain the incredible
connectivity that it delivers to New Mexicans. I am confident
that we are going to soon sign a co-stewardship agreement with
the Tesuque and the Forest Service so that we can manage these
lands together.
Senator Heinrich. Great.
We are seeing delays in project approvals for projects on
BLM land in New Mexico, and very frequently, I think, the cause
is a lack of sufficient realty staff to finalize things like
rights-of-way, land acquisitions, surveys. It's an issue that
dogs the Forest Service as well, but this affects everything
from recreation, to land exchanges, to renewable energy
development. What can we be doing to get more staff at the BLM
offices in New Mexico so that we can speed up these project
approvals?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, thank you, Senator, for that
question. Hiring realty specialists, for people watching
online--we are hiring. It is really vexing across our
portfolio, across all of our states. But I am pleased to tell
you that when we came in, in January 2021, there were roughly
8,800 BLM employees. We typically land between 10,000 and
10,500. We have made great progress. We are over 9,600 now, so
we are getting there and rebuilding to the place that BLM
career employees deserve and the country deserves. We are using
every tool in the toolbox to try and specifically target realty
specialists and could use--any ideas would be welcome.
Senator Heinrich. Before my time is expired, I just want to
touch on one other thing, which is the Legacy Restoration Fund.
Those are the Great American Outdoors Act funds. The Bureau has
only obligated 69 percent of the funds in the three-year
window. How can we be getting more deferred maintenance dollars
out the door and onto the ground for everything from
campgrounds to all the other infrastructure that supports the
public on our BLM lands?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, thank you for this question,
Senator. As you know, deferred maintenance projects are multi-
year projects. They take some running time. We have dozens and
dozens in the pipeline now, and I can get you those specific
numbers, but I am feeling pretty good that we are going to
catch up, and hopefully, the Congress will reauthorize the
Great American Outdoors Act. So now that we have a pipeline, we
can continue to fund those projects.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Stone-Manning, the Bureau's Rock Springs Resource
Management Plan will devastate the people of Southwest Wyoming,
lock up millions of acres of land, local communities. The
entire state relies on those lands. The Governor, state
legislature, county commissioners, and local communities all
strongly oppose this plan. So why are you ignoring Wyoming's
opposition to the plan across the board?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, thanks for the question. As you
know, the Rock Springs plan is--there is a draft out. There was
a public comment period. There was a lot of hyperbole about
facts that were not true about the plan. So we have done a lot
of education work with your constituents about what is in the
plan. More importantly, we extended the public comment period
and worked with the Governor. He stood up a task force, and
those folks got to walk in the shoes of our BLM field staff in
Rock Springs to give us recommendations for the final. We are
digging in, looking at those recommendations, and I am certain
that Wyomingites will see their voices reflected in the final.
Senator Barrasso. Well, I just hope the BLM does not dig
in, but actually reverses course on this issue.
Last month, the Bureau took steps to prohibit coal leasing
in the Powder River Basin. The Bureau claims that coal
production in the region won't be impacted until the year 2038,
so 14 years from now. The Bureau claims that existing leases
are sufficient to meet expected demand for coal. My question
then is, why is the Bureau taking this action now if you don't
say it's going to have any impact for at least 14 years?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, thanks for the question. As you
know, the President has asked us to turn and transition to a
clean energy economy. The lands in the Powder River Basin are
leased through 2041. And so, you see the draft, or the final
before you, the record of decision is still in formulation.
Senator Barrasso. Well, I point out that the front-page
story in the New York Times, not too long ago, pointed out that
this President's pipe dream is not actually something that can
be possibly done in our country, and our needs for energy, as
the Committee hearings have shown again and again and again. I
think this plan is completely reckless. Last year, the Powder
River Basin supplied 45 percent of all the coal mined in the
United States, and if this carbon-free grid doesn't
materialize, and I don't believe it will, what do you do?
Suggest that we start importing coal from China and other
places?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I have great faith in the
ingenuity of the American people. We are hard at work every
day. We have permitted 7.9 gigawatts in just three and a half
years. I believe we can reach the transition the President has
asked us to reach.
Senator Barrasso. Well, I agree with the ingenuity of the
American people. It's really hard when your agency continues to
block efforts to produce the critical minerals that we need and
so much of the product that we need for the American economy.
So in April, your Bureau issued a rule that will
dramatically raise bonding requirements on oil and gas
producers. This is money that producers must pay upfront in
order to operate on federal lands. According to the data from
your own department, there were only 37 abandoned wells on
lands managed by the Bureau. That is less than one tenth of one
percent of all the wells that the Bureau manages. So how do you
justify your decision to increase bonding requirements by as
much as 25-fold?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, both the Government
Accountability Office and the Inspector General have written
reports that suggest, I think rightly so, that our bonding
rates, which are over 60 years old, are not high enough. We
have thousands of idled wells on our public lands, and idled
wells are the last stop before they become orphans. Not all of
them become orphaned, but the GAO found that thousands of them
will.
Senator Barrasso. Well, I don't buy it. This rule, to me,
is completely arbitrary, it's punitive, and you are trying to
drive oil and gas producers off federal land. I think it's
disgraceful.
Finally, in my remaining time, Wyoming is home to a large
population of greater sage-grouse and its habitat. For over 15
years, with Republican Governors and Democrat Governors working
together, Wyoming has been at the forefront of adopting new
management approaches to protect the species. Instead of
working with Wyoming, your Bureau plans to upend the state's
successful efforts at balancing conservation with economic
development. Why are you ignoring a state that has proven time
and again that it can successfully protect the species?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, respectfully, I have a
different view on our work with your state. We have been
meeting twice weekly with the State of Wyoming as we develop
the sage-grouse plans. The only way to make these plans work is
to work together with our partners in the states, and we have
been doing so. And Wyoming has been helping us lead the way
with the Sage-Grouse Task Force at WGA. We are literally line
editing the documents together. So I believe that they are
going to have the durability that they need for success for the
sage-grouse.
Senator Barrasso. Yeah, John Kennedy spoke at the
University of Wyoming in 1963, and it was part of his Tour of
Conservation in the West. And he said, ``we need to maintain a
living balance between man's actions and nature's reactions.''
I have a picture of him giving that speech. Tom Udall's dad,
who was Secretary of the Interior, was with him that day in
Wyoming. And it just seems that the BLM has gone a long way
away from maintaining a living balance and basically trying to
shut down the State of Wyoming.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Director, thank you for
being here. I have to say, I do agree with former President
Kennedy as well as our Ranking Member. We need to maintain a
living balance, and that is why I appreciate you working with
us, particularly in Nevada because you know the footprint BLM
has in Nevada.
I do want to talk a little bit about the resource
management plan modernization in Nevada for that reason because
I think this is part of that living balance. Last year, I sent
a letter supporting efforts by the BLM state office in Nevada
undertaking that statewide resource management plan to allow
for a comprehensive science-based approach to determine
management for BLM lands across the whole state, and would thus
be able to incorporate entire eco-regions, competing land use
needs, and varied stakeholders. The effort is important, as you
well know, in Nevada, because there are about 48 million acres
of BLM-managed land in my state. That is three-fifths of
Nevada's total landmass. And currently, there are 12 resource
management plans in effect, with some completed over 36 years
ago. These plans are out of date. They are impacting BLM's
multiple-use management mission across Nevada.
