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


                      H.R. 3397, TO REQUIRE THE DIRECTOR OF 
                          THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TO 
                          WITHDRAW A RULE OF THE BUREAU OF                          
                              LAND MANAGEMENT RELATING TO 
                          CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE HEALTH

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

                           LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        Thursday, June 15, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-40

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov          
          
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-531 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
         
                  COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

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

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

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

                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, June 15, 2023..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     1
    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     3

    Panel I:

    Curtis, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Utah..............................................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     5

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Noem, Hon. Kristi, Governor, South Dakota....................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     9

    Gordon, Hon. Mark, Governor, Wyoming.........................    13
        Prepared statement of....................................    14

    Panel III:

    Culver, Hon. Nada Wolff, Principal Deputy Director, Bureau of 
      Land Management, Washington, DC............................    51
        Prepared statement of....................................    53
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    57
    Chandler-Henry, Kathy, Board Chair, Eagle County Board of 
      Commissioners, Eagle, Colorado.............................    63
        Prepared statement of....................................    64
    Sgamma, Kathleen, President, Western Energy Alliance, Denver, 
      Colorado...................................................    66
        Prepared statement of....................................    67

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        Proposed Bureau of Land Management Rule..................    28

        Arizona Cattle Growers Association, letter to the 
          Committee..............................................   101
        Various stakeholders from the grazing industry, letter to 
          BLM dated June 6, 2023.................................   104
        Various multiple-use groups, letter to BLM dated June 7, 
          2023...................................................   107
        American Exploration & Mining Association, letter to the 
          Committee dated June 15, 2023..........................   109
        Multiple farm bureaus, letter to Rep. Curtis dated June 
          14, 2023...............................................   117
        American Forest Resource Council, letter to Rep. Curtis 
          dated June 13, 2023....................................   118
        American Exploration & Production Council, letter to the 
          Committee dated June 15, 2023..........................   119
        Various Mining Coalitions, letter to the Committee dated 
          June 15, 2023..........................................   120
        Council of Alaska Producers, letter to the Committee 
          dated June 14, 2023....................................   122
        Independent Petroleum Association of America, letter to 
          the Committee dated June 15, 2023......................   123
        National Sand, Stone & Gravel Association, letter to the 
          Committee dated May 24, 2023...........................   124
        Resource Development Council, letter to the Committee 
          dated June 15, 2023....................................   125
        Women's Mining Coalition, letter to BLM..................   126
        Solar Energy Industries Association, Statement for the 
          Record.................................................   142
        Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, letter to BLM dated June 
          15, 2023...............................................   143
        American Forest Resource Council, letter to BLM dated 
          June 23, 2023..........................................   146

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Fulcher

        Idaho Delegation, letter to BLM dated May 11, 2023.......    77
        Western Governors, letter to DOI dated June 14, 2023.....   162

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Curtis

        Various Recreation Associations, letter to Committee 
          dated June 20, 2023....................................   167

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Hageman/Stauber

        Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, letter 
          to DOI dated June 13, 2023.............................    38

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva/Huffman

        California Natural Resources Agency, letter to Committee 
          dated June 13, 2023....................................    22

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

        Letter from Congress to DOI dated February 15, 2023......    88

        Letter from Congress to DOI dated June 12, 2023..........    90
                                     


 
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3397, TO REQUIRE THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF.
  LAND MANAGEMENT TO WITHDRAW A RULE OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
             RELATING TO CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE HEALTH

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, June 15, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m., Room 
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce Westerman 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Westerman, Lamborn, Wittman, 
Gosar, Graves, LaMalfa, Gonzalez-Colon, Fulcher, Stauber, 
Curtis, Tiffany, Rosendale, Boebert, Bentz, Collins, Duarte, 
Hageman; Grijalva, Huffman, Gallego, Leger Fernandez, 
Stansbury, Peltola, Hoyle, and Kamlager-Dove.
    Also present: Representative Johnson.

    The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come 
to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Committee at any time.
    The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on 
Representative Curtis' bill, H.R. 3397, to require the director 
of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw a rule of the 
Bureau of Land Management relating to conservation and 
landscape health.
    I ask unanimous consent that Representative Dusty Johnson 
of South Dakota be allowed to participate in today's hearing 
from the dais.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    The Chairman. Again, good morning, everyone. It is a little 
bit earlier starting time, but hopefully we will get out of DC 
a little bit earlier today, and we wanted to have plenty of 
time for the hearing.
    We are here today to consider H.R. 3397, which would 
require the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw its proposed 
so-called Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. In short, 
this rule would devastate rural economies across the West under 
the guise of conservation. The rule would only further this 
Administration's radical preservationist agenda.
    More than half of the U.S. population lives within 100 
miles of BLM land. Thousands of rural economies depend on 
access to BLM lands for energy and mineral development, outdoor 
recreation, timber production, grazing, and more. These 
activities are all part of the BLM's multiple-use and 
sustained-yield mandate, which create hundreds of millions of 
dollars in economic output, and sustain over 783,000 jobs.
    Now, the BLM is threatening to upend its multiple-use 
mandate and the Western way of life. The rule would broadly 
allow the BLM to lease lands under new and vaguely defined 
conservation leases, incorporate new standards when evaluating 
traditional multiple-use decisions, and expedite designations 
of new areas of critical environmental concern.
    One of the greatest concerns is how the rule would 
fundamentally change the way BLM carries out its multiple-use 
and sustained-yield mandates by elevating conservation as a use 
within the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, also 
known as FLPMA, thereby bypassing congressional authority. BLM 
would pursue this through so-called 10-year conservation leases 
to address restoration of degraded landscapes.
    And one of the main problems with this is BLM seems to 
think preservation is the same as conservation, and it is 
certainly not. This type of playbook is not new for the Biden 
administration. No amount of clever naming schemes will 
disguise the fact that their policies are quite simply 
atrocious. You might recall the 30x30 Initiative, which was 
quickly rebranded as the America the Beautiful Initiative. We 
aren't fooled by Trojan Horses.
    The BLM's proposed conservation rule is anything but, and 
it fails to even define what exactly would be considered 
conservation or permissible under a conservation lease. While 
the definition goes so far as to say it will not prevent non-
commercial activities, this is in itself limiting, because many 
members of the public access Federal lands through commercial 
outfitting and guiding services, which would, by definition, be 
excluded. As a lifelong hunter and fisherman myself, I am 
deeply concerned that this will have devastating effects on the 
outdoor recreation economy, which heavily depends upon 
outfitters and guides.
    The rule also states that, ``Lands could be temporarily 
closed to public access,'' yet remains silent on how long these 
closures could last, meaning that the American people could be 
blocked from accessing an area under a conservation lease for 
the majority or entirety of the lease's 10-year term.
    Our Committee's members and staff have repeatedly asked the 
BLM these and many other questions, yet the agency has failed 
to give us any clear answers on how they will implement this 
rule. We have held three hearings in the past 2 months where 
Members have been able to engage with agency officials on the 
rule, including DOI Secretary Deb Haaland, and the BLM 
Director, Tracy Stone-Manning. Witnesses have shared their 
opposition to the implementation of this rule, and Members on 
both sides of the aisle have expressed their concern.
    The BLM itself has only held three in-person listening 
sessions on the rule in densely populated cities: Denver, 
Albuquerque, and Reno. These areas do not adequately represent 
the impacted communities. The agency also failed to respond to 
a letter I sent with 13 of my colleagues asking them to extend 
the comment period on this rule and hold more in-person 
listening sessions.
    This is why we are advancing H.R. 3397, which would require 
the BLM Director to withdraw this devastating rule, and would 
prevent the BLM from issuing a substantially similar rule in 
the future. I look forward to hearing our witnesses' testimony 
and discussion today on why this legislation is so critical to 
push back on over-reaching regulations. American citizens in 
rural areas across the West deserve better than the BLM's hard-
fisted bureaucracy.
    I would particularly like to thank Governor Kristi Noem, 
who is no stranger to this hearing room, having served on the 
Committee before, she is now the Governor of South Dakota, as 
we all know, and Governor Mark Gordon of Wyoming for traveling 
to DC today to testify on this important subject. And it is 
great to hear from the real world, where these policies will 
have devastating impacts. And I look forward to hearing the 
testimony of the governors.
    With that, I yield back my time and now recognize Ranking 
Member Grijalva for his opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Chairman Westerman. I 
appreciate the opportunity to talk about BLM's newly-proposed 
public lands rule, Even if I don't appreciate the context in 
which the discussion is happening.
    The proposed rule is long overdue. It is a long-overdue 
update to how we manage our public lands. As laid out by the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, FLPMA, BLM has a 
mandate to manage our public lands for multiple uses in a way 
that will ``best meet the present and future needs of the 
American people.'' To meet the needs of our future, there is no 
question that conservation must be part of that multiple-use 
equation.
    Unfortunately, however, conservation has historically taken 
a back seat to all other uses, including mining, oil and gas 
extraction, and even grazing. These other land uses have long-
standing agency systems and protocols that provide access and 
set forth consistent guidelines and expectation. Conservation 
does not. So, it is important to see the Biden administration 
finally putting conservation on an equal footing and seeking 
balance.
    The proposed rule establishes a framework to promote 
restoration, provide for responsible development, and conserve 
intact, healthy landscapes.
    As it stands now, over 90 percent of BLM lands are open to 
commercial development. The new rule won't change that at all. 
But public lands are not just a backdrop for oil rigs and 
mining pits. They include incredible natural places where 
Americans hike, fish, camp, bike, or seek respite.
    Many of the agency's crown jewels are found on the 35 
million acres of national conservation lands, places like Bears 
Ears National Monument in Utah and the Sonoran Desert National 
Monument in my home state. Considering these special places is 
not a radical idea, it is what the American people want.
    Year after year, the Colorado College State of the Rockies 
Poll shows a broad majority support increased conservation.
    It is also important to point out that BLM is responsible 
for managing a countless array of cultural and archeological 
resources. That is exactly why tribal communities throughout 
the country have been calling on lawmakers to support 
conservation of their ancestral homelands. It is way past time 
that we start listening.
    The proposed rule does just that by creating a critical 
opportunity for BLM to incorporate feedback from tribes and 
elevate the role of Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge 
into the planning.
    And finally, I will point out that the Biden administration 
has committed to the permitting of 25 gigawatts of renewable 
energy on public lands by 2025. The proposed public land rule 
complements that effort by creating a new mechanism for 
mitigation to occur on public lands. Simply put, the proposed 
rule will help BLM finally establish the balance that will best 
meet our present and future needs.
    Repealing this rule only endorses a status quo of imbalance 
and unsustainability, the burden which our future generations 
will be forced to bear.
    I look forward to our discussion today. I welcome our 
distinguished guests to the Committee.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Grijalva. We will 
now move on to our first panel, which consists of 
Representative John Curtis of Utah, who is the bill's sponsor.
    I now recognize Representative Curtis to testify for 5 
minutes on H.R. 3397.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN R. CURTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing. Thank you to our distinguished witnesses for being 
here.
    I am sitting here, and having a hard time, literally, 
having my head not explode.
    There is one Member across the aisle at this hearing at the 
beginning and two total at this hearing now. This is the same 
reflection of those in the East Coast who would like to come to 
us in the West and tell us how to manage our lands, and what is 
good and bad.
    Let me state clearly for the record that for decades, and 
decades, and decades, the good people of Utah have managed 
these lands in a responsible way, far better, Mr. Ranking 
Member, than since the Bears Ears Monument designation. Nothing 
good has come out of that designation for the land in Utah, for 
the local tribes, and for the people who participate in this 
land. And now we have bureaucrats on the East Coast who have 
never been to my district, who have hardly been to the West, 
other than to fly over it on their way to California, tell us 
that they know better than we do how to manage these lands. 
That is simply not true based on any fact.
    If you come to see these lands, how we have managed them, 
how we have protected them, how we have taken care of them, how 
we have balanced recreation with agriculture, with extraction, 
with the many beauties in this area, first of all, I would like 
to go on the record of saying that in the West we know far 
better how to manage these lands, and have done better for 
decades and decades, than any bureaucrat in the East Coast 
could ever imagine or ever dream of managing these lands.
    The bulk of my district is over 90 percent Federal lands. 
Think about that for just a minute. Ninety percent of my 
district doesn't get property tax, doesn't have the ability to 
manage their own fate. Ninety percent. Our state is 60 percent. 
And I know our two witnesses have similar percentages in their 
state. Yet, people from the East who have never been there, 
want to tell us how to manage these lands and what we can do 
with these lands.
    And once again, I will say that for decades, and decades, 
and decades, the best environmentalists in the world--by the 
way, they hate to be called environmentalists, our farmers and 
ranchers are the best environmentalists in the world--have been 
taking care of and preserving and protecting these lands.
    This rule undermines the work of real conservatives, 
conservationists like farmers and ranchers who have kept the 
land in good health. It will increase the likelihood of 
wildfires. Poor management of these lands will increase the 
likelihood of fires. It will increase our food shortages and 
our energy shortages. None of these things are good for the 
people of the United States, let alone the people of the West.
    The repeal of this designation is critical to proper 
management of these lands. And I would like to thank our 
Chairman and our witnesses again and my colleagues for being 
here. And I hope that, through the course of this hearing 
today, we will understand truly how to best manage these lands, 
preserve, take care of our beautiful resources in the West.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.

    [The prepared statement of Representative Curtis follows:]

  Prepared Statement of the Hon. John R. Curtis, a Representative in 
                    Congress from the State of Utah
                              on H.R. 3397

    H.R. 3397--To require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management 
to withdraw a rule of the Bureau of Land Management relating to 
conservation and landscape health.

     The Biden Administration's rule undermines the Federal 
            Land Policy and Management Act's (FLPMA) multiple-use 
            requirement for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, 
            hindering access to public lands for energy and critical 
            mineral development, grazing, forest management, and 
            recreation.

     More than 90% of BLM's 245 million acres are located in 
            the Western United States, and the rule would 
            disproportionally impact Western recreationalists, ranchers 
            and mineral producers.

          + And a lot of that land is located in Utah.

     This rule undermines the work of real conservationists, 
            like farmers and ranchers who have kept the land in good 
            health for generations.

