[House Report 116-491]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


116th Congress   }                                    {         Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                    {        116-491

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



 
                      BUFFALO TRACT PROTECTION ACT

                                _______
                                

 September 8, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2640]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 2640) to withdraw certain Bureau of Land 
Management land from mineral development, having considered the 
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Buffalo Tract Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL.

  (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal land 
described in subsection (b) is withdrawn from all forms of--
          (1) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
          (2) disposition under the mineral leasing, mineral materials, 
        and geothermal leasing laws.
  (b) Description.--The Federal land referred to in subsections (a) and 
(c) is the approximately 4,288 acres of land administered by the 
Director of the Bureau of Land Management and generally depicted as 
``Tract A'', ``Tract B'', ``Tract C'', and ``Tract D'' on the map 
entitled ``Placitas, New Mexico Area Map'' and dated November 13, 2019.
  (c) Surface Estate.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to the reservation of the mineral 
        estate under paragraph (2), nothing in this Act prohibits the 
        Secretary of the Interior from conveying the surface estate of 
        the Federal land described in subsection (b) in accordance 
        with--
                  (A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
                1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); or
                  (B) the Act of June 14, 1926 (commonly known as the 
                ``Recreation and Public Purposes Act'') (43 U.S.C. 869 
                et seq.).
          (2) Mineral estate.--Any conveyance of the surface estate of 
        the Federal land described in subsection (b) shall require a 
        reservation of the mineral estate to the United States.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 2640 is to withdraw four specified 
parcels of Bureau of Land Management land near Placitas, New 
Mexico, from all forms of mineral development under all laws 
pertaining to mineral leasing or mineral materials, including 
locatable minerals.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees more than 247 
million acres of land and 700 million acres of subsurface 
mineral estate across the United States. BLM's mandate in the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires the agency to 
manage public domain lands for multiple uses, but numerous 
court cases have affirmed that not all uses are suitable, or 
need to be considered, for all multiple-use lands.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See generally Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Zinke, 877 F.3d 845 (9th 
Cir. 2017) and references therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM's Resource Management Plans (RMPs) serve as region-
specific blueprints for land use planning. The Rio Puerco RMP 
in development will review and update BLM's management of 
public lands in Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, Sandoval, 
Torrance, and Valencia counties of central New Mexico. When 
approved, the RMP will replace the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP and its 
1992 amendments and will provide updated management decisions 
for a variety of uses and resources in the area for 15 to 20 
years.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Rio Puerco Resource Management Plan, BLM, https://www.blm.gov/
programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/new-mexico/rio-puerco-
rmp (last visited on Sept. 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2012, the Rio Puerco BLM Field Office released its Draft 
RMP.\3\ In the draft plan, BLM proposed allowing additional 
mineral development, including gravel mining, on the Buffalo 
Tract--named for the shape of the northwestern parcel--in 
southern Sandoval County.\4\ This area of Sandoval County 
already has six gravel mines, four of them being among New 
Mexico's largest.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Available at BLM National NEPA Register, BLM, https://
eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/64954/570 (last updated on July 
16, 2020).
    \4\ See 1 BLM, Rio Puerco Resource Management Draft Plan & 
Environmental Impact Statement (2012), https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-
front-office/projects/lup/64954/78493/89458/RPFO-Vol1_Draft_RMP.pdf.
    \5\See GIS, Maps and Mine Data, N.M. Energy, Mins. & Nat. Res. 
Dep't (EMNRD), http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/MMD/gismapminedata.html 
(last visited on Sept. 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since the release of the draft plan, residents have 
expressed deep concerns about the impacts to public health, 
cultural heritage, and wildlife that could result from 
additional gravel mining near their community.
    The community is already disproportionately burdened by 
this intense concentration of mines. The separate and 