Several rules are being processed at the department level
that have significant impact to how the lands are managed in my
state, which is very confusing for our state and local users,
our local stakeholders, and local governments, including--let
me just name a few--the oil and gas leasing rule, the solar
PEIS, the Public Lands Rule, I can go on and on. There are over
12 of them. So I have been asking this, and I hope your answer
today is similar to--at the end of the day, what I am looking
for is an alignment of all of this so that our stakeholders
know what to anticipate. And so my question for you is, how are
you managing the alignment of these nationwide rules with the
particular needs in my state and other western states that are
dealing with these as well?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, thank you for the question, and
it gets at sort of the through line to our work, which is
managing for landscape health and doing so in a responsible way
that is fair to the American taxpayer. So you will see how the
renewable energy rule, for example, lists priority criteria for
helping to drive where development goes. It incentivizes that
development by dropping fees by 80 percent. That, coupled with
the Public Lands Rule, that ups our game on using science and
data to inform our decision-making, to make those decisions
more durable. Those then would be driven by resource management
plans that allocate uses across the landscape. And so I think
that the statewide RMP for Nevada is--I am hoping it will be a
model for the BLM. We have not done that anywhere else where we
have one big overarching RMP. And so we are committed to seeing
that through and perhaps having Nevada lead the way, like it is
on renewable energy.
Senator Cortez Masto. Do you have a time frame on--do you
anticipate when that is going to be done?
Ms. Stone-Manning. These processes take time, and we are
behind. I inherited a backlog--tens of millions of dollars of
backlog of planning--but it's in the mix and it's a priority.
So it will be moving forward here shortly.
Senator Cortez Masto. Yeah, and I appreciate that. Just
keep in mind, all of the clean energy projects, the economic
development, the environmental protection, all of the above, is
put on hold at times waiting for the BLM to respond in this
resource management guide that I think is important for the
reasons that you just said.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yeah, and the chart that the Chairman
held up earlier, I mean, if we have up-to-date resource
management plans, that makes our decisions more durable.
Senator Cortez Masto. Yes. Let me jump really quickly to
protecting Ash Meadows. Ash Meadows in Southern Nevada is a
national wildlife refuge in the Devils Hole unit of Death
Valley National Park in that county. It's a spectacular
resource. The fish there are being threatened by a proposal to
drill into the sensitive groundwater, which would dry up seeps
and springs that are at the core of the refuge. I toured this
last month. And let me just say, every community leader that
lives in that area, they are unanimous in wanting to see the
Department move forward with a withdrawal as quickly as
possible--land withdrawal--to protect this area. Now, I get
that Ash Meadows is managed by a different agency, but the
withdrawal comes within BLM's responsibility.
Can I get your commitment to work with me and our
constituents in working on that withdrawal to protect not only
the fish there, but that whole wildlife refuge?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yeah, Senator, I commit to you that I am
going to come and visit it and learn about it firsthand so that
I can speak with the Secretary about it. She, of course, is the
person who has the authority to do mineral withdrawals, but I
commit to you that I will dig in and learn about this issue.
Senator Cortez Masto. And then, finally, I am going to
submit for the record, affordable housing.
Thank you for the work that you are doing in Nevada around
affordable housing. I would like to know, though, the most
recent agreement that was entered into, and thank you, with
HUD----
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
Senator Cortez Masto. Is it working? And maybe we can have
a follow-up on that. I know my time is up.
Ms. Stone Manning. Yes, thank you, Senator. That agreement
happened because you asked me about it in my confirmation.
Thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. The Conservation and Landscape Health Rule
that you recently finalized elevates non-use either on par with
or arguably above multiple-use. Now, according to FLPMA, BLM is
required to manage for multiple-use and for sustained-yield
with multiple-use referring to things like grazing, timber
harvesting, energy, mining, and recreation. Can you cite a
provision of FLPMA that allows for you to depart from that
standard and to prioritize non-use instead of multiple-use and
sustained-yield? What provision of FLPMA allows you to do that?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Title I, Section 103 is where the
multiple-use definition occurs in FLPMA, and it is very
explicitly clear that managing for fish and wildlife habitat,
managing for natural and scenic values--those are direct words
from FLPMA--is our responsibility and----
Senator Lee. Look, I understand that, and it is part of the
recreation portfolio and you have the ability to do that. I
don't think there is anything in there though that authorizes
you to do exactly what you are doing here, which really is for
deliberate, long-term non-use. This is a frustration that I
have and it's not just me that has it. I hear every day, all
the time, from constituents, from local officials, who are
increasingly frustrated at the direction that BLM has taken
under your lead. Now, keep in mind, the Federal Government owns
67 percent of the land in my state, and the biggest share of
that is Bureau of Land Management.
And so, we live as subjects--subjects to the Bureau of Land
Management. And increasingly, BLM, under your leadership, seems
to have taken an approach that manages these lands like a
museum. It's a ``you can look, but you can't touch'' sort of
approach. These are in people's backyards. You can hardly throw
a rock in any direction in Utah and not hit federal land. Now,
that portion of the land in my state, the portion of the 67
percent of the land in my state owned by the Federal
Government--your portion of it--amounts to 22 million acres in
Utah. That is seven million acres more than all of the land,
not just federal land, but all the land in the State of West
Virginia. And month after month, a sweeping new policy or
management plan seems to be imposed by your agency harming
Utahns who rely on the land for their livelihood, who rely on
the land for all sorts of things. Now, the agency has strayed
pretty far from its statutory mandate to manage this land for
multiple-use and sustained-yield. The Conservation Rule is a
pretty blatant example of this museum approach, of ``you can
look, but you can't touch,'' one that has taken over the BLM.
And I don't think it can be fairly reconciled with FLPMA.
Now, Nada Wolff Culver currently serves as the Director of
Policy and Programs at BLM. And as you know, Ms. Culver
previously worked as Senior Counsel and Director of the BLM
Action Center at the Wilderness Society. While in that
position, Ms. Culver was personally involved in advocacy and
litigation regarding travel management planning and route
closures in Utah. And in fact, Ms. Culver helped negotiate the
settlement agreement a few years ago between various
environmental NGOs and the Obama Administration that
established the process and the timelines for updating Utah
travel management plans. Last fall, BLM closed 317 miles of
historic roads in Utah as part of the update to the Labyrinth
Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan. Director Stone-
Manning, Ms. Culver reports to you in her current role as
Deputy Director. So I would like a yes or no answer on this--
did Ms. Culver have any involvement in the decision-making for
the Labyrinth Rims plan?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Principal Deputy Director Culver does
report to me, and that Labyrinth Travel Management Plan
decision came from the ground, where it should come from and it
was part of a legal settlement. We got sued and----
Senator Lee. No, I get that, but that's not my question. My
question is whether she herself had any involvement in that?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, decisions like that sometimes
come to headquarters for review. I don't know if that
particular plan came for review or not.
Senator Lee. Okay, so look, she either recused herself from
that decision or she didn't. Which is it?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, she worked for the Wilderness
Society and was wildly competent in that job----
Senator Lee. Oh, I don't doubt that. That is not the
subject of my question. What I want to know is, was she or was
she not involved in that?
Ms. Stone-Manning. She does not have to recuse herself from
the Wilderness Society. She is out of the recusal period.