     It would create increased risk for wildfires as lands 
            prone to disaster would be locked up and not properly 
            managed.

     It would also hinder American energy independence by 
            making it harder to produce oil, gas and coal while also 
            making it more difficult to site and build renewable energy 
            facilities.

     Utahans are proud of our land and want to share with 
            recreationalists who come from all over the world to enjoy 
            it. Under this rule, multiple use opportunities for 
            recreationalists shrink drastically.

     Americans all over the country will feel the impact of 
            this rule if implemented. Food costs will rise as the rule 
            will impact grazing. Already too high energy prices will be 
            further impacted as land used for critical energy 
            development will be locked up.

     The rule would lock up lands through new ``conservation 
            leases'' and by the identification of intact landscapes 
            through the BLM's Resource Management Plan process.

     The rule is a land grab disguised as a 30 x 30 
            accomplishment and must be revoked.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Representative Curtis. We will now 
move to our second panel of witnesses.

    And Governor Gordon, Governor Noem, again, welcome, and I 
will just remind you that, under Committee Rules, you must 
limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but your entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.

    And to begin your testimony, just press the ``on'' button 
on the microphone.
    We do use timing lights. When you begin, the light will 
turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red. I 
will ask you to please complete your statement if you haven't 
done so by that time.

    I would now like to introduce Representative Dusty Johnson 
from the great state of South Dakota to introduce our first 
witness.

    Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I think we all know a lot of 
politicians who will be whatever you want them to be. And if 
the political winds change, they will just change who they are 
just that quickly. And that is not Kristi Noem. I have known 
her for a long time, and I have seen her act, and I have seen 
her step forward and make decisions. And time and time again, I 
have seen her make decisions not on the basis of what would 
increase her political comfort, but what would better serve her 
oath of office. And you guys understand the paradox of that. 
Often when you make those tough decisions, they end up becoming 
the popular thing. And in that way she has led public opinion, 
in that way she has made great decisions for our state, in that 
way she has been a great leader.

    So, thank you to the Committee for letting me show up as an 
off-Committee member, just to show up and brag by saying this, 
and I am the only Member of Congress who can say this, that is 
Kristi Noem, and she is my governor.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. KRISTI NOEM, GOVERNOR, SOUTH DAKOTA

    Governor Noem. Thank you, Congressman Johnson. It is an 
honor to be here. I was ready for some kind of a joke or 
something I had to respond to, but thank you very much for that 
kind introduction. I have enjoyed watching you serve in the 
seat that represents South Dakota here, and you have done so 
with distinguished honor. So, I appreciate all of your service 
to our state and our people. Thank you.
    Good morning, Chairman Westerman, and Ranking Member 
Grijalva, and the members of the Committee. It is my honor to 
be with all of you today. In fact, my former Chief of Staff 
just gave me my old nameplate from this Committee, when I had 
the chance to serve with all of you, which is incredibly 
special to me. I would put it up here today and use it, except 
for I don't get the chance to sit where you sit today. This is 
not a decision that I will get the chance to make. This is 
something that has congressional authority, and you need to act 
in order to protect our people and to protect our freedom.
    Today, I sit in front of you as a governor and as a former 
farmer and rancher, and someone who recognizes the deep 
devastation that if this proposed rule should go forward, how 
hard it would be on our people, and what it means for our 
nation far into the future.
    I remember vividly my time serving here on this Committee, 
and I remember fondly working with many of you, who sat on this 
Committee with me as well during that time, and the good work 
we were able to do in preserving our natural resources.
    Today, as the current governor of the great state of South 
Dakota, I want to direct my comments specifically to a piece of 
legislation that you are debating and considering: H.R. 3397. 
This legislation would require the Director of the Bureau of 
Land Management to withdraw a rule relating to conservation and 
landscape health.
    This rule is just one of many that highlights an example of 
over-reaching, unelected bureaucracy attempting to perpetuate 
radical environmental policies that ignore common sense. They 
ignore stewardship practices that have been practiced on our 
land for generations while allowing multiple uses of this 
precious resource to strengthen America and our people. We have 
been doing that for many, many years.
    In my written testimony, which I have submitted today to 
you, Mr. Chairman, I list several specific reasons why this 
rule would be so devastating for our people in South Dakota and 
for our economy, why I think it is impossible for them to move 
forward with this, and to responsibly conserve our land. I 
encourage all of you to read that written testimony. It goes 
into much more detail.
    In addition to my testimony today, I have joined a letter 
with other governors, with governors of Utah, Idaho, Montana, 
Nevada, and my friend sitting here with me today, Governor Mark 
Gordon of Wyoming. He is a voice, and they all voiced concerns 
with the Biden administration directly on this proposed rule.
    Like many of you, land conservation for our family isn't 
just a theory. It is the way that we have lived for many, many 
generations. I was raised by a dad who often reminded me, 
``Kristi, we don't sell land because God is not making any more 
land.'' From the time I was a young girl, I listened to him 
talk about soil types, I listened to him talk about the 
importance of native ground, conservation practices, and 
management decisions.
    I learned the scientific data and the research of what it 
took to operate on that land and to protect it, but I also 
learned why he cared so much. Because working the land wasn't 
just a job or a career to my father, it was our family legacy, 
it was our way of life. It was a culture that not only 
preserves a critical work ethic that is so important to this 
country, but it also reminded us daily of the natural resources 
that were a gift from God.
    As I grew older, I learned more about the importance of 
keeping all areas of our country productive. To help stabilize 
the economy, every part of our nation needs to produce, and 
that would help us during very difficult economic times.
    I also learned how critical it was to be energy 
independent, how important it was to protect our nation's food 
supply, and to produce our own food.
    When I was elected governor, I selected a fellow rancher as 
my lieutenant governor. His name is Larry Rhoden. To our 
knowledge, we are the only governor and lieutenant governor in 
the history of the nation that both spent our lives making a 
living from agriculture. We are very proud of that, and we 
understand as well as anyone that our farmers and our ranchers 
care about our land. They are stewards. We care about 
preserving it to pass it on to our kids and to our grandkids.
    My experience in business and in public office and national 
security issues has reaffirmed my belief that our enemies and 
those who hate the United States of America may never need to 
fire a shot to take us over. They may not need to. We are going 
to be surrendering our freedom by becoming more dependent on 
them for our critical needs: for gas, oil, food, medicine, and 
more. When a country controls our food supply and our energy 
supply, they will control us, and American freedom will be 
gone. We cannot allow rules like this to move forward in a way 
that stops productivity and it stops American independence.
    Nearly 98 percent of BLM surface lands in South Dakota are 
grazed by permittees. Grazing is an important conservation 
strategy in South Dakota. We also host 76 active producing oil 
and gas wells and 36,762 acres. These acres provide outdoor 
recreation opportunities, including hunting, fishing, hiking, 
camping, and more. And we must maintain public access in order 
for these lands to benefit both South Dakota residents and 
visitors.
    Mr. Chairman, I am smart, and I realize I am out of time, 
and you have a tight schedule, but I have much more I would 
like to share with the Committee today on what specifically is 
wrong with this rule and why it doesn't work, the redundancy in 
it, the unnecessary burden it creates, how it stops 
productivity. And the No. 1 concern for me is that conservation 
is already incredibly a part of every single management 
practice that happens on BLM land. To go out there and to 
create a mechanism such as a conservation lease that could be 
bought by third parties, not even necessarily by people in our 
own country, and give them access and authority over these 
lands, it is dangerous. It is not just dangerous to those that 
are out there working the land, it is dangerous to our economy, 
it is dangerous to our energy independence, to producing our 
own food supply. It is dangerous to America.
    Thank you so much, Representative Curtis, for bringing this 
piece of legislation.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Governor Noem follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Kristi Noem, Governor of South Dakota

Introduction

    Good morning, Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 
members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you 
all today. I recall vividly my tenure on this committee and remember 
fondly working with many of you on both sides of the aisle to achieve 
important priorities for the American people.
    Today, I come before you not as a committee member, but as a former 
colleague and current Governor of the great state of South Dakota. I 
would like to direct my comments this morning to the important piece of 
legislation the committee is considering--H.R. 3397. This legislation 
would require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 
withdraw a rule relating to conservation and landscape health.
    I stand with Representative John Curtis of Utah, the sponsor of 
H.R. 3397, and his fellow Representatives who are co-sponsoring the 
legislation.
    In addition to my testimony today, I have joined a letter with the 
Governors of Utah, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming to voice these 
concerns to the Biden Administration directly.
    There are several reasons why I believe this rule needs to be 
withdrawn immediately:
    The rule creates unnecessary redundancy in scope and practice.
    It fails to follow long-established NEPA requirements.
    The rule fails to properly balance the proposed definition of 
``conservation'' with the economic impact on South Dakotans and 
Americans.
    It also prioritizes conservation leases over other proven proper 
uses of public lands.
    The rule would limit the public's access to federal lands and deny 
them the ability to utilize and enjoy our landscapes and outdoor 
activities.
    It would also limit grazing on public lands. This would be 
devastating to our producers, our economy, and our ability as a nation 
to produce our own domestic food supply--all while limiting a critical 
management practice.
    The rule would also negatively impact our ability to manage our 
forests responsibly to the benefit of our land, wildlife, public 
safety, and economy.
    This rule is just one of many which highlights an example of an 
overreaching, unelected bureaucracy attempting to perpetuate radical 
environmental policies that ignore common sense stewardship practices 
that have protected our land for generations, while allowing multiple 
uses of this precious resource to strengthen America and our people.
    We have seen these types of actions before, such as in the Waters 
of the United States rule proposed by President Biden. We've also seen 
it in the 30x30 program that has now been deceptively rebranded as 
``America the Beautiful.'' But make no mistake, it is a land grab 
initiative purposely designed to make the federal government more 
powerful and to take more control over people's daily lives.
    My family has lived off the land for generations. I was raised by a 
dad who often reminded me, ``Don't sell land, Kristi. God isn't making 
any more land.''
    From the time I was a young girl, I listened to him talk about soil 
types, native ground, conservation practices, and management decisions. 
I learned the scientific data and research that was necessary to 
protect the land, but I also learned why he cared so much--because 
working the land wasn't just a job or a career to him. It is a family 
legacy, a way of life, and a culture that not only preserves a critical 
work ethic, but also reminds us daily of the natural resources that are 
such a gift to this country.
    As I grew older, I learned more about the importance of keeping all 
areas of our country productive to help stabilize our economy through 
difficult times. I also learned how critical it is that we continue to 
be energy independent and produce our own food supply.
    When I was elected Governor, I asked a fellow rancher, Larry 
Rhoden, to serve as my Lieutenant Governor. To our knowledge, we are 
the first Governor/Lieutenant Governor combination in our country's 
history that both primarily earned their living working in agriculture. 
We understand as well as anyone that our farmers and ranchers care 
about our land. We care about preserving it to pass on to our kids and 
grandkids.
    My experience in business, public office, and national security has 
reaffirmed my belief that our enemies and those who hate the United 
States of America may never choose to fire a weapon at us. They may not 
need to. We are surrendering our Freedom by becoming more dependent on 
them for our critical needs: gas, oil, food, medicine, and more. When a 
country controls our food supply or our energy supply, they will 
control us. And American Freedom will be gone. We cannot allow rules 
such as this one to move forward in a way that stops productivity and 
American independence.
Background

    Nearly 98% of all BLM surface lands in South Dakota are grazed by 
permittees. Grazing is a proven and effective conservation strategy in 
South Dakota and across much of the Great Plains and the Western United 
States. South Dakota also hosts 76 actively producing oil and gas 
leases that cover 36,762 acres. The acres managed by BLM in South 
Dakota provide outdoor recreation opportunities including hunting, 
fishing, hiking, camping, and others. Maintaining public access to 
those lands is of critical importance to South Dakota residents and 
visitors.
Unnecessary Redundancy to Existing Law

    The Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) 
requires that BLM manage public lands for multiple use and sustained 
yield. Multiple use requires a balanced use of diverse resources to 
meet the present and future needs of the American people. Conservation 
is a tool to ensure those resources are managed in a way that promotes 
resiliency to natural disturbance events and achieves sustainable use 
of those resources for the long-term.
    The proposed rule seeks to clarify that ``conservation is a use on 
par with other uses of the public lands under FLPMA's multiple-use, 
sustained-yield framework.'' Conservation is not a `use,' but an 
overarching objective in all other uses. This rule, as proposed, seats 
conservation as a competing use to those others listed, when it is 
already mandated by those other uses. The proposed rule is both 
unnecessary and redundant.
Compliance with NEPA

    The proposed rule will have a significant impact on the environment 
and should trigger an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). BLM has stated that the 
proposed rule is too broad and thus exempt from the NEPA process. I 
disagree with BLM's determination. If private Americans must follow 
NEPA, then so should the federal government.
Imbalance of Conservation versus Economic Needs

    This proposed rule overemphasizes conservation rather than the 
economic needs of the American people. Resources like minerals, mining, 
and fields for grazing are critically important for the continued 
success of our economy. But the proposed rule broadens the application 
of the fundamentals of land health from just public land grazing to all 
other renewable resource uses.
    The rule does not include an economic analysis evaluation. It also 
does not provide any data to indicate better outcomes for conservation 
practices if implemented. They claim that the rule does not have a 
``significant economic effect,'' or that it does not affect ``a 
significant number of small entities.'' BLM provides no support for 
this ridiculous claim. And they're declaring that it's not a ``major 
rule'' based on this analysis.
    The more I read the rule, the more offended I was.
    In addition, BLM should not eliminate the requirement to publish 
potential designations of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in 
the Federal Register. This provides states and other interested 
stakeholders time to consider the economic and environmental impacts to 
those areas prior to the public comment period.
Competition from Conservation Leases

    The ``. . . proposed rule would provide a framework for BLM to 
issue conservation leases on public lands for the purpose of pursuing 
ecosystem resilience through mitigation and restoration.'' As 
previously stated, creating a new use targeted solely at conservation 
creates unnecessary competition for the other approved uses. Rather 
than creating a new rule that proposes conservation as a use, BLM 
should follow its existing mandate to review all permits and lease 
applications to adhere to conservation guidelines and standards for use 
of public resources.
    Also, conservation leases can be bought up by outside groups that 
do not adhere to or embrace the mission of federal land use--even 
activist groups.
Maintain Public Access