cumulative adverse impacts of gravel mining have had negative 
effects on economic development as well as public health. 
Another mine on the Buffalo Tract would not only exacerbate 
these impacts but also irreparably damage cultural heritage and 
a key wildlife corridor between the Sandia Mountain Range and 
the Sangre de Cristo Mountains.
    The population of the region has grown significantly since 
the 1992 RMP amendments. The population in the region covered 
by the Rio Puerco Field Office has doubled since 1992 from 
500,000 to 1,000,000. In Placitas, New Mexico, an 
unincorporated area of Sandoval County immediately adjacent to 
the proposed mineral development, the population has grown from 
less than 1,000 in 1980 to more than 5,000.\6\ Placitas is a 
retirement community of seniors who moved to the region for its 
beauty and clean air. Gravel mining generates large amounts of 
particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) that 
pose significant health risks. New Mexico Environment 
Department (NMED) particulate monitoring in 2016-17 showed 
Placitas as the only ``orange dot,'' indicating unhealthy air 
quality for sensitive groups, on the state map.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Sandoval Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, Placitas Area Plan 10 (2009), 
http://www.sandovalcountynm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/
papfinal.pdf.
    \7\See generally Envista--Air Resources Manager, NMED, http://
nmaqinow.net/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sandoval County, the Town of Bernalillo, the Merced De 
Comunidad De San Antonio De Las Huertas, the Pueblo of San 
Felipe, the Pueblo of Santa Ana, and Placitas residents are all 
opposed to gravel mining at this location.
    H.R. 2640 seeks to address the concerns of the community 
immediately affected by the proposed mines by withdrawing four 
parcels of land near Placitas from mineral development. This 
bill maintains the authority of BLM to sell, lease, or exchange 
the surface rights to the parcels, and ensures that if rights 
are sold, leased, or exchanged, the mineral rights will remain 
withdrawn from development.
    Opponents of the bill suggest that it is not in the 
country's interest to put resources off-limits in perpetuity. 
However, some areas are suitable for mining, while others are 
not. As residential development in Placitas has grown, gravel 
mining has become increasingly incompatible with the area's 
character and zoning restrictions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\See, e.g., Letter from Sandoval Bd. Of Cnty. Comm'rs, to Alan 
Lowenthal, Chair, Subcomm. on Energy & Mineral Res., Paul Gosar, 
Ranking Member, Subcomm. on Energy & Mineral Res. (Aug. 22, 2019), 
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20190919/109957/HHRG-116-II06-
20190919-SD005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While sand and gravel are important resources to 
infrastructure and construction, BLM's own mineral resource 
studies indicate that there are ample gravel supplies from 
existing mines in the area that could be used for decades of 
regional development.\9\ There are other potential sites for 
new gravel mines elsewhere in Sandoval and neighboring 
counties, away from wildlife corridors and at a safe distance 
from population centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\INTERA, Inc. (prepared for BLM Rio Puerco Field Off.), Mineral 
Resource Potential and Reasonably Foreseeable Development for Planning 
Units 1-5 (2010), https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/64954/
78492/89454/Mineral_Resource_Potential_and_
Reasonably_Foreseeable_Development_Report_01-11-10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Opponents also cite job creation and other economic 
benefits of additional gravel mines as a reason to oppose this 
legislation. Sandoval County maintains it would stand to lose 
more tax revenue than it would gain with new mineral 
development.\10\ Minerals are not taxed at the point of origin, 
but at the point of sale, and most gravel would likely be sold 
outside the county. Residents and leaders have strong concerns 
about public health, heritage, and wildlife--concerns that 
could be costly and deter people from moving into the growing 
community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Letter, supra note 8, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The local advocates for the bill claim they have been 
deceived by mining companies before regarding lease extensions 
and argue that legislation is the only way to bring certainty 
to the affected and at-risk communities in Sandoval County. The 
Committee agrees.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 2640 was introduced on May 9, 2019, by Representative 
Deb Haaland (D-NM). The bill was referred solely to the 
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. On September 19, 
2019, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On January 
15, 2020, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the 
bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. 
Rep. Haaland offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, which was agreed to by voice vote. The bill, as 
amended, was adopted and ordered favorably reported to the 
House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 20 yeas and 13 
nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                HEARINGS