Senator Lee. Okay, so you are saying that it's okay for
someone with a history of advocacy and litigation on these
routes, not just routes like these, but on these specific
routes she was involved in litigation as an advocate,
specifically on these routes. Her name, I believe, is on the
settlement--the consent decree documents that resulted in this
process. You are saying that it's okay for her to do this and
she can impartially oversee the BLM's travel management
planning in that area?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, we adhere to high ethical
standards at the Department and we have done so here.
Senator Lee. All right.
Senator Heinrich. Senator.
Senator Lee. Can I ask one follow-up? I will be quick.
Senator Heinrich. Very quickly, please.
Senator Lee. All right, look, your updated Western Solar
Plan expands solar development on public lands. How are you
going to ensure that the expansion doesn't disproportionately
limit other critical land uses, things like recreation and
wildlife conservation and grazing?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, you have hit the nail on the
head on what we do every day, which is balance all of those
uses, and the Western Solar Plan is going to help us guide
solar development to places so that those decisions become more
durable, so we have this programmatic look at where development
should go so that when we do the individual NEPA analysis it
becomes more durable.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you for your service.
Thanks for being here.
Let me start with the Public Lands Rule. And I, again, want
to discuss its impact on the clean energy deployment,
particularly at the state and local levels. Some clean energy
advocates worry that the rule is going to hinder projects if
it's not properly implemented, if we don't get the right
framework in place. How are you going to--how well do you
collaborate with state and local officials to ensure we
continue advancing clean energy you know, so we get to those
goals in clean energy on public lands?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, thanks for that question. We
work very closely with our partners in the states. The fish and
game agencies are critical to our work, informing our work
about where we should avoid developing and where it's okay to
develop. I think the Public Lands Rule is going to help
renewable energy development in a couple ways. Again, it's
going to make--now that we are assessing all of our work
against land health standards--all of our work is going to be
more durable. And the mitigation portion of the Public Lands
Rule that allows mitigation leasing on our public lands will
give these energy development companies the ability to offset
their impacts. And that kind of mitigation typically had been
done on private ground. And now, we have a consistent way to
invest those dollars on our public ground. There is just great
conservation success from mitigation and now we get to see that
success on public lands.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you.
Another issue--separate issue completely. We continue to be
falling behind in securing critical minerals--essential
minerals--the kinds of things we are going to need to really
make a transition to a clean energy economy--lithium, copper. I
mean, we are going to need more copper than we have ever really
imagined. And we are falling behind in securing supply chains
for these minerals, and consistently that is making us more and
more vulnerable to our rivals, like China, that are investing
more and making, I think, setting up broader, larger supply
chains. Given BLM's role in permitting and resource production
on federal lands, how are you coordinating with the Department
of Defense, for instance, or the Department of Energy to ensure
reliable supply chains for our critical minerals, and overall,
our energy security?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, thanks for the question. One of
the frustrations about the 1872 Mining Law is that we don't get
to drive what kind of minerals we are going for and where. We
react to the proposals that come in the door. And I am proud to
say that we have permitted five critical mineral mines in this
Administration. We have another big one in the works at
Rhyolite Ridge, and the Thacker project is going forward, and
is going to produce probably 20 percent of the world's lithium
supply. So we are working very hard to, again, get these
projects done and, again, make sure they are durable and stand
the test of time.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, I appreciate that. And it's
strange bedfellows in a way, that people that really believe in
protecting the environment recognize climate change and need to
find ways to get mines open in order to protect the planet from
severe change.
Ms. Stone-Manning. It's what I love about the BLM. The
multiple-use mission is hard, and it's why our employees are so
excited to go to work every day, because they like hard things.
Senator Hickenlooper. Gluttons for punishment, I might say.
Obviously, BLM offers access to the great outdoors on many
different levels. In Colorado, it's just, as you know, it's a
really big deal, from hiking, to mountain biking, to fishing,
you know, all manner of outdoor recreation. Just on BLM lands
alone, we have about $1.4 billion of economic activity, which
is basically about ten percent of our overall $14 million
economic activity on outdoor recreation in total. But along
with the abundance of great trails in the BLM lands, there is
also a major need, you know, to maintain these lands. And so,
how is your agency responding to the growing interest in BLM
lands and this risk that people are going to love them to
death?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, thank you for that question.
Eighty-two million people visited our public lands last year--a
record. I think that they were rediscovered in the pandemic and
folks are going back, which is a great thing, right, that
people love their public lands, they want to visit. I asked the
team to put together a recreation blueprint for the 21st
century to help guide our work. You know, we have not been seen
as a recreation agency, but the American public sure sees us
that way. And so we are trying to catch up, using this
recreation blueprint to then get some state implementation
plans to help guide the work. Funding is an issue. You know,
for every visitor to Park Service lands, there is $5.20 cents
appropriated. For every visitor to the Forest Service, it's
about $1.70. For us, it's 79 cents. So we are doing a lot with
a little. And that means we are going to have to create
partnerships. I am very excited about the Foundation for
America's Public Lands that is helping us build those
partnerships so that we can get the resources we need to take
care of these lands.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you so much for being
here. Thanks for your service.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Stone-Manning, you have said that what BLM does
every day is try to achieve balance, but yet, in my state, in
Alaska, it seems that you have abandoned any pretense of
balance. Except for the reapproval of Willow, following the
law--we appreciate that--BLM is restricting development however
and wherever it can. And we have seen this in our petroleum
reserve. We have seen this in the 10-02 area, through the
public land orders, resource management plans, the rejection,
just recently, of the Ambler Access Project. It feels like an
onslaught to me, and it is not just me that is noticing this,
it's other people who are making a joke out of it. It's not a
joke. You see it--``they are putting sanctions on oil and gas
production. Where? Iran? Venezuela? No, Alaska. It's a red
state.''
[Poster of cartoon displayed to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Murkowski. It's a joke there, but it's not a joke
back home. It's not a joke at all because it has direct
consequences on our jobs, on our revenues. It hurts our energy,
our mineral security. Despite the press releases coming out of
the Administration, it doesn't help the environment, because
what it's doing, it is helping to degrade global ecosystems by
incentivizing foreign projects to move forward without the
protections and the standards that we would have here.
So I am angry. I am frustrated. You know that I have
suggested that we need to clean house. We need to cut BLM's
budget, at least until the agency realizes that they have to
follow federal law, that it actually matters, that the
commitment to balance matters.
So let me start my questions with something that we just
learned about yesterday. And unfortunately, we didn't learn
about it from BLM. We didn't learn about it from DOI. We
learned about it from the Governor's office, who asked for
information from my office about what's the deal with PLO 5150.
So you know very well what I am talking about. BLM recently
finalized its Central Yukon Resource Management Plan--it's RMP.
And as part of that, BLM decided not to lift PLO 5150 for the
Taps Pipeline corridor. The state had selected this decades ago
as part of its statehood entitlement. And by law--by law--BLM
is supposed to convey the selected lands in a timely manner.
They had not been moving on it, so I passed a law--20 years
ago. My law in 2004 directs BLM to lift PLOs in Alaska. And
then in 2006, BLM recommends lifting PLOs on over 50 million
acres, and recommended that the best way to do that is through
the RMP process.
So we have an RMP process. We got it for the Central Yukon.
It has been going on for over a decade, and now what happens?