    Public lands in South Dakota provide opportunities for hunting, 
fishing, hiking, camping, and other types of recreation. But the 
proposed rule says that ``. . . the purposes of a lease may require 
that limitations to public access be put in place in a given instance 
(for example, temporarily limiting public access to newly restored 
areas).'' That is simply unacceptable.
    Some tracts of BLM land in South Dakota are vast landscapes. BLM 
should not limit access to entire leased areas when only a fraction of 
a landscape is in a restorative state. Larger tracts of land offer 
better recreational opportunities by spreading pressure out, which is 
less likely to push big game away.
    South Dakota prioritizes our Walk-In Area hunting access program to 
enroll private lands that are adjacent to BLM lands. This creates 
larger blocks of land open to public hunting and increases access 
opportunities that might otherwise not be available from isolated BLM 
tracts.
    If a proposed lease must restrict access to any public lands for 
the purpose of restoration, public access must be addressed. There are 
currently BLM parcels in South Dakota and across the western US that 
are landlocked within private lands. Rather than implementing new ways 
to restrict access to BLM lands, BLM should put more time, funding, and 
efforts into accessing landlocked BLM lands.
Grazing Management

    As stated earlier, nearly all surface lands managed by BLM in South 
Dakota are grazed by permit or lease. Livestock grazing is an important 
management tool that grasslands have evolved with over millennia. 
Grazing aids in promoting biodiversity, keeps fire fuels low, and 
promotes a robust rural economy. Further, rotational grazing promotes a 
healthy ecosystem and is an important tool for conservation.
    In South Dakota, BLM tracts are comingled with private land and 
lands owned by the South Dakota Office of School and Public Lands 
(SDSPL). Because of the small and isolated nature of BLM lands in South 
Dakota, these are often comanaged as a unit and BLM lands are not 
separately fenced. As a result, critical infrastructure such as water 
sources, mineral supplement, interior fences for promoting sustainable 
grazing practices cannot be easily severed from the existing BLM, 
private, and SDSPL complexes. If this rule is implemented in a manner 
where the comingled nature of BLM is not accounted for, the 
implementation of this rule would result in hardship for the local 
landowners and the SDSPL to manage their lands adjacent to BLM lands.
    Additionally, severing these BLM lands from existing grazing 
management may result in less conservation because the lands are no 
longer managed on a landscape scale.
Forestry

    BLM manages over 34,000 acres of forestland in South Dakota. BLM 
should focus on using authorities already in place, such as a Good 
Neighbor Agreement, to manage these forests. South Dakota adheres to 
forestry best management practices. There is no need to create 
additional guidance for forest management activities to address 
conservation concerns.
Biden Administration Overreach

    This proposed rule reminds me of President Biden's failed effort to 
overregulate so-called ``Waters of the United States.'' His 
administration wanted to redefine the phrase ``navigable waters'' as 
described in the Constitution to regulate every drop of water and every 
inch of land from coast to coast. The Biden Administration stated 
publicly their desire to seize control of thirty percent of all land in 
the United States by the year 2030. These efforts are un-American and 
unconstitutional. The American people do not want an overburdensome 
federal government breathing down their neck when they seek to use 
their private property.
    Justice Alita and the Supreme Court made this abundantly clear in 
the recent Sackett opinion. The authority to regulate the environment 
is not a blank check to make up rules that take away liberty. This BLM 
rule, like the unconstitutional WOTUS rule, would take power away from 
the states and the people and give it to the federal government.
    It's not to say the federal government doesn't have a role in 
federal land management decisions, of course it does, but it should not 
restrict people's abilities to have access or utilize this natural 
resource while ignoring economic impact--or even conducting basic 
scientific research.
Conclusion

    In closing, I support H.R. 3397 because the rule BLM has proposed 
would be bad for the country. Moreover, the proposed rule opens the 
door for a mechanism to circumvent the NEPA process and not require an 
environmental impact study.
    Let me be clear, this is a land grab by a greedy government that 
wants more power and control and will even ignore its own laws to do 
so. Lastly, this rule would be devastating for our people in South 
Dakota and our economy. And it would make it impossible to responsibly 
conserve or utilize our land.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Governor. And we will have plenty 
of time for questions. We will get to delve into the details of 
your testimony even more.
    I now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, 
to introduce our second witness.
    You are recognized.

    Ms. Hageman. Yes, and it is so wonderful to see both of you 
today.
    There are a lot of differences between Washington, DC and 
Wyoming, but one of them is traffic.

    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Hageman. Maybe you have noticed that. I apologize for 
being a few minutes late. It is so wonderful to see both of you 
here today.

    Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to introduce from the great 
state of Wyoming, Governor Mark Gordon. Governor Gordon grew up 
on a family ranch in Wyoming, and understands firsthand the 
difficulties of dealing with over-burdensome Federal 
regulations in a landlocked state. He is an experienced public 
servant, having served as Wyoming State Treasurer from October 
2012 until January 2019, when he was sworn in as our governor.

    As our governor, he is here today to represent the 
interests of many frustrated farmers, ranchers, recreationists, 
and others who have been left out of the conversation on this 
so-called landscape health rule proposed by the BLM.

    I would add that this rule isn't about either conservation 
or landscape health, either one. It is about control. And I 
look forward to Governor Gordon's testimony in that regard.

    I ask those of you who consider this proposed rule to be a 
great conservation effort with minimal impacts to listen to his 
testimony. Governor Gordon knows Wyoming, and he understands 
the significance this proposed rule will have on Wyomingites 
and many others if we don't do anything about it.

    Thank you for being here today, Governor Gordon, and I 
yield back.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK GORDON, GOVERNOR, WYOMING

    Governor Gordon. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, 
Representative Hageman, it is wonderful to be here today. On 
behalf of the people of Wyoming, as a rancher, an outdoorsman, 
and a conservationist, let me thank you for this opportunity to 
share my support for H.R. 3397, Representative Curtis' bill, 
and my opposition to the Bureau of Land Management's proposed 
Conservation and Land Use Rule.
    More than 48 percent of Wyoming is Federal surface estate. 
The BLM's footprint in Wyoming is substantial, managing 
approximately 18.4 million acres of public land and 42.9 
million acres of Federal mineral estate. This equates to over 
29 percent of Wyoming's surface land, covering more than West 
Virginia.
    Wyoming's top three economic drivers: energy, tourism, and 
agriculture, all contribute meaningfully to conservation, in 
concert with the multiple-use principle of Federal law and 
BLM's existing rules. Wyoming routinely ranks first in the 
nation for gas production and second for oil production from 
onshore Federal minerals. In 2022, 7.5 million tourists visited 
the Equality State, spending $4.5 billion. Public land 
recreation contributes substantially to Wyoming's economy.
    Agriculture is our third-largest economic sector. Grazing 
on public lands is done under tight regulation and with 
dedication to stewardship of the land while supporting a 
domestic food supply. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, 
Wyoming ranchers are custodians of the public lands, and work 
well with agencies on grazing issues. I am proud that my ranch 
was recognized for excellence in range management by the 
Society for Range Management. It lies in core sage-grouse 
habitat.
    In 2014, my wife and I stood with eight others when we 
signed the first candidate conservation agreements with 
assurances with then-Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewel. And 
I remember what she said that day: ``We have going on here in 
Wyoming the most effective example of state and private 
landowners working in cooperation with multiple Federal 
agencies to protect these ecosystems in perpetuity.''
    Mr. Chairman, my point is not what we have done for 
conservation, but the fact that Wyoming ranchers, industries, 
and sportsmen are conservation-minded. And that is true 
throughout the West. In the words of Teddy Roosevelt, 
``Conservation means development as much as it does 
protection.'' Wyoming people have respected the importance of 
conservation from the early days of statehood, when we 
established the nation's first game and fish agency. Respecting 
private property rights, Wyoming was one of the first states to 
recognize and implement wildlife migration corridors. We have 
successfully managed the nation's largest population of greater 
sage-grouse, and that is because we have the best habitat.
    Simply put, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The best 
solution is to rescind this rule.
    In fact, I question the need to create a separate 
conservation category. The Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976 requires the full consideration of multiple uses of 
Federal lands as directed by Congress, not the whimsical 
inspiration of DC bureaucrats. Though the BLM has claimed that 
there are ``pressures to review FLPMA'' and ``fill in the 
gaps,'' that is not the Bureau's role. It is up to Congress to 
write the laws, not the executive branch to take them for a joy 
ride.
    This proposal wallpapers over a Federal management grab, 
which seeks to elevate conservation as a single use on BLM 
lands. It does so while simultaneously abrogating the BLM's 
responsibility to review decades of management practices across 
its 245 million acres, and without material stakeholder input. 
It pits productive uses of public land against conservation, a 
gross mischaracterization of the concept.
    Wyoming stands as an example of how grazing, energy 
development, and recreation are not mutually exclusive of 
conservation. Wildlife management, moreover, is the 
responsibility, and squarely within the authority and purview 
of the states, not the Federal Government. state agencies excel 
in the management of fish and wildlife species, yet this rule 
seeks to circumvent state authority, and doing so will throw a 
monkey wrench into collaborative conservation work that our 
citizens and state agencies do already with BLM offices.
    Let me say my administration values the relationship we 
have with Wyoming BLM staff, which is why it seems so 
boneheaded to spurn valuable, on-the-ground stakeholder 
knowledge and the ability to work with local partners to craft 
a useful way forward. One can only assume, from the broad, 
sweeping statements of this rule that it was pushed from the 
top down to serve an agenda, rather than improve management of 
the public lands.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, the language of this rule 
inappropriately picks out and expands upon the BLM Organic Act 
in ways that are arguably unconstitutional. This is not a 
trivial matter. This rule has the potential to undermine how 
public lands are managed and threatens the essential economies 
of my state and our country.
    Therefore, I urge the BLM to reconsider the need for the 
Conservation and Landscape Health Proposed Rule, and reiterate 
my support for Representative Curtis' bill, H.R. 3397.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for this 
time.

    [The prepared statement of Governor Gordon follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Mark Gordon, Governor of Wyoming

    Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the 
Committee, good morning. On behalf of the people of Wyoming, and as a 
rancher, outdoorsman and conservationist, let me thank you for the 
opportunity to discuss H.R. 3397 and the BLM's proposed Conservation 
and Land Use rule with you today.
    Wyoming is no stranger to federal lands. More than 48 percent of 
Wyoming is federal surface estate, including the first national park, 
the first national monument, and the first national forest. The Bureau 
of Land Management's footprint in Wyoming is substantial. The BLM 
manages approximately 18.4 million acres of public lands and 42.9 
million acres of federal mineral estate. This equates to over 29 
percent of Wyoming's surface land, covering an area larger than the 
state of West Virginia. It is important to note Wyoming's top three 
economic drivers, energy, tourism, and agriculture, have developed 
successful industries and contributed meaningfully to conservation 
across the state under the multiple-use principle of the federal law 
and BLM's existing rules.
    Wyoming routinely ranks first in the nation for gas production from 
onshore federal minerals and second for oil production from onshore 
federal minerals. Approximately 65 percent of Wyoming's oil and 79 
percent of gas production are from federal minerals.
    In 2022, seven and a half million tourists visited the Equality 
State, spending $4.5 billion. Recreation, largely on public lands, 
contributed $1.5 billion to the state's economy. More than 5 percent of 
our employment stems from the recreation industry.
    For food production, in Fiscal Year 2021, the BLM authorized over 
1.4 million Animal Unit Months or AUMs on public lands, more than any 
other state. Agriculture is the third largest sector of our economy, 
and grazing is done under tight regulation and with dedication to 
personal responsibility to ensure land stewardship while supporting a 
domestic food supply.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, as a rancher, I was 
proud when my ranch received the Society for Range Management Wyoming 
Section's Excellence in Range Management award. My ranch management 
team followed up with another on the Ucross Ranch the following year. 
Because of our work on that ranch, Apache Corporation, an oil and gas 
company associated with Ucross, demonstrated the ability to sequester 
2,640 metric tons of carbon per year from grazing management alone.
    My ranch lies in core sage-grouse habitat. In 2014, my wife and I 
stood alongside eight other ranchers who signed Candidate Conservation 
Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) with then Secretary of the Interior 
Jewell. I remember her comments that day, ``We have going on here in 
Wyoming the most effective example of the state and private landowners 
working in cooperation with multiple federal agencies to protect these 
ecosystems in perpetuity. I will say that Wyoming was way ahead of the 
curve.''
    Mr. Chairman and committee members, my point here is not 
specifically what we have done for conservation but the fact that 
Wyoming ranchers, industries, and sportsmen are conservation-minded. In 
the words of Teddy Roosevelt, ``Conservation means development as much 
as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this 
generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I 
do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, 
the generations that come after us.''
    Cooperation has enabled Wyoming to be one of the first states to 
recognize and manage wildlife migration corridors essential to healthy 
mule deer and antelope. We also successfully manage the nation's 
largest population of the Greater Sage-grouse. We have known and 
respected the importance of conservation from the early days of our 
statehood when we established the nation's first game and fish agency. 
And without hesitation, Mr. Chairman and committee members, I can say 
the investment from energy development in natural resource management 
would be a fraction of what we have now to protect and enhance habitat. 
Wyoming ranchers are stewards of public lands and have worked well with 
agencies on grazing issues. Wyoming is a haven for outdoor recreation. 
All of these practices are complementary and envisioned in a multiple-
use sustained yield approach to managing public lands. So when it comes 
to this proposed rule, simply put: It isn't broken, so don't fix it.
    This proposed rule was rushed forward without material input from 
Wyoming or other states. It did not have the benefit of the views of 
impacted public land users. The proposed rule mischaracterizes 
conservation, seeks to preempt wildlife management from the States, and 
oversteps the Bureau's statutory authority.
    The best solution is to rescind the rule.
    I fully support Representative Curtis's H.R. 3397, co-sponsored by 
Wyoming's Congresswoman Harriet Hageman. I also note that Wyoming 
Senator John Barrasso brought a companion bill in the U.S. Senate.
    Barring the rescission of the proposed rule, I call for the DOI and 
BLM to extend the comment period for a thorough review and for 
additional public meetings in Wyoming and other affected states--enough 
of management by windshield, model, or fantasy. If one wants true 
conservation, it must come from working with people on the ground.
    This proposed rule caught state governments, agriculture, industry, 
recreationists, and even local BLM offices entirely by surprise--
seemingly disdaining any input from those with the most knowledge and 
expertise to craft a useful policy.
    Let me be clear; my administration values the relationships we have 
with the Wyoming State BLM Office and the District and Field Office 
staff throughout the state, which is why it seems so boneheaded not to 
include their on-the-ground knowledge and ability to work with local 
partners in crafting this proposed rule. One is left to assume from the 
broad, sweeping statements in the rule that it was pushed from the top 
down to serve an agenda rather than improve the management of public 
lands. Hosting public ``information sessions'' in hand-picked locations 
with no opportunity to comment is not a responsible way to seek input 
and will be counter-productive.
    I have to question the need and the occasion to create a separate 
conservation category, essentially overriding other statutory multiple 
uses. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) 
requires the full consideration and multiple-use of federal lands, as 
directed by Congress, not the interpretation of D.C. bureaucrats. This 
rule's potential to upend decades of management practices across the 
BLM's 245 million acres requires extensive review and contributions 
from those standing to be impacted. Abrogating the responsibility the 
BLM bears to analyze the full range of impacts this rule will have on 
communities, businesses, and the environment is the height of 
arrogance. Meetings with the opportunity for engagement and comments 
must be held in our state. Analysis of the implications is critical so 
the public may have a say on their lands.
    This proposal is wallpaper to cover a federal management grab. It 
would likely elevate a mischaracterization of conservation as a single-
use on BLM lands. Currently, the proposed rule's definition of 
conservation is a major consideration in every land-use decision on BLM 
lands. This rule pits the productive use of public lands as 
diametrically opposed to conservation, a gross misstatement. I have 
already shown that Wyoming exemplifies how grazing, energy development, 
and recreation are not mutually exclusive to conservation.
    The BLM, in its June 5th virtual public meeting, justified this 
proposed rule by claiming there are ``pressures'' to review FLMPA 
authorities to fill in gaps in implementation. That is the role of 
Congress.
    If the BLM has not managed under FLMPA ``to sustain the health, 
diversity, and productivity of the public lands'' without this rule 
since 1976, what has the agency been doing for the last 47 years? Why 
now this heavy-handed rewrite of Congressional authority?
    Ranchers, companies, and organizations have achieved remarkable 
conservation benchmarks throughout the years under this authority, and 
it does not need to be tweaked. Responsible local management makes our 
public lands productive and an enduring attraction to people worldwide. 
The impetus for this rule exists because of the good work of these 
entities. And yet, this proposed rule gives the BLM a checklist when 
evaluating ``intact landscapes'' outside their normal planning process. 
This can be read as a designation of entire segments of land to exclude 
multiple uses in the name of keeping a landscape ``intact.'' 
Succession, erosion, and competition are not static processes--
something that Aldo Leopold noted over and over again.
    Let me also state clearly; wildlife management is the 
responsibility and within the authority and purview of the states--not 
the federal government. State agencies lead in the conservation and 
stewardship of all fish and wildlife species except for a few cases 
where specific species fall under federal jurisdiction. And sadly, the 
federal government's ability to recover species is not all that 
compelling.
    This rule seeks to circumvent State authority to define, analyze, 
and manage wildlife within our borders. Instead of furthering the 
collaborative work our State wildlife agencies currently do with local 
BLM offices daily, this rule would drive a wedge while most likely 
undermining local conservation efforts. As such, progress towards 
achieving our shared goal of thriving populations of the public's 
wildlife, healthier ecology, thriving local communities, and a better 
understanding of management would be stymied. Communities would be 
crippled, management compromised, riparian systems impacted, and 
invasives left unchecked. This rule is wrongheaded.
    Using tools like Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, or ACECs, 
outside of their intended capacities is also misguided. The well-
established framework that includes public input through Resource 
Management Plans should not be tampered with, yet, this rule opens the 
door for interim evaluations and implementations, excluding any input 
from the states, tribes, local governments, land users, and the 
affected public. The authority to make management designations of BLM 
land of this magnitude must be made by Congress and not left to 
unelected officials. Land management is best when it is stable and is 
most stable when management agencies respect those closest to the 
managed area. Wild, whimsical policy swings like this rule have far 
more potential to do lasting harm than working with people who know 
what they are managing.
    By now, it is probably pretty clear that I believe this proposed 
rule is an inappropriate expansion of the BLM's Congressional mandate 
and statutory authority. FLPMA charges the BLM with managing for 
``multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law.'' 
Congress has not granted the BLM any authority to define conservation 
nor included it as an additional mandate with the ability to exclude 
existing uses. How can I be so certain? Because I was here in 1976 and 
remember conversations with former Assistant Secretary of the Interior 
Jack Horton about FLPMA and the intent of Congress at that time. I 
remember conversations with former Senator Cliff Hansen, for whom my 
sister interned, and his views about FLPMA. It is up to the legislative 
branch to write the laws, not the executive branch to take them out 
joyriding. As a Governor, I have learned that much.
    The language in this proposed rule selectively picks out and 
expands on the BLM's Organic Act in a manner that is both wrong and 
questionably constitutional. This rule encroaches on State's rights and 
priorities and may violate federal law. The best thing for a bad idea 
like this rule is to rescind it. Failing that, for the sake of the 
American public, we need additional time to thoroughly analyze how the 
BLM is going beyond its statutory scope of authority. What this rule 
proposes is not trivial. It appears to have the potential to completely 
undermine how public lands are managed in our country and upend major 
pillars of my state's--indeed, the country's economy, our people's 
standard of living, and the viability of far too many local 
communities. I urge the BLM to reconsider the need for the Conservation 
and Landscape Health proposed rule and reiterate my support for HR. 
3397.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Governor Gordon. And I thank both 
of the governors for your testimony.
    I was just thinking how blessed we are to have not only two 
strong governors from Western states here, but two ranchers and 
two true conservationists. I know a conservationist when I see 
one, and I see two of them that know what they are talking 
about at the witness table today.
    With that, we are going to move to questions. Members will 
have 5 minutes. I now recognize Mr. Fulcher for questions.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you. And to our panel, thank you for 
being here today. I know you have other things to do, but this 
is real important, and we need you. So, thank you for that.
    Governor Gordon, does Wyoming participate with SRS, Secure 
Rural Schools funding, Payment in Lieu of Taxes?
    And can you talk about that, and how that fits into your 
budget when you put together the budget of each year and the 
source of that funding? I want to just talk about money, 
Federal money, for just a minute.
    Governor Gordon. Mr. Chairman, Representative, thank you 
very much for that question. Yes, we do. And mineral 
development and the surface activities there contribute 
mightily to our schools.
    Wyoming has a constitution that requires our state to fund 
a lot of our school activities. There is also local property 
tax, and we have also funded it with a severance tax off 
minerals. When we forego that, as we did in 2020, when COVID 
hit and we shut down production of so much, that was roughly a 
third of the state's total budget, an incredible hit to local 
schools, to our school kids, and an incredible hit to our 
county's ability to meet their needs.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, Governor, given that, if you had the 
option as a governor of your state and the ultimate director of 
that budget, what would you prefer in that dynamic to control 
the destiny of the land, to be able to manage that land that is 
under Federal control and these restrictions, or to rely on the 
ongoing PILT and SRS funding?
    Governor Gordon. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I, as 
Treasurer, had the opportunity to experience what happened when 
Congress instituted sequestration. And as a result, I have 
recommended that the states collect the Federal mineral 
royalties and distribute the 50 percent to the Federal 
Government, rather than the other way around. That money 
leaving the state and not being able to come back under 
whatever particular circumstance is dramatic.
    So, to answer your question directly, I would rather 
control our future than have it controlled by----
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
    And Mr. Chairman, I would just like to state for the record 
I wish there were more of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle here, because most of them come from states which are 
identified as donor states, not donee states. But it is just 
what the governor pointed out: the amount of Federal money that 
their taxpayers pay into the Federal Government, a lot of that 
gets exported to the West in the form of PILT, Payment in Lieu 
of Taxes, SRS.
    That is a lose-lose deal, because those in those donor 
states are sending that money, in large cases, to the West, 
where there is a lot of this public land. And those of us who 
are supposedly receiving it are getting the short end of the 
stick because (A) we can't depend on it, it is not predictable; 
and (B) as the governor points out, you lose the ability to 
control your own destiny.
    Governor Noem, I am less familiar with South Dakota. I am 
right next door.
    Governor Noem. That is unfortunate.
    Mr. Fulcher. I am right next door to Governor Gordon.
    Governor Noem. Come visit us.
    Mr. Fulcher. However, I know Mr. Johnson really well, and 
he gives me all these rave reviews, so I know it is a wonderful 
place.
    Governor Noem. Good.
    Mr. Fulcher. In terms of Federal land, do you have a 
significant issue with wildfire in the summer season?
    Governor Noem. We do. But I would say the Black Hills 
National Forest is known as one of the best-managed forests in 
our country. It has one of the last successful operating timber 
industries, and that is because we utilized some mechanisms 
that were implemented in the last farm bill that I had the 
chance to work on when I was here in Congress, using Good 
Neighbor Authority to go out and to do some unique pilot 
projects to allow us to actually manage our forest in a way 
that many other people's hands were tied in other areas of our 
country.
    So, I would say that now we are deeply challenged by what 
we see coming out of the Forest Service. They are cutting our 
cubic feet that we can get in timber contracts. In fact, the 
last GTR made false assumptions, and cut our percentage down 
significantly--I would say a third of what it should be. And 
that brings incredible risk to our state.
    I know Governor Gordon and I have worked extensively on 
trying to get the Forest Service to revise their analysis and 
use real scientific data to come up with what we could actually 
go out there and log in order to utilize the timber, but this 
is the story of it all. We have bureaucrats in DC making 
decisions not on facts on the ground. And what it is doing in 
the Black Hills, is it is going to threaten life.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, your point is that the management of the 
Black Hills aids the fight against wildfire.
    Governor Noem. Yes, it does. It aids in the fight against 
wildfire, and that is because we have been able to go around 
the Federal Government.
    We have been able to get through some of the rules like 
this one that is being proposed, cut through that, and still be 
able to do more than other forests have been able to. But now 
we see that going away under the Biden administration.
    Mr. Fulcher. Yes. Thank you, Governor.
    Governor Noem. But listen, these forests are heavily 
populated with people and communities. When you have a forest 
fire come through, you are getting more erosion and waste, 
dangerous chemicals being released into the atmosphere. If a 
person was environmentally-minded and conservation-minded, they 
would allow us to manage these forests.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that, Governor. I am out of 
time, but that is a very good, thoughtful answer.
    Governor Gordon, thank you, as well.
    Governor Gordon. Thank you.
    Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Idaho's time has expired, 
and I recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gallego, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Chairman Westerman and Ranking 
Member Grijalva.
    This hearing is another step in the Majority's effort to 
undermine the multiple-use mandate of the Bureau of Land 
Management, and prohibit similar actions in the future. The 
proposed rule does not change BLM's existing land management 
planning process, it just adds to it. But this bill would 
dangerously limit future rulemaking by the agency.
    As a Representative of Arizona, which has 12.1 million 
surface acres and 17.5 million subsurface acres of BLM land, I 
think it is important that we look out for the future and not 
cut ourselves off at the knees by limiting future rulemaking. 
And I think it is important that these decisions be made based 
on the input of people who would actually be impacted by this 
rule. Unfortunately, today's hearing falls short on both 
accounts.
    Also, since more than half of this Committee's members come 
from other states with more BLM land than South Dakota, we can 
rely on the experience and expertise of our own governors.
    I am also surprised that we have not called other 
witnesses.
    If we can't agree on the fundamental existence of climate 
change, a productive conversation around the new BLM rule gets 
a whole lot harder. I would like to emphasize the importance of 
inviting witnesses that follow the science and have expertise 
in the issues we are discussing.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I 
appreciate both of you governors for traveling here today and 
bringing your firsthand expertise on dealing with vast spaces 
of Federal land in your states.
    Governor Noem, the proposal says conservation leases are 
not intended to provide a mechanism for precluding other uses, 
such as grazing, mining, or recreation. Conservation leases 
should not disturb existing authorizations, valid existing 
rights, or state or tribal land use management. However, if the 
Administration determines other uses such as grazing or energy 
production are incompatible with the lease, those uses would 
not be allowed, and could be prohibited indefinitely from these 
lands, even after the expiration of a conservation lease, which 
would effectively lock up these lands indefinitely for multiple 
use.
    So, do we pretty much have a de facto national monument or 
wilderness area by a designation like this? Do you believe this 
is their ultimate goal?
    Governor Noem. It gives them the authority to. This 
proposed rule absolutely allows them to look at large 
landscapes and to shut the public out from accessing it, from 
utilizing it, from no longer being able to hunt and fish, 
engage in outdoor recreation, from mining, permitting, grazing, 
all activities. It creates a new mechanism, which I will remind 
you, Congress has no authority to do this. You are overstepping 
your authority--or that BLM has no authority to do. Congress is 
the only one who has the authority to put forward a rule like 
this to establish something like a conservation lease which can 
collect fees to go out and prioritize conservation over all 
other activities. BLM has no authority to be able to do what 
they are trying to do in this rule here today.
    There are no consequences for violation of these 
conservation leases, as well, no punishment if the rules of the 
game are not followed. What is interesting to me is there are 
no guidelines on who can purchase a conservation lease and who 
can't. What is to prevent China from coming in and purchasing 
up conservation leases on our Federal lands, and therefore 
having some control and authority over them?
    It also allows BLM to go around the NEPA process, which 
listen, I am just a big believer that if Americans have to 
follow the NEPA process, then the Federal Government should 
have to follow the NEPA process. If we are going to go through 
that, everybody should be treated equally under the law.
    It is burdensome. It will shut down economic activity in 
these regions of the country, which right now, facing the 
inflation and the stagnation that we are seeing, keeping these 
productive areas contributing to our American energy 
independence and our food supply is critically important.
    So, it is ill advised. And what is interesting to me is 
watching how they allow bureaucrats in DC to make these 
decisions under this proposed rule, and taking that authority 
away from the local BLM offices. Because I think Governor 
Gordon would tell you and I will tell you, as well, we have 
good relationships with our local BLM offices because those 
people actually do live there, and they do interact with people 
that are out there working on stewardship practices on the 
land. This rule changes that. It takes those decisions away 
from those local authorities and moves it to bureaucrats within 
the agency at the higher level that many times may not have 
stepped foot in our state.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. It is apparent to me when I do 
flyover country, coming from my home in California to the----
    Governor Noem. Don't do that. You need to stop.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. LaMalfa. I don't consider it that, I consider it God's 
country, but especially at night, once you get west of the 
Mississippi there are not a whole lot of lights down there. But 
I do notice there are a whole lot of problems with the lands 
that are already managed by BLM or U.S. Forest Service of not 
having a whole heck of a lot going on in their management.
    So, I wonder, both governors, how do you feel it currently 
is going with the record of land management that our Forest 
Service is doing on helping prevent fire?
    You mentioned the Black Hills there. I look at million-acre 
fires in my district. What is the track record of them, and 
should we be giving them more responsibility over more lands 
such as this pie in the sky 30x30 deal?
    Governor Gordon, let me give you a shot.
    Governor Gordon. Well, thank you very much. And I will give 
you an experience that we had recently in 2020, something we 
called the Mullen Fire.
    It was an area that had been logged before, and it is an 
area that had some burn scars there before, as well. It is also 
an area where there is a wilderness called Savage Run. This 
lies just a little bit north of the Colorado border. In 2020, 
we had a serious fire, very dry conditions. And because there 
was so much dead beetle-kill timber, that fire was almost 
impossible to put out. It burned for quite a long time.
    And here is the thing. Where it entered into either timber 
sales that had been harvested, or places that had burn scars, 
the fire was able to be kept at bay. In places where it had 
old-growth forest, in places where it was a wilderness, that 
fire escaped all bounds and kept moving. This is very similar 
to what you had in California.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, sir, like the Tahoe Pilot Plan that 
Chairman and I and others have visited. When the fire hits 
that, you can actually knock the fire down. It actually works. 
It will not work very well under this rule.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Ranking Member Grijalva for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 
Governors, thank you for taking the time to visit with us 
today.
    Governor Noem, welcome back.
    Governor Noem. Yes, thank you.
    Mr. Grijalva. It has been a few years since you were a 
member of this Committee. And as you can see, not much has 
changed.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Grijalva. We are still at odds over how best to 
prioritize long-term conservation of our public lands, and ever 
struggling to find a common ground on what should be, I would 
hope, a bipartisan initiative.
    Both your states, like states all over the country, like my 
state, are reeling from the effects of climate change, long-
term drought, catastrophic wildfire, and year after year, 
record-high temperatures, just to name a few.
    Under Secretary Haaland, BLM has taken the important step 
to come up with a proposal to balance the uses of public lands, 
enhance options for durable conservation, and promote resilient 
and intact landscapes. These are outcomes that are supported by 
broad majorities of Americans. And as I highlighted in my 
opening remarks, they are outcomes supported by Indigenous 
communities across this country.
    The proposal is an opportunity to bring public land 
management into the 21st century. That is why I believe public 
land states like Colorado, California, and New Mexico are 
advocating for the rule. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, 
New Mexico's land commissioner testified about how the rule is 
a significant improvement and update to the management 
framework for public lands.
    This is a sentiment echoed in a letter sent to the 
Committee by the California Natural Resources Agency, which, 
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter 
into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