    For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the 
116th Congress--the following hearing was used to develop or 
consider H.R. 2640: legislative hearing by the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Mineral Resources held on September 19, 2019.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

      COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the 
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, June 4, 2020.
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2640, the Buffalo 
Tract Protection Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Janani 
Shankaran.
            Sincerely,
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Bill summary: H.R. 2640 would withdraw roughly 4,300 acres 
of federal land in New Mexico from entry under hardrock mining 
laws, disposal under mineral materials laws, and from mineral 
and geothermal leasing, subject to valid existing rights. That 
is, the bill would not allow new extraction of materials from 
that land, which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM).
    Estimated Federal cost: The costs of the legislation fall 
within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).
    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
legislation will be enacted in 2020.
    Background: Businesses interested in extracting materials, 
including sand, gravel, crushed rock, and other materials 
typically used in construction, from land managed by BLM may 
execute contracts with the agency for disposal of those 
materials. Under those contracts, operators pay BLM the in-
place value, a royalty equal to the value of the material in 
the ground before it is extracted, as determined by an analysis 
of its fair market value. Those payments are classified in the 
budget as offsetting receipts, or reductions in direct 
spending. Counties where any such production is located receive 
5 percent of those receipts. In 2018, BLM collected roughly $2 
million in gross receipts from mineral materials produced in 
New Mexico, mostly from calcium.
    The agency also issues free-use permits to government 
entities and nonprofit organizations for the extraction of 
mineral materials; however, such permits do not generate any 
income to the federal government.
    Using information from BLM, CBO expects that the affected 
land has high potential for sand and gravel extraction and 
minimal potential, if any, for extraction of all other 
minerals. According to the agency, the affected land contains 
an estimated 36 million cubic yards of sand and gravel. Based 
on the typical timeframe for processing expressions of interest 
and contracts, we expect that production of those materials 
could commence in 2024.
    In recent years, operators on BLM land in New Mexico have 
produced, on average, 370,000 cubic yards annually of sand and 
gravel.\1\ CBO estimates that annual production on the affected 
land will average between 60 percent and 80 percent of that 
amount. Using information from BLM, and based on the in-place 
values for sand and gravel in recent years, we estimate that 
the federal government will collect about $1.50 per cubic yard 
in royalties. That amount is equal to roughly 10 percent of the 
market value of processed sand and gravel. Gross receipts will 
total less than $3 million under current law, CBO estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See Bureau of Land Management, Public Land Statistics (issues 
2014 to 2018), accessed February 12, 2020, www.blm.gov/about/data/
public-land-statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Direct spending: CBO has no basis to estimate whether or 
how many contracts BLM would execute for the affected land. In 
the absence of specific information, CBO uses a 50 percent 
probability that such contracts will be executed under current 
law. On that basis, and accounting for payments to counties of 
5 percent, we estimate that net federal receipts from sand and 
gravel production on the affected land will total $1 million 
over the 2020-2030 period. Under the bill, the federal 
government would forgo those receipts. Thus, CBO estimates that 
enacting H.R. 2640 would increase direct spending by $1 million 
over the 2020-2030 period.
    Spending subject to appropriation: Based on the costs of 
similar activities, CBO estimates that any administrative costs 
incurred by BLM to implement the withdrawal would be 
insignificant; any spending would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    Uncertainty: The amount the government will collect from 
mineral materials contracts in the proposed withdrawal area is 
uncertain and could be higher or lower than CBO estimates. 
Specifically, CBO cannot predict with certainty whether or when 
BLM will execute such contracts. CBO also cannot foresee with 
certainty the volume or value of sand and gravel production on 
the affected land.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those 
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 1.

    TABLE 1.--CBO's ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS OF H.R. 2640, THE BUFFALO TRACT PROTECTION ACT, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE
                                                   COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ON JANUARY 15, 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2020   2021   2022   2023   2024   2025   2026   2027   2028   2029   2030  2020-2025  2020-2030
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Net Increase in the Deficit
 
Pay-As-You-Go Effect.................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0         0          1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increase in long-term deficits: CBO estimates that enacting 
H.R. 2640 would not increase on-budget deficits by more than $5 
billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods 
beginning in 2031.
    Mandates: None.
    Previous CBO estimate: On February 19, 2020, CBO 
transmitted a cost estimate for S. 526, the Buffalo Tract 
Protection Act, as reported by the Senate Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources on December 17, 2019. The two pieces of 
legislation are similar, and CBO's estimates of their budgetary 
effects are the same.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Janani Shankaran; 
Mandates: Andrew Laughlin.
    Estimate reviewed by: Kim P. Cawley, Chief, Natural and 
Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, 
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goals and 
objectives of this bill are to withdraw four specified parcels 
of Bureau of Land Management land near Placitas, New Mexico, 
from all forms of mineral development under all laws pertaining 
to mineral leasing or mineral materials, including locatable 
minerals.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                           EXISTING PROGRAMS

    This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of 
the federal government known to be duplicative of another 
program.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

               PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

    Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or 
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's 
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the 
U.S. Constitution.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing 
law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    H.R. 2640 will withdrawal four parcels of Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) lands totaling almost 4,200 acres near 
Placitas, New Mexico, from mineral development, including 
gravel mining.\1\ If enacted, this legislation would prevent 
access to aggregates such as sand and gravel in a growing 
community near Albuquerque in perpetuity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Statement of Michael Nedd, Deputy Director for Operations, 
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, before the 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on 
Public Lands, Forests, & Mining regarding S. 526, the Buffalo Tract 
Protection Act. May 14, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Saleable materials are critical for all building and 
construction projects. In 2018, industrial materials production 
including sand, gravel, and crushed stone had a total value of 
$56.3 billion, a 7% increase from 2017.\2\ These materials have 
low unit prices, yet their weight causes transportation costs 
to run very high. For this reason, an adequate local supply of 
these materials is critical for meeting the infrastructure and 
economic development needs of any community. BLM makes these 
materials available to the public and local governmental 
agencies whenever possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\United States Geological Survey, ``Mineral Commodities Summaries 
2019,'' February 28, 2019. https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/
assets/palladium/production/atoms/files/mcs2019_all.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the legislation acknowledges the valid and existing 
rights of current gravel mines in the area, there could be 
significant indirect and opportunity costs if the proposed 
withdrawal were to be implemented. The estimated 36 million 
cubic yards of sand and gravel in the withdrawal area could 
result in significant loss to the local community and the 
nation.\3\ Further, in the next 25-30 years, the population of 
the Albuquerque metro area (including Placitas) is estimated to 
almost double, creating increased demand for new infrastructure 
and other construction projects.\4\ According to the Department 
of the Interior, ``[f]ederal minerals will play an important 
role in providing materials to meet the future population 
demands for infrastructure in the area.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Statement of Michael Nedd, Deputy Director for Operations, 
Bureau of Land Management, before the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources. May 14, 2019.
    \4\Statement of Michael Nedd, Deputy Director for Operations, 
Bureau of Land Management, before the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources. May 14, 2019.
    \5\Statement of Michael Nedd, Deputy Director for Operations, 
Bureau of Land Management, before the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources. May 14, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New infrastructure, buildings and public works projects 
could become very costly if building materials need to be 
sourced from other locations around the country to replace the 
resources made off limits by this bill. Further, increased 
transportation of resources into the region would yield 
increased emissions, which could be avoided by local sourcing. 
Additionally, BLM, other government agencies, and non-profit 
organizations would no longer be able to receive free use 
permits for the sand and gravel to maintain roads and trails in 
the area.
    Furthermore, this bill would circumvent the established 
regulatory process for determining the appropriate usage of 
publicly-owned lands by making these parcels off limits to 
development in perpetuity. According to testimony provided by 
BLM during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources on May 14, 2019, ``the BLM is in the process 
of finalizing the Resource Management Plan (RMP) with the 
associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for public 
lands in six counties of central New Mexico, which include the 
tracts affected by the legislation.'' While concerns have been 
raised regarding the impact of a new gravel mine on nearby 
property values, it should also be noted that the community has 
seen healthy growth over the past two decades\6\ coexisting 
with active mines. Any local concerns regarding the effect of a 
new gravel mine on property values and continued population 
growth can be expressed through the many opportunities for 
public engagement in the environmental review process for the 
forthcoming RMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Eastern Sandoval Citizens association & Las Placitas 
Association, ``Land of Enchantment . . . or Gravel?'' September 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the markup of H.R. 2640, the bill sponsor discussed 
ongoing negotiations at the local level to build consensus on a 
future management plan that protects responsible development 
and meets the needs of all stakeholders. The sponsor further 
stated that if such an agreement is reached, the legislation 
could become unnecessary. Specifically, Congresswoman Haaland 
stated, ``If the company conducts a good faith outreach effort 
and reaches an agreement with the community, that would be 
great, and this bill might not need to become law.'' Republican 
Members support ongoing discussions at the local level and 
through public comment as the BLM finalizes the RMP. In the 
meantime, Republicans oppose further action on H.R. 2640.

    Finally, it should be noted that the title of this 
legislation, the ``Buffalo Tract Protection Act,'' is 
misleading, as mining in the region poses no threat to buffalo 
populations. In fact, the withdrawal area is merely in the 
shape of a buffalo. There are no actual buffalo impacted by 
this legislation.
    For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 2640.

                                   Rob Bishop (UT).
                                   Louie Gohmert.
                                   Tom McClintock.

                                  [all]