BLM reverses course from the previous Administration, refuses
to lift PLO 5150 as part of its land planning process. Instead,
we have a new promise here. What we are going to do is launch a
new process with a tiered environmental assessment as soon as
the Central Yukon Plan was finished. And this was going to
allow BLM to finalize the RMP and then move forward on a
compromise for PLO 5150. And this was going to be a compromise
developed by the State of Alaska that would protect subsistence
and involve far less changing ownership. We didn't really think
that that was perfect, but everyone that I knew of was willing
to support it. BLM repeatedly--repeatedly--until like last
week, told my office and Alaska DNR that they were going to do
it. And so the state worked with the BLM for more than a year.
And you are very well-read into this because you drove the
Dalton Highway last summer with the Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner. And then, this week, we learned--nope, it's not
happening. It's over. The plan is dead. The commitment is
revoked. The Central Yukon RMP is over. It's done. There won't
be a supplemental process to lift the outdated PLO for the
pipeline corridor. I don't understand how you can sit here and
how those in your Department, all the way up to the Secretary,
can sit here and make these empty promises and then break them
whenever you feel like you want to break them. And so I want to
know, who canceled BLM's commitment to move forward on the
State of Alaska's compromise on PLO 5150, and if it was not
you, who was it?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I know this is really important
to you----
Senator Murkowski. Yeah, it's really important, and we got
zero word. Zero. Nothing.
Ms. Stone-Manning. And----
Senator Murkowski. Is it happening?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I wouldn't call it canceled.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. What would you call it?
Ms. Stone-Manning. My conversation with the Commissioner
last week was about how we are up against some timing issues
and some workload issues throughout the Department.
Senator Murkowski. What does that mean?
Ms. Stone-Manning. And our plates are full. And that we are
not moving forward with the EA in the timeline that we had
originally thought.
Senator Murkowski. I don't understand what you have just
said. Is the project canceled?
Ms. Stone-Manning. No.
Senator Murkowski. Is the project delayed?
Ms. Stone-Manning. The EA is, yes. I guess delay is the
right word.
Senator Murkowski. Is the project delayed for the duration
of this Administration or are you continuing to work on it? Is
it dead as far as your office is concerned?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, no. It is not dead as far as my
office is concerned.
Senator Murkowski. Then what's happening?
Ms. Stone-Manning. As I was saying, we are--our plates are
full. I like to make sure that we get things done and----
Senator Murkowski. Who made this decision?
Ms. Stone-Manning [continuing]. Done well.
Senator Murkowski. Who made the decision?
Ms. Stone-Manning. It was a collective decision about
workload, which I always----
Senator Murkowski. Was it you? Was it someone at the
Department? Or was it out of the White House itself?
Ms. Stone-Manning. It was a collective decision about
workload with the Department.
Senator Murkowski. With the Department? So the White House
wasn't directing this?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Not that I know of.
Senator Murkowski. Okay, I am actually just stunned with
your response here today. You knew we were going to have an
opportunity to discuss this. And the fact that you can't give
me, really, a straight answer as to where you are. Workload?
Give me a break. You have been working on this for ten years--
ten years. And now you have come and you can't tell me whether
or not it's canceled, it's delayed, if it's going to continue,
if it's dead for the duration of this Administration.
My time is over, but I am hopeful we will have a second
round.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to talk briefly about a bill that is really
historic for Oregon, and that is the Malheur County Empowerment
for the Owyhee legislation. There has been gridlock on this
issue for literally 50 years in my state. And now, we have been
able to bring together the ranchers and the environmental
folks. It has passed this Committee. Senator Barrasso has given
us valuable input, you know, in terms of grazing flexibility.
And we are very excited about what is at hand. And what we want
to do is make sure, apropos of today, that issues like grazing,
for example, are compatible with conservation objections on the
landscape. And I would like to hear your thoughts with respect
to the rule that you are talking about because I am
particularly interested in getting input on how we keep
building on this goodwill. In other words, it's not an accident
that it has taken 50 years to get common ground. I mean, this
is a very challenging area. People back east, for example, call
this, you know, Oregon's version of the Grand Canyon. My
constituents call it home, and they want to have the ranchers
and environmental folks get together, and made a lot of
headway. We continue to make more headway with respect to
grazing flexibility.
So tell us a little bit about how our approach fits in with
what you all want to do, particularly on grazing?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, thank you for the question.
Grazing and conservation could and should and do go hand in
hand. We are really clear about that in the preamble of the
Public Lands Rule--that grazing, done well, is a tool for
conservation. You and I have seen it on the ground. I have seen
dry desert turn into riparian oases through grazing done well.
And so we see our permittees across 155 million acres as
partners in this work.
Senator Wyden. Will you commit this morning, because I
think that what we are doing with grazing flexibility has a lot
of potential. In other words, in my conversations with Senator
Barrasso and other Senators of both political parties, I said,
you know, we are trying to get our Owyhee legislation passed
but we got a concept here that can be, you know, a winner in an
area, again, where there has been intractable kind of gridlock.
And you know, I look at what my ranchers say they want. They
really just want some flexibility so that when they are doing
good work, they are going after noxious weeds or something like
that, they can have the flexibility to do it.
So will you commit to working with the rural communities in
my home state and in other states to make sure that we really
look at ways to tie grazing and conservation and other
approaches so that there is flexibility for all users? And we
don't operate under the assumption we are going to throw safety
and environmental issues in the trash can. We are just getting
some flexibility. Will you commit to working with rural
communities in the days ahead in Oregon and elsewhere on
getting that done?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, Senator, I would be really pleased
to do so. We do need those flexibilities.
Senator Wyden. Great, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Ms. Stone-Manning, we are going to talk
today about the Lava Ridge project. You are familiar with it?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
Senator Risch. Okay, that's good.
I represent 1.8 million angry people--angry at you,
personally. And it isn't just the people of Idaho. We have the
legislature voting unanimously, House and Senate, objecting to
this project, saying ``don't do it.'' We have the seven Idaho
counties that are affected unanimously adopting a resolution of
disapproval, saying ``don't do it.'' Your own BLM Resource
Advisory Council voted unanimously not to do this, and said
``don't do this.'' The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes submitted two
comment letters in opposition to this project. The Friends of
Minidoka, Minidoka Pilgrimage Planning Committee, and Japanese
American Citizens League, who operate the sacred ground in
there where they had a Japanese internment camp in World War II
said ``don't do this.'' We don't want this. We are angry about
this.
And I want to put this anger for you into perspective that
you will understand. You remember previously your foray with
Idaho was engagement in a conspiracy to spike trees in the
National Forest in Idaho. You recall that after you did that,
the people who were charged, that you testified against in
return for an immunity agreement, went to prison over it.
Idahoans were angry. They were angry with those people. They
were angry with you. Now they are seeing the same thing out of
you because none of them want the debauchment of this hundred
thousand acres with these 660-foot towers on it. So do you
understand how angry we are about this?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I can hear the anger in your
voice, and I know that change is difficult. This wind proposal
is big. But what we did do with your constituents was listen
very hard and the proposal now----
Senator Risch. No, you didn't.
Ms. Stone-Manning. The proposal now is halved. And yet, it
will still provide energy for up to 500,000 homes, almost a
gigawatt of power.
Senator Risch. Where are those homes located? I will tell
you--California. You know that. You think that makes us happy?