                  California Natural Resources Agency

                             Sacramento, CA

                                                  June 13, 2023    

Hon. Raul M. Grijalva
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Greetings Committee Members:

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in advance of 
the upcoming hearing on H.R. 3397. We respectfully oppose H.R. 3397 and 
support the adoption of the Bureau of Land Management's Public Lands 
Rule.

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) stewards many of California's 
most spectacular places, in total overseeing about 15 percent of 
California's land mass. These landscapes including rangelands, forests, 
mountains, and deserts across our state. BLM lands provide important 
opportunities for Californians to recreate outdoors, including by 
hunting and fishing. These lands also provide important habitat and 
connectivity corridors for wildlife, allow for natural carbon 
sequestration, and protect clean water and air for local communities.

    The Proposed Conservation and Landscape Health Rule is a thoughtful 
improvement to federal land stewardship. Simply put, it will better 
enable BLM to fulfill its mission to sustain the health, diversity, and 
productivity of our shared public lands for the use and enjoyment of 
present and future generations.

    BLM's mission of Multiple Use and Sustained Yield will be 
strengthened with a focus on healthy and resilient ecosystems. 
California demonstrates that economic prosperity, clean energy, and 
environmental protections for air, water, and biodiversity can go hand 
in hand. California's economy has grown into the fourth largest economy 
in the world while maintaining world-leading environmental standards 
that keep our ecosystems and communities healthy.

    We applaud the Bureau of Land Management for its proposed approach 
to place environmental conservation and restoration on equal footing 
with other uses on BLM-managed lands. This important shift will help 
conserve California's iconic landscapes, which sustain tourism, provide 
our residents public access to nature, offer refuge for wide range of 
wildlife, and safeguard our water supplies.

    Importantly, finalizing and strengthening the proposed updates to 
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) will help to advance 
the solar energy and other renewable energy projects we need to achieve 
our clean energy goals. In California, we know that ambitious clean 
energy development is aided by well-planned and located environmental 
conservation. As BLM's own Desert Renewable Conservation Plan in 
California has demonstrated, land use planning that considers ecosystem 
needs alongside energy development can actually expedite permit 
issuance, speed project delivery and reduce conflict and delay for 
important new energy projects.

    We also strongly support BLM's prioritization of partnership with 
Native American Tribes in this updated rule. Native people have 
stewarded these lands since time immemorial and must have a central 
role in future land stewardship.

    Designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) have 
been successful conservation tools in California and updates to how 
these areas are designated and managed are essential to effectively 
address climate change and biodiversity loss. Encouraging the 
designation and durable protection of ACECs where needed and 
appropriate to protect imperiled plants and animals represents an 
important advancement to advance the BLM's conservation mission.

    Several existing ACECs in California have played an important role 
in our environmental management, including:

     Hopper Mountain ACEC (Ventura County) was designated to 
            limit certain uses during California Condor nesting season 
            and has helped the successful California Condor Recovery 
            Program, which has brought the species back from near 
            extinction.

     Kaweah ACEC (Tulare County) limits certain activities to 
            protect the only grove of Giant Sequoia trees managed by 
            BLM at Case Mountain, while providing public access 
            including hiking, mountain biking, and equestrian trails. 
            Giant Sequoias are not only a culturally iconic species in 
            California, but also are important for sequestering carbon 
            and helping combat climate change.

     Pine Hill Preserve ACEC (El Dorado County) was designated 
            to protect eight rare plant species, four of which are 
            endemic, or found nowhere else on earth due to the unique 
            soil type in this area. This area also provides access for 
            hiking and educational resources and opportunities on 
            California's rare plants.

    We look forward to submitting more detailed written comments on 
BLM's proposed rule update in coming weeks. We are thankful for all the 
Natural Resources Committee, the Bureau of Land Management and other 
federal partners do to ensure the effective stewardship of federal 
lands in California.

    Thank you for your consideration of this testimony.

            Sincerely,

                                             Wade Crowfoot,
                                                          Secretary

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Grijalva. These two states have roughly 10 million more 
acres of BLM land than your two states combined. So, it must be 
more of a matter of perspective, rather than scale or impact. 
It is not as if California and New Mexico don't have critiques. 
They are both engaged with the Administration to ensure that 
their concerns regarding the proposal are incorporated into the 
final product. There is an open comment period. There is still 
an open comment period, so plenty of time to register official 
feedback and work with the Administration to strengthen the 
rule.
    The rule itself is not long. In fact, it may actually be 
shorter than your written testimony or the letter the Chair 
referenced in his opening remarks. My comments today are to 
work with the Biden administration to improve this long-overdue 
update.
    This conflict between--it is not a conflict, it is a 
reality. And our public lands should play and need to play a 
significant role in climate mitigation and to building up 
resiliency and sustainability for our nation in the long term 
and for the future. And this rule is future-looking, looking 
beyond our nose and beyond the immediacy of the moment, and a 
tool that I believe is important as we tackle what I think is 
the critical issue before us, this Committee and Congress, and 
for the nation, which is climate change.
    Thank you, Mr. Westerman, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Governors, it is great to see you. Welcome to the fourth 
administrative state, where unelected bureaucrats make rules 
that affect us all, oftentimes in a negative way.
    To me, this is, as Mr. Curtis spoke about, I think this is 
a way for our Federal Government to take chunks of land to stop 
development. In the Iron Range of Minnesota, we have the 
biggest copper nickel mine in the world. It is called the 
Duluth Complex. Trillions of dollars of minerals there. This 
Administration wouldn't even allow an EIS to go forward. They 
removed 225,000 acres from development. This is what they are 
trying to do.
    And we can talk at these hearings; this Administration is 
going to do what they want to do. I never thought, as a Member 
of Congress, I would have to vote to defend using gas stoves in 
our homes across this country. But we did. And just last week, 
the Army Corps of Engineers removed a water permit that they 
gave just 4 years ago. The EPA remanded this water permit, 
first time ever in the history of this country.
    We feel the pain. And as Mr. Curtis talks about the Western 
states, I want to add the Midwestern states, too. This is 
happening in Minnesota and other states. They would rather push 
this agenda than allow the American people to live free. As 
Ronald Reagan says, ``As government expands, our liberties 
contract.'' And as governors, you are seeing that in your 
respective states. I believe this is another rule and a tool 
for this Administration to assert control and take away our 
lands from the people of this nation.
    Governor Gordon, in your testimony you shared your 
frustration with the lack of stakeholder input that the Biden 
administration considered when crafting this proposed rule. If 
the BLM actually listened to your constituents in Wyoming, what 
do you think they would have heard from them on this dangerous 
precedent that these so-called conservation leases would have 
on our Federal leasing?
    Would they fear the Federal Government pairing future 
productive leases with conservation leases or utilizing 
conservation leases to strategically block off other areas from 
permitted activities? Can you comment on that?
    Governor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative, a 
very good question. It is interesting that no one thought to 
have a field hearing anywhere near my state. And as a result, 
that testimony is lost on the BLM.
    I think one of the biggest challenges, and you have 
mentioned it, is the lack of consistency and the desire by the 
Federal Government to kind of control the future of this.
    Wyoming has a variety of BLM lands. My ranch, for example, 
has BLM land holdings in it. If those are put into conservation 
leases, it could quite conceivably affect the way we operate. 
That could, for many families in Wyoming----
    Mr. Stauber. I would submit to you, Governor, that it will 
if this goes through.
    Governor Gordon. I agree with you. And I would also say, 
Representative, that you could break ranches. You could break 
families that have been on the ground for generations.
    And here is the deal. If they weren't focused on 
sustainability, if they weren't focused on conservation, they 
wouldn't be in business now. So, it would be an irony to say, 
out of conservation, we are going to break the backs of 
ranchers who have shown conservation ethic. Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Governor Noem. It is 
great to see you once again. And real quick, just like in my 
district in northern Minnesota, public lands play an important 
role in your everyday lives of those living in South Dakota. As 
you mentioned in your testimony, entire facets of your economy 
are built, both figuratively and literally, on our precious 
public lands. If this rule is finalized, and the BLM gains this 
tool to weaponize Federal lands, what effect is it going to 
have on your state's economy?
    Governor Noem. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. It 
will be dramatic.
    What is interesting to me is that, if you read the rule and 
the analysis the BLM has put out on the rule, it is that they 
have done no economic evaluation. In fact, they have openly 
declared that this is not a major rule, does not have more of 
an impact than $100 million on our economy. Yet, if you keep 
reading through the rule, they have done no economic analysis, 
and have no idea what the consequences will be if this is put 
into place.
    What is also interesting is that there is a real lack of 
environmental data, as well. They don't know how this is going 
to help, and they make no attempt to even define that our 
stewardship of the land will actually get better.
    They openly say that there will be public input, yet do not 
conduct and follow through on that. Our people have not been 
heard from, other than the ability to submit comments, which I 
would say the Ranking Member referred to people such as land 
managers and elected officials in some states having an 
important voice because they are in bigger states. In my world, 
everybody matters. It doesn't matter if you are big, or small, 
or important, or not important, you should listen to them, 
especially if they are making a living off the land.
    But you have submitted for the record comments from many, 
many associations of people that engage in recreation, grazing, 
the Cattlemen's Association, many, many more that have 
submitted comments against this rule. So, I would encourage you 
to, even though they are not going to conduct public hearings 
because they don't want to hear what they are going to have to 
hear, I would say look at those comments that are being 
submitted to the formal record.
    And again, in this rule there are some mechanisms to allow 
them to stop putting things in the Federal Record, and to stop 
taking public input at all.
    Mr. Stauber. Right, right.
    Governor Noem. So, that is another overstep, that the BLM 
made promises years ago that they are trying to do away with in 
this proposal in front of you today.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, and my time is up.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.

    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Stansbury, for 5 
minutes.

    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our 
governors. Thank you for joining us today.

    I just want to start, with respect to my dear friends 
across the aisle, to counter the narrative that was proposed at 
the beginning of this hearing that this is just a bunch of 
bureaucrats from the East supporting this action by the 
Department of the Interior, and to remind my colleagues that 
the Secretary of the Interior is our nation's very first 
Indigenous cabinet Secretary, a native New Mexican whose family 
has lived in and been from New Mexico for countless 
generations.

    And I myself am a native New Mexican. I was born in rural 
New Mexico, in Farmington, New Mexico, in San Juan County, 
where my dad worked in the oil fields, and where my mom worked 
at the San Juan Power Plant. I grew up working the land with my 
hands, working for my family's irrigation company, and I 
support this rule.