Why don't you put this project in California? If they need the
energy so bad, do it down there. We don't want this project in
Idaho. So I have a question for you. You did this--by the way,
you were talking about the shortage of your manpower. You put
out this 852-page environmental impact statement that is
nothing but drivel. In this statement, you know what I can't
find? Anybody who supports this from Idaho. Can you name
somebody or some entity in Idaho that supports this project?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I have seen a couple hundred
comments in support from Idaho----
Senator Risch. Compared to how many opposed?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I don't know the vote count----
Senator Risch. I will help you out.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yeah.
Senator Risch. It is in the tens of thousands. Nobody wants
this. Nobody wants this. Can you name anybody or any entity
that wants this?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, the anger that you are talking
about is of concern to me on the ground. I am not going to rise
to the rhetoric and name names.
Senator Risch. So what are we going to do about this? With
all the opposition from Idaho and us getting no benefit out of
this whatsoever, what are we going to do about this? Do you
just set that aside and proceed on? Who wants this? Who is it
that is pursuing this? Is it you?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, we responded to an application
from a company to develop public lands. It's what we do every
day.
Senator Risch. So it is a company that came forward and you
are responding to them and ignoring 1.8 million people, plus
the entire establishment of our government in the State of
Idaho, you are ignoring that for the company that came in and
said, ``oh, here, we want to debauch 100,000 acres and put 241
windmills up on this land.'' That is how you are going to
proceed?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, the final EIS does call for
that. The original proposal called for 400 turbines, and we
listened to your constituents. We listened to----
Senator Risch. You didn't hear any constituents say cut the
400 in half. Every constituent said don't do this. So you
didn't listen.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I hear the frustration and
anger in your voice. We have issued the final environmental
impact statement, and of course, it is not the final decision
that comes at the record of decision phase.
Senator Risch. You know, I warned everyone when your
confirmation was up. If you had someone who had such disrespect
for the natural resources of America, for our country, and for
my state, Idaho, this is what we were going to see. You ought
to be ashamed. The Administration ought to be ashamed. The
Secretary of the Interior ought to be ashamed. This is awful,
awful management of our public lands. It's not multiple-use,
it's abuse of our public lands.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director, right now you are working on a draft resource
management plan, RMP, for BLM lands in North Dakota. On that,
you put out a preferred alternative that we have serious
concerns about. Myself, Senator Cramer, and Representative
Armstrong sent a letter to you expressing those concerns, and I
would like, Mr. Chairman, to ask unanimous consent to make that
letter a part of the record.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich. Without objection.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
[The letter referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Hoeven. Essentially, this preferred alternative
would close off new leasing to 45 percent of potential federal
oil and gas acreage and it would close off new leasing to 95
percent of federal coal acreage. Now, it's important to
understand that in the grasslands, the BLM lands in North
Dakota, you have checkerboard issues, it's a split-estate
ownership. So in a lot of cases where the Federal Government
may own the surface acreage, they don't own the minerals. Those
are privately owned by private individuals. So the net result
is, because of the checkerboard on the surface and then the
split-estate ownership where the Federal Government may own the
land but not the minerals underneath, by restricting this
access, you are restricting private owners from accessing their
property. You are disenfranchising them. In essence, taking
with no compensation.
And so, in this draft management plan, that is exactly what
you are doing. You are stranding private owners' mineral rights
and denying them their ability to receive very significant
revenue for their minerals. So please explain to me how that is
in any way reasonable or fair to do that under this type--I
mean, how can you do that in a resource management plan and in
any way, shape, or form, believe that it's fair and equitable?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, thanks for the question. A
resource management plan, of course, is about land and mineral
allocation. We have issued the draft. We are hearing the
comments, and I look forward to reading your letter. I don't
think I have seen it yet, but I will find it and read it.
Senator Hoeven. Would you agree, though, for example, if
you were the owner of whatever property rights, and the Federal
Government was preventing you from utilizing those in full
compliance with the law, that that would be an unfair taking?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I am not an attorney, but what
I do know is----
Senator Hoeven. Well then, just on the common sense, and
just common-sense fairness. So, I mean, it's your neighbor--you
restrict your neighbor from the use of his property
arbitrarily. Is that a fair or reasonable thing to do? Just in
general.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I hear your frustration. What
we try to do is balance the laws and the objectives of the
administration.
Senator Hoeven. But the laws require multiple-use on these
federal lands. So whether it's this resource management plan or
your recent April 18th rule regarding public lands where you
are now putting in place restoration or mitigation leases,
okay, which lock away the ability for multiple-use. Once you
have put these mitigation leases in place, and we don't even
know for how long, now that is limited to one use. That
violates the law of multiple-use. So on the one hand, you have
an unreasonable taking, and second, you are in violation of the
law that requires multiple-use. How can you go down that track
and say that you are either being fair to people or complying
with the law? You are doing this through executive fiat. You
are not adhering to some new law. There was no law passed that
suddenly said you can abrogate all fairness and former laws--or
laws on the books. There is nothing that says that. You just,
through executive fiat, are blowing right by the absolute
requirements of the law.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, with respect, mitigation leases
will not be single use.
Senator Hoeven. Oh, really?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. Tell me about that. So you are going to
allow farming, you are going to allow energy development, all
those things on these mitigation leases?
Ms. Stone-Manning. So----
Senator Hoeven. Because I would like to see that in
writing, because you and I--that'll be great. I want to see
that in writing from you.
Ms. Stone-Manning. It is in the rule that there are often
overlapping uses in what we do. So for example, there could be
a grazing permittee who has a grazing lease on a piece of
ground. A mitigation company wants to come in and say, hey, I
would like to improve your grass. Can I work with you? Can we
put a mitigation lease on this? They come to the BLM and say
they would like to do a mitigation lease. And so those uses
then become compatible. Transmission line across the section,
for example, can be compatible with the increased production we
are trying to get to through the mitigation.
Senator Hoeven. We will want those assurances from you in
writing. So we will want you to come out and explain that to
our ranchers and to our energy industry, to our tourism
industry. We truly do have multiple-use----
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. In compliance with the law, which benefits
everybody, and we are going to want your commitment that that
can continue.
Ms. Stone-Manning. It is exactly what the rule envisions.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I start, Mr. Chairman, I want to say thank you for
your strong statement on the RECA legislation yesterday and for
your leadership on this issue. It is much, much appreciated.
Director Stone-Manning, let me just start with this. When
you came before this Committee in 2021--this was before I was a
member of the Committee--you were asked as part of your
confirmation whether you had ever been investigated, arrested,
or charged by any federal, state, or local law enforcement
authority for the violation of any federal, state, or local
law, regulation, or ordinance, other than a minor traffic
offense. We ask that question of all people before the
Committee. You answered no. Do you stand by that testimony?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I do stand by that testimony
and was proud to be confirmed to do this job.
Senator Hawley. What is tree spiking, Director?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, again, this Committee engaged
quite a bit and----
Senator Hawley. No, that is a factual question. Do you know
what it is?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I do. It's when----
Senator Hawley. Do you want to tell us? Go ahead.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes. It is when people illegally put
metal objects into trees so that they prevent a timber sale.
Senator Hawley. What happens if a chainsaw hits a spike?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Sometimes, when a chainsaw hits a spike,
it can buck the saw.
Senator Hawley. Yeah, violently recoil, potentially kill or
seriously maim the loggers.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yeah, which is why I notified the
federal authorities that I had heard that had----
Senator Hawley. Loggers, like, for instance, George
Alexander. This is from an article in the Washington Post,
explaining what happens when trees get spiked.
[The article referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Hawley. Loggers, who are blue-collar workers, by
the way, these are not wealthy people. These are not people who
have had the advantages, perhaps, you and others have had.
People like George Alexander, who, for example, in May 1987 at
age 23, his chainsaw hit a tree spike. I am quoting: ``His face
was slashed from eye to chin. His teeth were smashed. His jaw
was cut in half.'' That is a typical reaction when a logger
hits a spike. Now, you just said, I think just a second ago,
that you were involved. There were two people convicted in 1989
of putting 500 pounds of spikes in an Idaho forest. Senator
Risch mentioned this just a moment ago. You testified you sent
a letter to the Forest Service on their behalf. I have it here.
The letter says, among other things, ``this letter is sent to
notify you that the Post Office sale''--that is the forest sale
in Idaho--``has been spiked heavily . . . the reason for this
action is that this piece of land is very special to the earth.
It is home to the elk, deer, mountain lions, birds, and
especially the trees.'' It goes on: ``I would be more than
willing to pay you a dollar for the sale, but you would have to
find me first and that could be your worst nightmare. P.S., you
bastards go in there anyway and a lot of people could get
hurt.''
Why did you send this?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, as I said at the time, over 30
years ago, a really angry and turns out violent person handed
me that letter and said, ``will you send this to the Forest
Service?''
Senator Hawley. And you did. Why?
Ms. Stone-Manning. What you just talked about in 1987, to a
logger, this is 1988-89?
Senator Hawley. Nine.
Ms. Stone-Manning. I understood that people could get hurt.
Senator Hawley. Why didn't you notify the federal
authorities? Why did you send this threatening letter on behalf
of these two men who were convicted of crimes?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I was terrified of them and wanted no
involvement with them.
Senator Hawley. You wanted no involvement but you sent a
letter that says ``you bastards go in there anyway and a lot of
people could get hurt?'' Why didn't you just contact the FBI,
or anybody, any local authority?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Because the person who did this act
threatened people's lives if they disclosed who did it.
Senator Hawley. In fact, you were investigated for being
involved, weren't you? Here we have a letter sent to this
Committee from the Special Agent of the USDA Forest Service,
Michael Merkley, who was in charge of the investigation.
[The letter referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Hawley. He says, and he details this in the letter
to this Committee, that he investigated you for your
involvement. He says, and I am going to quote now: ``Grand jury
subpoenas were issued for hair samples, handwriting exemplars,
fingerprints. These subpoenas were served on persons suspected
of being involved, having knowledge of the incident, including
Ms. Tracy Stone-Manning.'' You have testified you were never
investigated, ever, for anything. Why did you lie to this
Committee?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, this Committee delved deeply,
went into the court records where I testified against these
men.
Senator Hawley. Were you issued subpoenas?
Ms. Stone-Manning. No.
Senator Hawley. You were not issued subpoenas?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Well, I was issued a subpoena to appear
before a grand jury with about 13 people.
Senator Hawley. Really? Because here's what he says: ``Ms.
Stone-Manning was extremely difficult to work with. She was
antagonistic. She was uncooperative. Refused to provide her
hair, handwriting exemplars, and fingerprints as ordered by the
grand jury. It was not until after we informed her she would be
arrested if she did not comply with the subpoenas that she
provided the samples to me.''
So you were subpoenaed.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. You were the target of an investigation.
Senator Heinrich. Your time is expired. Do you have a
question?
Senator Hawley. But you were the target of an
investigation. You lied to this Committee. Why?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I never received a target
letter. I am curious. I understand why this Committee jumped
over 30 years of my career in considering my nomination and
went to a salacious moment from graduate school where I tried
to protect people. What I don't understand is why we are not
looking at the last three and a half years now.
Senator Hawley. Here's why----
Senator Heinrich. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. It's because people are killed in these
kinds of incidents. It is an act of terrorism.
Senator Heinrich. Your time is expired.
Senator Hawley. A special agent in charge found that you
were involved. You lied to this Committee in saying that you
were never investigated, were never the target of
investigation.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. In fact, you were.
Senator Heinrich. Your time is expired.
Senator Hawley. You lied to us blatantly and you know it.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you.
Director Stone-Manning, I would like to talk about the last
three and a half years.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Great.
Senator Daines. This is the first time you are in front of
the Committee since your nomination back in June of 2021. Since
then, the actions your agency has taken, or failed to take,
have been devastating to Montana and the rural communities that
depend on federal lands for their livelihoods. It's no secret
that the Biden Administration, the EPA, the Department of the
Interior, and the BLM are doing everything they can to
eliminate oil, eliminate gas, and eliminate coal production in
the United States. And if anybody doubts that, go to the
whitehouse.gov website. You can see, it says ``Stop LNG,
eliminate fossil fuels.'' At least they are public about it.
Let me name just a few actions that impact Montana. On day
one, President Biden cancels the Keystone XL Pipeline, a gut
punch to so many eastern Montana counties. A million barrels a
day, stopped by Joe Biden. Day one, Biden starts stopping oil
and gas leasing on federal lands. And then, we have had an
onslaught of rules from the EPA. Methane rules targeting small
oil and gas producers. The MATS and Clean Power Plan 2.0 that
is targeting the Colstrip Power Plant. We are now on a path,
two of our four Colstrip units have been shut down, power
units, the last two now will be shut down unless these
overreaches coming from the Biden Administration are stopped.
The Department of Energy stops--they said ``pause''--good
grief, they stopped LNG export permits. The Office of Surface
Mining slow-walks coal permits in Montana in hopes the mines
will be forced to close down.
And now, the BLM. The BLM has only held two oil and gas
lease sales in Montana since Biden took office. This is under
your watch. You are supposed to have at least four a year.
BLM's new Public Lands Rule seeks to sideline oil and gas
production. BLM's new oil and gas leasing rule sets bonding
requirements so high, our small producers can't keep up. And
just last month, the BLM announced a proposed plan to eliminate
coal leasing in Montana and Wyoming. Wyoming is the number one
coal producer. Montana has the most coal potential of any state
in the United States. And these are just the tip of the
iceberg. The Biden Administration has one goal. It is radical.
It is to end oil, gas, and coal production in the United
States. And you aren't hiding it.
Director Stone-Manning, the proposed Miles City and Buffalo
Management Plans seek to end all coal leasing in the Powder
River Basin. This extreme proposal seeks to end leasing in the
largest coal producing area in the United States, where almost
half of all the country's coal is produced, and where coal
mines serve as a key driver of the economy and maintain strong
support from local communities and leaders. What reasoning,
besides simply being opposed to coal, does the BLM have for
closing leasing on America's largest coal field?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, the President has asked us to
transition to a clean energy economy free of carbon pollution
by 2035 and economy-wide by 2050. Lands leased in the Miles
City Field Office are leased through----
Senator Daines. Do you agree with the President's goal in
that? Is that the right goal?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I do.
Senator Daines. So you think we should shut down oil and
gas and coal?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I think--we are at record production----
Senator Daines. Should we shut down--I mean, you just told
me you are trying to go to zero. Do you believe we should shut
down oil, gas, and coal production in the United States?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I believe that we should become energy
secure through----
Senator Daines. You are not answering my question. You just
said you want to go to zero carbon. If you agree with the Biden
Administration's objective and vision, I am asking you, do you
think we should shut down oil, gas, and coal?
Ms. Stone-Manning. If you can let me finish my sentence.