    And the reason why I support this rule is because, unlike 
what we are hearing here in this hearing this morning, the rule 
actually will help us to manage our lands in a more balanced 
way. It is not going to cut off development. It is not going to 
cut off our ranchers from grazing. It is not going to cut off 
oil and gas. It is not going to cut off mining. It is going to 
make sure that we are adequately balancing the needs of 
conservation, protecting our cultural landscapes, and ensuring 
that we are also balancing that with our resource management.

    And I say that also as somebody from a state in the West 
that is an oil and gas state, that is a rural state, that is a 
state where our communities depend on agriculture and ranching, 
and where our state revenue predominantly comes from oil and 
gas on those lands, and where our state has actually 
implemented a very similar rule. And guess what? Not only did 
it not cut into the revenues of the state, we have seen the 
largest, most astronomical growth in oil and gas revenues over 
the last several years in New Mexico ever in the history of our 
state. In fact, this year we are on par to see the largest 
growth in oil and gas revenues after implementing a similar 
rule.

    So, I find it very upsetting, Mr. Chairman, when I see the 
resources of this body of Congress, the People's House, being 
used to put forward narratives and misinformation that, in my 
mind, is intended to scare the American people because it is 
just simply not true. And much of what I have heard here today 
is just not true. This is really about balancing the needs of 
our public lands.
    Now, if we want to talk about Eastern bureaucrats who have 
been misusing public lands, I do have to note with respect that 
the Black Hills were brought up this morning. It is a space 
that, similar to Chaco Canyon, is sacred to Indigenous people, 
that is sacred to the Lakota Sioux people, along with places 
like Mount Rushmore and the sacred mountain that it was carved 
into, and that the former President Donald Trump used for a 
campaign event which one of our witnesses helped to host on the 
sacred Indigenous lands, which was a misuse, and possibly 
illegal misuse, of our public lands.

    And as we all know, the former President this week was 
indicted on 37 counts of illegal behavior, including under the 
Espionage Act. So, it is a fine point to make here in this 
Committee to try to claim that a bunch of Eastern bureaucrats 
are telling Westerners about misuse of our public lands when 
the front runner in the Republican Party is indicted on 37 
counts of illegal activity this week and was misusing our 
public lands in the West. So, I take a lot of homage with the 
conversation here this morning.

    So, I do want to make the point that it is important that 
we follow the science, that we do listen to our stakeholders 
across the West, that we listen to our Indigenous communities, 
that we listen to our farmers and ranchers who are stewards of 
the land--of course, they are--that we do work with industry 
and those who are using our public lands for revenues and for 
extractive activities that we all benefit from, and that we 
continue to ensure the ecological integrity of our public lands 
in the West.

    But it is also important that we maintain the integrity of 
this body, and use the resources of this Committee and of 
Congress to tell the truth to the American people, and that we 
make sure that we are serving our role as good stewards of this 
body and our public lands.

    With that, I yield back.

    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.

    I have here in my hand the 88-page BLM rule, and I wanted 
to illustrate that this is a substantial rule, much longer than 
probably all the statements combined that have been made today, 
and much longer than any letters that we have sent.

    And without objection, I want to enter this into the 
record. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                               *****

The full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II00/20230615/116036/HHRG-
118-II00-20230615-SD016.pdf

                                ------                                


    The Chairman. That was not the call of votes, which we do 
expect to happen here soon. We are now going to go to the 
sponsor of the bill, Mr. Curtis, from Utah.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
explore for a minute this relationship between states with 
large amounts of Federal land and the East Coast, and perhaps 
help my colleagues understand this relationship.
    Like both of you, Utah has a large amount of public lands, 
about 42 percent just for BLM, about 60 percent over Federal 
lands. And there were no hearings in Utah on this. And I think 
that kind of shows the heart of the frustration of those of us 
in the West.
    I was on this Committee and watched the efforts to move the 
BLM to the West, to Colorado, successfully started and then 
pulled back, and really saddened that that wasn't completed. 
Because like both of you, we have great relationships with our 
BLM folks in the state. We meet with them frequently, we talk 
with them. They understand our perspective.
    So, this is not an anti-BLM sentiment from us. It is more 
of a feeling that people who have not been to our states, who 
won't hold hearings in our states, who won't come to our 
states, have a degree of hypocrisy in telling us how to manage 
our lands. And I would love to give both of you just a second 
to comment on that relationship.
    Governor Gordon, first.
    Governor Gordon. Well, thank you. And I think, actually, 
the good Congresswoman's testimony, Mr. Chairman, somewhat 
offended me.
    We invited Secretary Haaland to come to Wyoming to do a 
couple of things: to meet with the tribes on the Wind River 
Reservation, which have a long conservation standard, and we 
have worked very closely with them on a number of issues; we 
also invited her to go look at the Jonah Field, where oil and 
gas companies are doing remarkable work to save the sage-
grouse. She demurred from that, and instead went to Yellowstone 
National Park.
    And it is very frustrating to me when people aren't willing 
to look at on-the-ground work. And Chaco Canyon is a great 
example of where ``conservation'' has led to amazing amounts of 
erosion.
    The other thing that I am particularly frustrated about on 
this, with the lack of hearings and the lack of process on 
this, is that both Governor Polis and I, Governor Polis is a 
Democrat, have written to BLM and said, ``Can we please use 
endosulfan to control invasive species? '' We have yet to see 
them approve the use of that chemical, which would help with, 
as you know, cheatgrass and other things. It is ironic, because 
the USDA has approved it, the EPA has approved it, and yet they 
are dragging their feet.
    Mr. Curtis. I have a really important question after 
Governor Noem answers this that will actually tie into that.
    So, Governor Noem, do you want to respond briefly to this 
relationship between the East and the----
    Governor Noem. Well, the Congresswoman is wrong in 
virtually everything that she said. I think that they are 
trying to cast this narrative that we don't care about the 
environment or stewardship of our lands, and that we can't work 
with our local BLM offices. We can.
    The sustained yield is a mandate right now of the Federal 
Lands Policy and Management Act. So, what is interesting to me 
is that South Dakota is the second-largest producing state of 
renewable energy, that we are regularly in the top 10 of 
greenest states in the nation, that we are very conservation-
minded, and----
    Mr. Curtis. So, both of you have led right into the 
question I want to ask you right now, which is hypothetically, 
if we could change this and make it outcome-based and say, OK, 
states, you get to decide the rules of the road, and these are 
the outcomes we want to produce. We want to make sure these 
lands are protected. We want to make sure they are preserved. 
We want to make sure there are recreational opportunities. We 
want to make sure that any extraction is done appropriately. 
So, here are the rules of the road, and you get to set the 
terms and conditions. How many of you would like to compete 
with New Mexico on those terms?
    Governor Noem. In a heartbeat. We would beat them every day 
of the week.
    That is the reality of it, is because we have less 
bureaucracy. We did all of these accomplishments and outcomes 
without mandates. South Dakota doesn't go out there and mandate 
practices, and mandate more taxes to fund government programs 
to make this work. We do it in partnerships. We have 
conversations. We have honest, working relationships with the 
people who live there and recognize the value of the land.
    Mr. Curtis. This describes this tension that they feel from 
us that they interpret as not caring about the lands. But in 
essence, it is more please don't tell us that you know better 
than we do in a place that you have never been, where, by the 
way, for decades, and decades, and decades we have done a 
fabulous job of this.
    And I wish we had more time to explore this relationship. 
But I think you have spoken well. Give us an outcome-based 
rule, and we will take it all day long.
    Governor Noem. Well, the one thing that Governor Gordon has 
mentioned is that this rule also trounces on states' rights. It 
takes decisions we make regarding our wildlife and how we 
operate away from us, and gives it to the Federal Government. 
It is about control.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes, absolutely.
    Governor Noem. So, regardless of what they say, it is about 
control.
    Mr. Curtis. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. We will note that 
votes have been called, and now 15 people have voted. So, I 
think we have time for one more round of questions before we 
recess.
    Mr. Bentz, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being 
here.
    One would think from some of the materials I have read from 
environmental interests that support this rule, that both 
Wyoming and South Dakota are public land wastelands. Is that 
the case? Are your public lands in disastrous shape that 
require this type of removal from any type of use to kind of 
get them back into shape, what kind of shape are they in? I 
don't want to lead you any more than necessary.
    Governor Noem. I would say that there are always areas that 
can be addressed, but they are managed very well, in 
partnership with the people that are out there operating on the 
land.
    And I would say specifically, this proposed rule that BLM 
has brought does no analysis on if these mandates will actually 
produce better results. That is what is interesting to me, is 
that what they are putting forward with conservation leases 
doesn't show us that it is going to produce better conservation 
practices, or produce greener energy, or less carbon emissions.
    Essentially, what it is doing is letting third parties come 
in, give them some money, and give them the authority over this 
land, rather than the people who actually live there. And it 
gives no discretion as to who those third parties are, if they 
are foreign countries that could be our enemies. They could be 
people who do not love the United States of America.
    And then it also allows them to lock up that land and have 
authority over it that they had no authority before, with no 
consequences if the agreement is broken.
    Mr. Bentz. And Governor Gordon, the suggestion that we need 
this new use of conservation suggests that multiple use has 
been a failure. Is that true in your state, or is it working?
    Governor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman. No, 
it is not.
    As the good governor from South Dakota knows, we have 
worked very collaboratively together to do the best we can with 
a mosaic of landscape in the Black Hills.
    Here is one of the problems when it comes to climate 
change. Dead and dying trees off-gas because they oxidize. 
Either they oxidize over decades, or they oxidize in a few 
seconds, as we have seen in the West. The ability to work 
together on the ground to effect conservation practices, that 
is the benefit of having local communities and state control.
    Your comment about does multiple-use fly in the face of 
that, absolutely not. As I mentioned before, these ranches 
would not be sustainable. These businesses would not be 
sustainable if they overused the resource.
    Mr. Bentz. I grew up on a ranch, and I have five younger 
brothers, three of them are still in the ranching business in 
Oregon. And we are very familiar with this, with what we are 
debating.
    I am also very familiar with, as an attorney who 
represented the local production credit association through the 
1980s and the 1990s, just how important a grazing permit is 
when you go in to get a loan. And you have to say to whoever 
you are working with, who is sitting on the other side of the 
desk, and you are trying to borrow some money, and they ask, 
``Are you going to have your grazing permit?'' And you can't 
say, well, maybe.
    [Laughter.]
    Governor Gordon. Exactly.
    Mr. Bentz. Is that the case also, Governor Noem, in your 
state? I mean, isn't that reliability, that which you are going 
to rely upon to graze your cattle, pretty important in those 
kind of financing conversations?
    Governor Noem. Absolutely, yes. It is an important 
discussion that everyone has with their bank, or whoever is 
financing them on what their operating note needs to be, at 
what level, and what kind of collateral they are bringing to 
the table, and if their business model actually works. Yes, it 
is.
    Mr. Bentz. And isn't it correct, I am not sufficiently 
familiar with either of your states, that huge chunks of this 
public land is already placed in other types of off-limit 
locations that, I don't mean 10 acres, I mean millions. Is that 
correct, Governor Gordon?
    Governor Gordon. In Wyoming, if you look at the total, it 
is about 39 percent of the Federal estate that is in either 
national parks, wilderness areas, or other categories of 
restricted use.
    Mr. Bentz. So, this proposal of going in and allowing 
someone to lease this land, I have heard it said that this is a 
device to allow big, huge REITs and other organizations with 
lots of money to come in and bid these things up to use to 
acquire carbon credits. And thus, all of a sudden this 
assertion that we heard earlier from New Mexico's Congresswoman 
that nothing is going to change, nothing could be further from 
the truth. Is that correct, Governor Noem?
    Governor Noem. It is very true. In fact, you have a lot of 
producers out there that may have private land that is 
completely surrounded by BLM land. What happens if they declare 
that an intact landscape that is now locked up and no access 
given, and they can't even access their own private property? 
That is a reality that we see out there on the ground that has 
the potential if this rule goes forward.
    Mr. Bentz. Right. Well, thank you both so much for being 
here. It is an incredibly important issue, and I really 
appreciate your presence today and your testimony.
    Governor Gordon. And Mr. Chairman, if I might, I want to 
point out that, back in 2008, the grazing management that we 
did sequestered 2,526 metric tons of CO2. We were 
recognized on the Chicago Climate Exchange. So, management 
makes a difference.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. As I have 
mentioned, votes have been called, so we are going to take a 
short recess. There are two votes, and we will reconvene 
approximately 5 to 10 minutes after the second vote. And I hope 
all the Members can come back, and I hope the witnesses can 
stick with us. I apologize for the inconvenience.
    Governor Noem. No worries.
    The Chairman. We are now in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Lamborn [presiding]. The Committee will come back to 
order.
    The next one of the Members to ask questions is the 
gentleman from Montana, Mr. Rosendale.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, both governors, for joining us. And I hope, 
Governor Noem, that you didn't suffer too much anxiety taking 
that well-too-familiar commute back to Washington.
    Governor Noem. No, no. A little bit of PTSD, but not too 
bad.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rosendale. Yes, yes. One of the things that I like to 
always paraphrase is Dwight Eisenhower, when he says--and we 
have listened from the disinformation and lack of information 
from, unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side. Dwight 
Eisenhower said that farming looks very easy when you use a 
pencil for a plow, and you live 1,000 miles away from a corn 
field. And that is exactly the problem that we run into in this 
body on a daily basis. There are too many people that are 
making decisions about the land management in our part of the 
world that they are not familiar with at all, at all.
    And, unfortunately, we have some people making those 
decisions, such as the Director of BLM, who is a known 
collaborator with eco-terrorists, and a Secretary of the 
Interior who won't provide documents about her daughter's 
lobbying efforts with the Department of the Interior and BLM 
that certainly doesn't help matters.
    Sadly, it is critically important for us to pass this bill 
and hold this hearing so that we, the people that are impacted 
the most by it, can actually get accurate information about the 
impact of the rule from the people that are going to be hit by 
it the most. As we have discussed several times already this 
morning, BLM is not going out and holding these hearings in the 
areas that are going to be hit. We have requested in the state 
of Montana to have a hearing, just to have a hearing in the 
state, when we have nearly 40 percent of our state that is 
Federal public lands, and we can't even accomplish that.
    We watched this Administration time and again try to bypass 
or get around those laws by passing rules that completely 
contradict them, thereby eliminating congressional 
participation, congressional representation, representation 
from the people that we represent as their extension, and 
public votes, quite frankly. So, they believe that they can do 
that. And, fortunately, we have seen time and again the Supreme 
Court side with us and say, no, the agencies are going outside 
of their bounds.
    So, that all being said, Governor Gordon, Governor Noem, 
did the BLM ever consult with you, your office, or the impacted 
agencies in your state before the promulgation of this rule?
    Governor Gordon. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Rosendale, no.
    There was some indication that you could have an 
information-only kind of opportunity. I think the hearing was 
held, not a hearing, it was an information-only sort of 
briefing that was held in Denver. You could only kind of view 
it, but you couldn't participate, you couldn't have a hearing. 
You could not talk about what the rule would mean.
    And I think the good governor from South Dakota mentioned 
it, the fact that they are ignoring normal NEPA process on 
something this devastating is just a complete abrogation of 
FLPMA.
    Mr. Rosendale. Governor Noem, did the Administration meet 
with you before they promulgated this rule?
    Governor Noem. No, there was no input or even consideration 
for our office, no notification or consultation.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK. So, do either of you believe that, as I 
do, that this contradicts the Taylor Grazing Act, which is law, 
which prioritizes grazing, food production for our nation?
    Governor Noem. Yes.
    Governor Gordon. Yes.
    Mr. Rosendale. As a rancher yourself, how does this 
conservation and management currently factor in to your typical 
operation?
    I know that, in Montana, most of our public lands are 
checkerboarded, and everybody seems to be the same way. So, how 
is this going to impact the typical operation, conservation 
and/or management practices for a local rancher, farmer in your 
state?
    Governor Noem. Well, first, in particular, ranchers look at 
every analysis of how they utilize land, on how it maintains 
that land, because they recognize it will need to be utilized 
in the future. These 10-year leases for permits to access BLM 
land, they want to continue to get them. They are not 
interested in a short-term engagement in partnership with BLM. 
They want to be good stewards so they are eligible for those 
leases in the future.
    Myself, as a rancher, looked at my land and utilized 
rotational grazing to get the most out of that land and leave 
it in the best shape at all times. And to go forward with a 
proposed rule like this and say that what we are doing today 
isn't working, and ignoring what is happening on the ground, I 
think, is extremely arrogant, perhaps naive, especially in the 
fact that when you look at the rule and read it--in fact, the 
more times I read it, the more offended I was, because it lacks 
any scientific data or analysis that what we are doing today is 
not providing conservation, and efforts, and that it isn't 
being a good steward of the land, but also doesn't give you any 
basis for why they are proposing these changes and that it will 
actually better our environment, that it will leave us in 
better shape.
    So, it is very clear what their agenda is when you don't 
use any kind of data to back up the need for changes, have no 
analysis for the economic impact it will have, you ignore 
Federal law, you overwhelm our state's authority and rights 
with it, with what you are proposing, as well, and then take 
constitutional authority that should be only given to Congress. 
This rule has done all of those.
    And I want to remind all of you of your responsibility here 
at this Committee. It is to protect the United States of 
America. And what they are undermining with just this simple 
rule in BLM undermines all of those precedents that we have 
followed that are built on constitutional law in this country.
    And I have seen this so much. I have been in a lot of 
different roles in my life now. I am a wife, and a mom, and a 
grandma, but I am also a business person, farmer, rancher. I 
have served in our legislature. I have been here in Congress, 
and as governor. I have never in my life seen such a short 
period of time where they have completely destroyed the 
foundation of this country. And it is not just in the big 
things that you see and hear about on the TV news at night, it 
is in rules like this, where they are overstepping their 
authority through a powerful Federal Government and undermining 
us as states, us as governors and the authority we have to 
fight for our people and their way of life.
    There will be business owners, small businesses in my state 
that will be bankrupt if this proposed rule goes into place. 
They will have no land for their cattle, nowhere to graze them. 
They will be out of business. Their cattle or their 
manufacturing plants, their future, will be gone.
    These timber industries, we have one of the last examples 
of one that is still functioning, but we lost a mill in the 
Black Hills, and it was because of the Federal Government. We 
have two left, each of us have, and that is all we have 
anymore. And we are going to fight tooth and nail to keep that, 
too. This rule would destroy our timber industry, as well.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much for your information and 
for your passion.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairman [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired. 
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
    Mr. Lamborn, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important 
hearing. Thank you for having it.
    Governor Noem, I enjoyed serving with you in Congress when 
you were here. In fact, you were on this same Committee for a 
time, and you did such an excellent job. And I know you are 
also doing that in your position now in South Dakota.
    Just last month, BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning testified 
before this Committee, and I asked her at that hearing if the 
new proposed conservation rule would allow simultaneous land 
use by ranchers, loggers, and other industries. And she said, 
``The term of the conservation lease would preclude uses that 
directly conflict with the underlying conservation lease.''
    I think that a lot of people here in Washington don't 
understand the West, or they wouldn't make the kind of rules 
that they are proposing.
    I know you had a great answer just now to Representative 
Rosendale. Is there anything you would like to add about the 
impact that this rule, should it ever take effect, would have 
on BLM land, and then hence the people and the economy of the 
state of South Dakota?
    Governor Noem. Well, let's remember that BLM was 
established to produce sustained yield and management practices 
that were out there for conservation efforts. So, in every 
single practice that we are utilizing on BLM land is built in 
the mandate to utilize conservation. What they are doing in 
this rule is putting conservation efforts, based on no 
definition of what those conservation efforts are or what they 
should be, and placing them above every other use. So, that in 
itself turns the entire mission of BLM on its head.
    And when you have this much Federal land in your districts 
and in your states, it impacts your economy in ways that--the 
ripple effect is tens of thousands of people, tens of thousands 
of jobs, and it takes their ability to be producers away from 
them.
    For me, it is not just on the economic side of it. It is 
also what it does to people's spirits and to their ability to 
want to get up every day and go to work. I am just a big 
believer that we have lost our nation's work ethic, and we need 
to remember why we have one. We have a work ethic because we 
were created to serve, to serve other people, to get up every 
day. It is better for us physically, mentally, spiritually. And 
having the ability to go out and work on the land and to help 
it produce and provide for your family would help our nation, 
as a whole, be unified and to accomplish something that keeps 
our economy stable.
    We have talked for years about the need for not just one 
part of this country to be successful, not just one part where 
people can do well and make higher incomes, or where they can 
be more productive. When you guys have a tough economic 
recession on the East Coast or on the West Coast, often it is 
the middle of the country that stabilizes this country.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, I appreciate that.
    Governor Noem. Our people are still working.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
    Governor Gordon, you are in the great state of Wyoming, and 
I admire how it is run. I have a daughter with her family who 
live there. And I have seen firsthand that it is a very well-
run state. During COVID, it was a relief to leave Washington, 
DC, where things were locked up so tightly and be where things 
are at least halfway normal, such as Wyoming. That was a breath 
of fresh air.
    One thing that really frustrates me about the current 
Administration is that they will be deceptive when they say a 
rule is proposed for one reason, when their real objective is 
another reason. Gas cooktop stoves is one example. They say it 
is to protect people with asthma. They are just trying to shut 
down a fossil fuel, and they are not admitting that, they are 
not being honest. Taking helium off the critical mineral list 
when it comes from natural gas extraction is another example of 
that.
    Do you have suspicions, or thoughts, or concerns about what 
the real purpose of BLM's new conservation rule is?
    And will it have the effect of hurting resource-based 
industries, including conventional fuels?
    Governor Gordon. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, yes, 
absolutely. I am very concerned about the ulterior motives of 
this. It is to shut down fossil fuel development.
    And as I have mentioned, one of the things is that our 
fossil fuel industry has very much invested in conservation. To 
just segue a little bit to the question that the Congressman 
from Montana mentioned very specifically, our ranch is in core 
sage-grouse area. People that develop minerals do so with an 
intent to do the best they can to preserve that bird. In our 
case, we did a range tour, and it was actually the NRCS that 
came back and said, ``We can't provide you with any more 
resource, you are already doing things so well.'' That is the 
way we run our ranch.
    And this conservation rule, if implemented, would suddenly 
have somebody in Washington say, ``Oh, you know what? We are 
going to put this in conservation. You can't graze your cows 
anymore,'' when very much the role that our cows play in making 
that range better would be devastated. Our ranching operation 
would be devastated. That would be true across the West.
    So, this rule and everything you see in this--and you have 
this same issue in Colorado--everything this Administration 
does is about climate. So, you have tremendous regulations 
being put in place that are holding back our fossil fuel 
industry, that are costing Americans dearly in the pocket. We 
had unprecedented rises in the price of oil and gas, and now we 
are talking about going off of coal and onto natural gas at a 
time when we can't get a lease out of this Administration, we 
can't get a permit out of this Administration.
    And for those who aren't familiar with the mineral estate, 
there is a surface estate and a mineral estate. And the way the 
Federal Government shuts down anything that goes anywhere near 
a Federal mineral lease, shuts down private industry, shuts 
down private property, it is devastating.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes Mr. Huffman, who wasn't overlooked in the last 
round of questions.
    But you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I hate to 
interrupt this hyper-partisan performance masquerading as a 
legislative hearing, but on the off chance that there may be a 
few people watching at home who don't get all of their news and 
information refracted through the kaleidoscope of right-wing 
media, I would just like them to know that not every Western 
state is hyped up on anti-government conspiracy politics.
    In fact, California opposes H.R. 3397, and thinks it is a 
good idea to proceed with BLM's public lands rule. I would just 
like to enter into the record, if I could, Mr. Chairman, this 
letter from the California Natural Resources Agency.