Senator Daines. Okay.
Ms. Stone-Manning. I would say to you, I believe that we
need to transition to a clean energy economy built on renewable
energy, which will keep this country secure----
Senator Daines. Okay, that's greenspeak. I just want--would
you just answer the question? Does that mean by getting to that
that we shut down oil, gas, and coal?
Ms. Stone-Manning. We are going to use oil and gas and coal
for decades through the transition, but ultimately----
Senator Daines. But you believe we should ultimately shut
it down?
Ms. Stone-Manning. We need it through the transition.
Senator Daines. But you believe we should shut it down?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I believe that we are going to need it
through a transition to a clean energy economy.
Senator Daines. You should go talk to the Germans about
that vision, see how that is working out for them.
Have you personally talked to Montana coal communities and
the families who will be negatively affected by your proposed
plan? Have you talked to the Montanans out there?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, as you know, I had the honor of
serving----
Senator Daines. I know you did, under Governor Bullock. I
just want to know, have you talked to Montana families about
this? Have you talked to the families impacted by the Keystone
pipeline when you shut it down? Have you been to Colstrip and
talked to the families out there that are scared to death of
what is going on with the Biden Administration, shutting down
their livelihoods?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I have been in Colstrip, in front of 400
people when I was DEQ Director.
Senator Daines. No, wait, no, I know--how about as--now you
are a fed. Have you been out there since you have been out
implementing these policies to shut it down?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I have not spoken directly with
families.
Senator Daines. Okay, that is what I was asking, yes.
Ms. Stone-Manning. No.
Senator Daines. I didn't think so, because if you did, you
might get a little different view. You probably might get my
view versus the view you are getting from Joe Biden, which is
so out of touch with where most Montanans are.
The BLM's----
Senator Heinrich. Senator Daines, your time is expired. I
am going to try to give everyone a second round.
Senator Daines. Okay.
Senator Heinrich. We are limited on time. I am going to
forgo my second round of questions, but I would ask people to
try to keep their questions to three minutes so that we can get
through everyone who wants a second chance.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Heinrich. Ranking Member Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Stone-Manning, the Bureau has yet to issue leases to
the winning bidders of the December 2020 oil and gas leases. So
it's now 2024--2020 to 2024. When do you plan to issue the
leases?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, thank you for that question. We
are still working our way through multiple court decisions.
When we issue them, we want them to be durable and stick.
Senator Barrasso. Because, you know, the law requires you
issue the leases within 60 days, and it's now been over three
and a half years. So when do you plan to--give me a date of
when you plan to issue these leases that by law should have
been leased?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I don't have a date for you at
this time.
Senator Barrasso. Okay. Three and a half years--long time.
Again, we need a date.
Next, in June 2022, the Bureau settled a lawsuit related to
oil and gas leases that it had issued between 2015 and 2020 in
Wyoming. In that settlement, the Bureau agreed to update the
environmental analysis of the leases. So the Bureau's Wyoming
office, the state office in Wyoming of the Bureau of Land
Management, says they finished updating exactly what you wanted
last summer--finished what you asked for last summer. So why
has your Bureau not then released this updated analysis?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, again, as I was mentioning, we
are reconciling different court decisions and opinions
throughout the West and we want to make sure that we are
consistent.
Senator Barrasso. Well, it seems like a lot of foot
dragging. The state officers then can't issue the permits to
drill on these leases--refuse to until the Bureau releases the
updated analysis, which was done a year ago. So, again, when
will the Bureau release that analysis?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I'm sorry, which analysis?
Senator Barrasso. The one that was done a year ago by
Wyoming's Bureau of Land Management based on the 2022
settlement.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, again Senator, I don't have a date
for you.
Senator Barrasso. Yes, well we need a date, and you can see
how every member of this side says this is a deliberate
sabotage of American energy by an Administration with this
approach, which is a pipe dream about their view of when we can
get to a carbon-free America, and as our hearing showed last
week, Mr. Chairman, China has beaten us to this because they
are putting all the energy into AI, and that puts us at a
competitive world disadvantage.
Final question, because we are trying to keep this under
three minutes. So last weekend, I was at the Wyoming Stock
Growers Summer Convention in Douglas. A number of folks
expressed concern about the process by which your Bureau
considers public comments. Does the Bureau require individuals
who submit public comments to identify who they are and where
they are from?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I believe that is the case. And
if I could revisit your last question, I don't think it's
sabotage to be at record production highs for oil and to issue
11,000 APDs.
Senator Barrasso. It is a sabotage of the multiple-use of
the public lands.
Well, this is the question--getting to the question in
front right now. So someone from a country like China or
Russia, or a computer, which doesn't want us to develop our
energy or our mineral resources, are they allowed to submit
public comments? Is that correct? Because that is what we are
hearing.
The answer is yes.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, I assume they are.
Senator Barrasso. Yes, so they--can the Bureau even
determine then whether a comment has been submitted by a human
or by a machine?
The answer is no. You can't.
In light of all this, shouldn't the Bureau give the most
weight to comments from the people and the communities who
actually live--as my friend and colleague just said of what is
happening in Idaho--who actually live in and are most affected
by the proposals?
Ms. Stone-Manning. You might have suggested that your
colleague has bots putting in comments. I don't think that is
true. We read the comments very thoroughly. I think that we can
tell when it's a bot and when it's a Russian and when it's an
actual Idahoan, as the case is with what we got from the Lava
Project. I don't understand what you are getting at, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. We are getting at the fact that it seems
that the comments coming in and are being counted as equal are
those that have been on the land for five generations and those
coming from Communist China.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just try to wrap up where we were with PLO 5150. Do
you have any idea the cost of the process--what it took to get
to the draft RMP EIS?
Ms. Stone-Manning. For Central Yukon?
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Ms. Stone-Manning. I don't. It's in the millions of
dollars, but I don't have the draft here.
Senator Murkowski. The 2020 draft RMP EIS cost the BLM a
little over $5 million to produce. The final RMP EIS document
says that it cost the lead agency, BLM, $6.7 million to
produce. To kind of put that into perspective, the FY25 budget
request--$28.8 million for the entire Alaska conveyance
account. So you can see my frustration here. You spent
somewhere between $5 and $6 million of a $28 million entire
budget--ten years, and have gotten nowhere. And what you have
told me is you have a manpower issue, which makes no sense to
me that you would invest this money, invest this time, and then
say--well, later. You made a commitment to me when you were
before this Committee three years ago and you said ``you have
my commitment that I understand the job is to follow the law
and that the Federal Government has commitments to the State of
Alaska.''
You acknowledged those commitments to the State of Alaska.
You know very well the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act,
because I asked you about it then. I mentioned the report in
2009, the updated report in 2019, finding that the lifting of
the vast majority of these withdrawals for the PLOs would be
``consistent with the protection of the public interests in
these lands.'' Approximately 95 percent of these withdrawals
that could be lifted are consistent with the protections of the
public's interest. So you have these findings. You have the
recommendation. I don't understand how the recommendation
within the Central Yukon RMP to not lift any of the public land
orders in that area is consistent with the Act, consistent with
your commitment to me that says ``I get it, I know that the
Federal Government has commitments to the State of Alaska. They
are outlined in the law.'' And then, ten years, millions of
dollars, and nevermind, because that is where we're feeling
like we are right now.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I am going to get back for the
record for you on the budget question. It's my understanding
that the Central Yukon RMP budget came out of our planning
budget, not the conveyance budget.