    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The letter can be found on page 22.]

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Look, not every Western state believes it would be the end 
of the world to elevate conservation to equal footing with 
grazing, and timber harvesting, and mining, and other 
extractive uses. A lot of folks think that this is just good, 
plain common sense and sensible policy, as do I. We will talk a 
little more about that when we get to the next panel with the 
BLM witness.
    But for now, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back and allow you 
to proceed with the regularly scheduled conspiracy politics. 
Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and I will remind 
the gentleman it is an open hearing, and I am glad that you and 
Mr. Grijalva are here to represent the Minority's view. And I 
do appreciate our witnesses for being here today.
    I now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And again, it is so good to see 
both of you. The voice of Wyoming has been ignored on this 
topic, so I am deeply grateful for the chance to echo their 
sentiment of concern and outrage over this proposed rule.
    According to public comments submitted by the United States 
Business Administration Office of Advocacy, this proposed rule 
has unintended consequences that are contrary to the statutory 
provisions of FLPMA, lacks factual basis, and does not 
adequately consider the economic impacts of the rule on small 
businesses. That is how bad this proposed rule is. The SBA 
under the Biden administration is literally calling out the BLM 
on how bad the proposal is.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the SBA's public 
comments on this for the record.
    Dr. Gosar [presiding]. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

                   U.S. Small Business Administration

                           Office of Advocacy

                                                  June 13, 2023    

Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20240

Re: Conservation and Landscape Health (88 Fed. Reg. 19583; April 3, 
        2023)

    Dear Secretary Haaland:

    On April 3, 2023, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) published a proposed rule entitled ``Conservation 
and Landscape Health.'' The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small 
Business Administration (Advocacy) respectfully submits the following 
comments on the proposed rule. Advocacy and small businesses support 
activities to mitigate and restore public lands. Advocacy is concerned, 
however, that BLM's proposed rule may be contrary to the statutory land 
management principles laid out in the Federal Land Policy Management 
Act (FLPMA). Furthermore, BLM's proposed rule does not adequately 
consider the impacts to small businesses as required by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA). Advocacy makes the following additional comments 
below.

I. Background
A. The Office of Advocacy

    Congress established the Office of Advocacy under Pub. L. 94-305 to 
represent the views of small entities before Federal agencies and 
Congress. Advocacy is an independent office within the U.S. Small 
Business Administration (SBA). As such, the views expressed by Advocacy 
do not necessarily reflect the views of the SBA or the Administration. 
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\1\ as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA),\2\ gives small 
entities a voice in the rulemaking process. For all rules that are 
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities, the RFA requires federal agencies to assess the 
impact of the proposed rule on small entities and to consider less 
burdensome alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.
    \2\ Pub. L. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996) (codified in 
various sections of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 requires agencies to give every 
appropriate consideration to comments provided by Advocacy.\3\ The 
agency must include a response to these written comments in any 
explanation or discussion accompanying the final rule's publication in 
the Federal Register, unless the agency certifies that the public 
interest is not served by doing so.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (PL. 111-240) Sec. 1601.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Advocacy's comments are consistent with Congressional intent 
underlying the RFA, that ``[w]hen adopting regulations to protect the 
health, safety, and economic welfare of the nation, federal agencies 
should seek to achieve statutory goals as effectively and efficiently 
as possible without imposing unnecessary burdens on the public.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Proposed Rule

    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 lays out 
provisions for BLM to follow in its management of federal lands within 
the United States.\6\ FLPMA directs the agency to manage the lands in a 
way that balances the need to preserve and protect certain lands in 
their natural habitat while also recognizing the need for domestic 
sources of ``minerals, food, timber, and fiber.'' \7\ FLPMA further 
directs BLM to follow specific criteria for the development of land use 
plans. These criteria include principles of multiple use and giving 
priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical 
environmental concern (ACEC).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 43 U.S.C. Sec.  1701 et seq.
    \7\ Id. at (a)(12).
    \8\ 43 U.S.C. Sec.  1712(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FLPMA defines multiple use as including the management of public 
lands in a way that ``best meet[s] the present and future needs of the 
American people.'' \9\ Multiple use is further defined as a combination 
of uses including but not limited to ``recreation, range, timber, 
minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific 
and historical values.'' \10\ FLMPA also defines six principal uses for 
land management that include and are limited to, ``domestic livestock 
grazing, fish and wildlife development and utilization, mineral 
exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and 
timber production.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ 43 U.S.C. Sec.  1702(c).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id. at (l). (Emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pursuant to FLPMA, if the Secretary of the Interior issues a land 
management decision that excludes or eliminates one or more principles 
of major use for two or more years, the Secretary is required to report 
their decision to Congress. Congress may issue a concurrent resolution 
of non-approval for the decision.\12\ In such an instance, the 
Secretary must terminate such decision.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ 43 U.S.C. Sec.  1712(e)(2).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 3, 2023, BLM published its proposed ``Conservation Land 
Health'' rule.\14\ The rule proposes three major changes to current 
land management practices. First, it applies land health standards to 
all BLM managed lands.\15\ This provision requires that BLM use data 
and information to prepare an assessment of land health for all BLM 
managed lands, not just those used for grazing, as is the current 
practice.\16\ Second, the rule adds ``conservation'' as a land use 
category and allows for conservation leases.\17\ These leases would be 
available to entities seeking to restore public lands or provide 
mitigation for a particular action.\18\ Conservation leases would be 
issued for an initial maximum term of ten years, but can be extended as 
necessary to serve the purpose for which the lease was first 
issued.\19\ Third, the rule expands the use of Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern (ACECs).\20\ The rule would emphasize ACECs as 
the principal designation for protecting important resources, and 
establish a ``more comprehensive framework'' to consider areas for ACEC 
designation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Conservation Land Health, 88 Fed. Reg. 19853, (April 3, 2023).
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id. at 19586.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id. at 19584.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Advocacy's Small Business Concerns \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ At the time of filing of this letter many of the stakeholders 
with whom Advocacy engaged have not yet filed their own comments. 
Advocacy therefore requests that BLM carefully review and consider the 
comments of small businesses and their representatives and that any 
issues not raised herein that are of concern to small businesses be 
given their due weight and consideration.