Senator Murkowski. So whether it came out of the conveyance
budget or the planning budget, you spent millions of dollars.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Ten years and you have gotten nowhere.
The last thing that I would like from you is, in her
hearing on May 2, Secretary Haaland was before this Committee,
and in response to me, on the Ambler Road, she promised that
she would ``be happy to follow up with me on specific legal
justifications.'' I asked the Secretary to make clear where it
says that the access is superseded--Ambler's access is
superseded by general right-of-way authorities for BLM provided
by FLPMA. So, as a lawyer, I looked at that and said that makes
no sense to me. So I asked her, give me the specific legal
justification. She said, ``happy to follow up.'' That was over
a month ago. Can you give me that analysis that the Secretary
promised?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, the legal underpinnings,
especially on our 810 requirements under ANILCA for subsistence
are going to be outlined and documented in the record of
decision, which is forthcoming.
Senator Murkowski. Well, it seems to me that when I asked
the Secretary and she says, ``I will be happy to follow up''
with me on specific legal justifications, I don't feel like I
should have to wait until I get a final record of decision to
understand that. I think I had a commitment from the Secretary,
as I think I had a commitment from you three years ago, and I
don't think that either one of you are following up on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I can see you are a little aggravated that we are
after you for something that happened quite some time ago. But
I want you to know that ecoterrorism is so bad that when
someone commits that, they certainly ought to be disqualified
from management of public resources. That is why we are angry
about this. Now, Senator Hawley wasn't here, but I was here
when you had your hearing. And you didn't tell us anything
about that. You swore that you had never been investigated. And
you knew better than that. In fact, you had an attorney. That
attorney negotiated an immunity agreement so that you wouldn't
go to prison. Isn't that true?
That is a yes or no, Ma'am.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I never received a letter
saying I was under investigation. That was the question. And
I----
Senator Risch. There was never a question about whether you
received a letter that you were under investigation. The
question that was asked to you was, ``Have you ever been under
investigation?'' And you knew you were under investigation. We
were never able to cross-examine you on this, and as a matter
of fact, after that, when it came to light, we started sending
letters asking questions about it and you wouldn't answer those
letters. And you wound up getting confirmed on a party-line
vote, of course.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, all of this came out, also, in
my Senate confirmation at the State of Montana, where we went
into great depth about----
Senator Risch. I don't know anything about the State of
Montana. I am talking about sitting right here, looking like
this, where you were trying to become the head of the Bureau of
Land Management.
Let me say something else that really troubles me, which is
the lack of remorse for your involvement in this. You are
saying over there I was handed a letter and I had to send it
because I was scared. The investigation had things very
different than that. There is a statement in there by the
investigator that says Stone-Manning ``was an active member of
the original group that planned the spiking.'' There is a quote
in here from a witness who overheard you. She said that she had
overheard a conversation where Ms. Stone-Manning, along with
other co-conspirators planned the tree spiking and discussed
whether to use the ceramic or metal spikes in the trees. And we
all know the difference--how important that is, whether to use
metal or ceramic.
Lastly, the ringleader of the whole thing, Mr. Blount, said
after your hearing, and you said, well, you know, I did not
know anything about this until they handed me the letter. He
said--this is the ringleader of your conspiracy--he said, ``she
knew about it far in advance, a couple of months before.'' So
your lack of remorse here is despicable, to be honest with you.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, I have to say for the record
that none of what you just said is true.
Senator Risch. Well, somebody sure thought it was. Did you
sign an immunity agreement?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I actually couldn't tell you the
difference between a ceramic and a metal spike. I actually
don't know the difference.
Senator Risch. Well, the difference, as you know, is when
they go through the mill they are x-rayed, and if there is
metal in it, they will be able to kick it out. If you put a
ceramic spike in, they will never pick it up and it will kill
millworkers. That is the difference between ceramic and metal,
and they overheard you having this conversation with someone
else.
Look, I can't tell you how deeply disappointed I am, not
only in what you have done, you wanted us to look at the last
three and a half years. The last three and a half years have
been a disgrace, as you have heard here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Chairman, thank you.
I want to talk about bonding. The BLM's most recent oil and
gas leasing will increase its minimum lease bonds from $10,000
to $150,000. It's a radical change. It disregards the cost to
reclaim a Montana well. It punishes the small family-owned oil
and gas producers in our state. Simply put, Montana's oil and
gas producers can't afford a 1,500 percent increase in bonding.
Did you talk to Montana producers on how this new rule affects
them?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, we--first I will start with----
Senator Daines. That's a simple question. Did you speak
directly with any Montana producers on how this rule would
affect them?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I spoke with the Western Energy
Association, and I think there were Montana producers in the
room, but I can't remember.
Senator Daines. You can't think of a Montana producer that
you spoke to, because I will tell you, they would have given
you an earful on this because they are giving me an earful on
them.
Ms. Stone-Manning. So the bonding rates have not been
raised in over 50 years. The GAO and the Inspector General both
advised that we do so to protect the American taxpayer.
Senator Daines. But do you think it might be good, I mean,
to maybe go out to Montana and ask the producers what a 1,500
percent increase might do to these small producers?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Well, we did that in a draft comment
period. That is what it is for.
Senator Daines. But it's helpful to go talk to the people
that are going to be affected. Just a good lesson in life.
I want to talk about what's going on with grazing. The
grazing on federal lands provides billions of dollars each year
in ecosystem services. Your agency feels the need to attempt to
separate grazing from other conservation values. Do you believe
that grazing provides a conservation benefit?
Ms. Stone-Manning. It can. I do.
Senator Daines. You do. Great. Will you commit to ensuring
that the implementation of the Public Lands Rule will not push
Montana ranchers off their BLM grazing allotments?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Senator, in no way does the Public Lands
Rule envision that.
Senator Daines. So if you see any of that, would you
confront it and say we have to change something here so we are
not pushing grazing activities off of BLM lands?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
Senator Daines. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
Senator Daines. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern are
public lands where special management is needed to protect
unique resources and scenic landscapes from hazards. I have a
question. They have put these implementations as restrictions
on land while waiting for formal change to land use plans. What
public input would be required prior to these restrictions
being put in place?
Ms. Stone-Manning. Sorry, I missed the beginning of that.
Senator Daines. So it's the Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern.
Ms. Stone-Manning. Oh.
Senator Daines. Right. So what input is required before
putting these restrictions in place, do you think?
Ms. Stone-Manning. So, as you know, Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern are only designated through management
plans. And management plans last decades in some cases. If
somebody brings us a nomination for an ACEC, or something
arises that we need to address, we look at the relevance and
importance criteria, as FLPMA tells us to do. If we find that
it meets that criteria, that it's relevant and important and
requires specific management, we can put that temporary
management into place until we get into the next planning
period.
Senator Daines. One follow-up question, Mr. Chairman, and
then I will be finished.
Back on the increase here in the bonding, would you meet
with some of the Montana producers so you can hear firsthand
from them?
Ms. Stone-Manning. I would love to.
Senator Daines. Okay, I would love to set that up. So if
you commit to that, we will get the Montana producers because I
think you are going to hear that a 1,500 percent increase all
at once here is something that is going to be very detrimental
back home in Montana.
Thank you.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you to our witness. Members will
have until close of business tomorrow to submit additional
questions for the record.
And this Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]