    On May 17, 2023, Advocacy held a virtual small business roundtable 
to discuss the rule.\23\ Advocacy also conducted outreach directly to 
small businesses. Small businesses in agriculture, forestry, and mining 
spoke to Advocacy about the rule, as well as to representatives of BLM. 
During this outreach, small businesses expressed concern with BLM's 
assertion that the rule would not have a significant impact on their 
business. They were especially concerned about the impact the new 
conservation leases would have on other uses and whether this may 
inhibit grazing, mining, and timber leases. Many small businesses 
questioned the need for the rule. They also questioned whether the rule 
was outside the bounds of FLPMA. Small businesses are already providing 
mitigation and restoration measures as prescribed under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental statutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ See, Office of Advocacy Natural Resources Roundtable (May 17, 
2023), https://advocacy.sba.gov/2023/04/27/small-entity-natural-
resources-roundtable-may-17-2023/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Advocacy heard from some county executives in Western states where 
more than 80 percent of land within the county is managed by BLM, and 
significant portions of the county's economy is tied to these federal 
lands.\24\ Small business representatives from Montana indicated that 
nearly 30 percent of the state's lands are public lands, and that 
grazing leases are an essential part of farming and ranching in the 
state. Some small businesses pointed to BLM's own economic report that 
states that lands managed by BLM account for nearly 201 billion dollars 
in economic output in the U.S.\25\ Advocacy heard from some mining 
representatives who stated that close to 80 percent of their member 
companies are small businesses.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Advocacy has not independently verified this data.
    \25\ See U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., ``The BLM: A Sound Investment 
for America 2022'', (November 2022), https://www.blm.gov/about/data/
socioeconomic-impact-report-2022.
    \26\ Advocacy has not independently verified this data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recreation and outfitting industries also have an interest in the 
rule. Some businesses expressed to BLM that conservation leases may be 
compatible with outdoor recreation activities and therefore may create 
opportunities for multi-use leases. Others, however, shared the 
concerns of other industries and noted that conservation leases may be 
incompatible with certain types of recreation, including those that 
require the use of motorized vehicles. Some noted that this could pose 
accessibility issues for those individuals with limited mobility if 
BLM, or the conservation lease holder, limits the types of recreational 
activities that can occur in a particular area.
    Advocacy also acknowledges that there may be instances where a 
small business may find portions of BLM's rule beneficial in providing 
mitigation opportunities. There may also be new and emerging small 
businesses because of the proposed rule. While these small businesses 
may enjoy some benefits of the proposed rule, the rule itself is 
problematic. Given that the rule has the potential to impact a 
substantial number of small businesses across various industry sectors 
BLM must properly and thoroughly consider these impacts and modify the 
proposed rule's RFA analysis accordingly. Advocacy makes the below 
comments on the proposed rule.

A. BLM's proposed rule has unintended consequences that are contrary to 
        the agency's goals and the statutory requirements for land 
        management under FLPMA.

  1.  The proposed rule does not properly explain how conservation 
        leases are compatible with the multiple use land management 
        goals laid out in FLPMA.

    FLPMA expressly states that BLM must balance the need to protect 
and preserve public lands with the principal land uses laid out in the 
Act.\27\ FLPMA further states that public lands need to be managed in a 
way that recognizes the country's need for domestic sources of natural 
resources and food.\28\ Within its proposed rule, BLM cites FLPMA 
Sec. 102(a)(8) as the basis for issuing its proposed rule.\29\ This 
section describes that BLM must manage public lands in a manner that 
will protect the quality of resources and preserve some public lands in 
their natural condition.\30\ FLPMA Sec. 102(b) states that the policies 
of the Act, ``shall become effective only as specific statutory 
authority for their implementation is enacted by this Act or by 
subsequent legislation.'' Within this rulemaking, BLM is proposing to 
create a new category of leases, conservation leases. In creating a 
conservation land use lease, BLM will disrupt the current multiple use 
landscape. BLM's proposed rule states that such conservation leases 
``would not override valid existing rights or preclude other, 
subsequent authorizations so long as those subsequent authorizations 
are compatible with the conservation use.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq.
    \28\ Id. at 102(a)(12).
    \29\ Id. at 102(a)(8).
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19583 at 19856.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM has not, however, clarified within the proposed rule how 
conservation leases will be compatible with the other principal uses 
laid out in FLMPA.\32\ In at least two instances, mining and grazing, 
the proposed rule is incompatible. Without proper clarification from 
BLM regarding the implications of conservation leases on other uses, 
and the inevitable incompatibility that may result, the proposed rule 
has the effect of placing conservation leases above other interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is contrary to the statutory intent outlined in FLPMA. As 
indicated above, BLM does not have statutory authority to create such 
additional uses that would make the other principal uses incompatible. 
According to the statutory text cited throughout this letter, Congress 
did not intend for land uses to be excluded on a programmatic level. 
BLM's rule has the impact of excluding various land uses 
programmatically simply because of their incompatibility with 
conservation. While BLM's objectives in issuing the proposed rule are 
well-intended, the agency is ignoring the fact that the current 
multiple use land management landscape is working and does not need the 
proposed change. This current landscape balances the need to protect 
and preserve lands while also acknowledging that these lands are 
necessary for ensuring domestic supply chains for food, minerals, and 
natural resources, just as FLPMA had intended.
    Furthermore, according to FLPMA, these conservation leases would 
need to be submitted to Congress. These leases could go through rounds 
of voting in Congress only to be eventually struck down.\33\ BLM should 
therefore reconsider the proposed rule and whether it has statutory 
authority to take such actions. BLM should consider whether there are 
alternatives, such as more opportunities for mitigation, rather than 
creating additional lease categories that are not expressly authorized 
by FLPMA. Whatever alternatives BLM considers, the agency must require 
that the leaseholder identify the uses that are consistent with the 
principal use and be able to justify the exclusion of other principal 
uses as outlined in the statute. By modifying the rule so that it 
better aligns with the principles of FLPMA, BLM can ensure that its 
agency goals and priorities are in line with the statute and retain 
regulatory durability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1712(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2.  The proposed rule offers too much discretion to BLM that may 
        result in elevating conservation above the other principal land 
        management uses.

    Within the proposed rule, BLM states that conservation leases will 
be issued for a maximum term of 10 years. The agency then states that 
it may, ``extend the lease if necessary to serve the purpose for which 
the lease was first issued.'' \34\ Conservation is not a finite use of 
land in the same way that other uses are. Conservation can be a 
prolonged and permanently sustained use of land. BLM does not make 
clear what it will use to measure when a conservation land use has been 
achieved, nor is this a clear-cut thing that can be measured. 
Restoration as a land use implies that once the land is restored, the 
lease has a logical endpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19583 at 19586.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here, however, BLM has expressly chosen to use the term 
conservation, and not restoration. This provision of the proposed rule, 
therefore, would give BLM broad discretion to renew conservation leases 
indefinitely so long as they meet the purpose for which they were 
issued. This would all but ensure that other uses such as mining, 
grazing, logging, and some forms of recreation would not be able to co-
exist on these lands, which, once again, is outside the bounds of 
FLPMA. By locking up a particular public land in an indefinite 
conservation lease, BLM is neglecting to ensure the sustainability of 
the domestic supply chain, and instead contributing to the lack of 
domestically available materials. This may have significant unintended 
consequences to the domestic supply chain.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ A lack of domestically available materials may have an impact 
on renewable energy priorities. These projects require mineral 
resources such as lithium, copper, and many other locatable minerals. 
It may also impact domestically sourced food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM should therefore reconsider whether there are other 
alternatives that may more adequately achieve the agency's objectives 
for the proposed rule. These alternatives may include broader 
mitigation opportunities on public lands that are more compatible with 
other land uses. This will ensure that BLM is not overstepping the 
statutory principles laid out in FLPMA.
  3.  BLM's proposal does not account for required actions that lease 
        holders already take with respect to conservation goals and 
        does not consider alternatives.

    FLPMA directs BLM to balance and create multiple use land 
management plans. In doing so, FLPMA defines multiple use as a 
combination of uses including the six principal land management 
uses.\36\ Within BLM's proposed rule, the agency does not consider and 
discuss requirements that lease holders are already complying with to 
meet the agency's goals for increased conservation. Many small 
businesses discussed the NEPA compliance measures that they are already 
taking to restore lands once their activities have expired, and to 
mitigate the impacts of those activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ U.S.C. Sec. 1702(c), Stating that the six principal land uses 
include, ``domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development 
and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, 
outdoor recreation, and timber production.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By considering measures that businesses are already taking, BLM can 
focus its attention on areas for improvement with respect to those 
activities rather than creating additional land uses that are not 
statutorily supported. Within its own rule BLM cites restoration of 
degraded lands and increased mitigation opportunities as reasons for 
issuing the proposed rule. BLM should therefore reconsider whether the 
provisions of the proposed rule meet these goals, and whether they are 
statutorily permitted under FLPMA.
B. The proposed rule lacks a proper factual basis for certification 
        that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
        substantial number of small entities.

    Within BLM's proposed rule, the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.\37\ Under Sec. 605(b) of the RFA, if an agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, they must include a factual basis for such 
certification.\38\ BLM's certification provides no such factual basis, 
and offers no information as to how they arrived at this 
conclusion.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b).
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19583 at 19594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted above, many small businesses are concerned about the 
impacts the rule may have on both their existing leases and the 
opportunity for future leases. While BLM is not required to attempt to 
calculate the impact the proposed rule may have on potential future 
lease sales, BLM is required to offer a discussion of the impacts the 
rule may have on current lease holders.
    At a minimum BLM should identify the small businesses that 
currently engage with the agency and/or hold leases. As noted above, 
many activities would be rendered incompatible with conservation leases 
which constitutes lost revenue for those businesses. While it is 
difficult to quantify those potential impacts, they should at least be 
discussed by BLM and should appear within its RFA analysis. BLM could 
also have asked for public comment and data directly from small 
businesses to help inform a more thorough analysis of the impacts.
    Advocacy therefore requests that BLM revise its RFA analysis and 
instead provide a supplemental document with an initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Act analysis that includes a discussion of the impacted 
small entities, what if any impacts those small entities may face, and 
what regulatory alternatives the agency considered.
III. Conclusion

    Advocacy appreciates BLM's intention to prioritize restoration of 
degraded public lands. However, BLM's proposed rule falls short of 
achieving these stated goals. The rule has unintended consequences that 
are contrary to the statutory provisions of FLPMA. Furthermore, BLM's 
RFA certification lacks a factual basis, and does not adequately 
consider the economic impacts of the rule on small businesses. For the 
foregoing reasons BLM should consider alternatives to the proposed rule 
that better align with the statutory provisions of FLPMA and should 
conduct a proper and thorough RFA analysis for the proposed rule.

            Sincerely,

        Major L. Clark, III,          Prianka P. Sharma,
        Deputy Chief Counsel          Assistant Chief Counsel

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. American economies can only get a return on 
our Federal lands in much of the West through two things. The 
first is grazing and the second is through mineral extraction 
or logging. The very lifestyle of rural communities is at risk 
when burdensome regulations like this cripple the businesses 
that allow these communities to flourish. The revenue provided 
to the state through mining and agriculture is essential to our 
lives and our economy. This revenue funds our schools, health 
care, public safety, and other essential services.
    Wyoming is a strong leader in energy production, 
agriculture, and outdoor recreation, as Governor Gordon 
outlined in his testimony. Basically, everything this proposed 
rule touches is what we in Wyoming are good at. So, quite 
frankly, it is hard not to take this personally.
    To make matters worse, the BLM won't even come to Wyoming 
to talk about the proposed rule.
    Governor Gordon, considering that Wyoming's economy lives 
and dies on the industries impacted by this rule, why do you 
think it is that BLM would hold town halls in New Mexico and 
Colorado, but not Wyoming? Are they avoiding something?
    Governor Gordon. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Hageman, it is 
clear they are avoiding having real testimony on the ground 
with practitioners of conservation. They are looking for 
communities where they can find a favorable audience so they 
can move things forward.
    And the testimony of the gentleman from California I take 
great umbrage at, because actually----
    Ms. Hageman. We typically do, as well.
    [Laughter.]
    Governor Gordon. Governor Noem and I have worked with folks 
across the aisle. This is about conservation and good 
development, good management, and stewardship of our natural 
resources. It is not a hyper-partisan issue. Just last year, I 
signed an agreement with Secretary Vilsack which recognized 
that private property has a role in healthy wildlife 
populations. So, I take real offense at suggesting that this is 
somehow a conspiracy.
    This is about keeping people on the land. This is about 
stewardship. And to suggest that people that are in the oil and 
gas business or miners somehow don't care about conservation is 
just wrong-headed.
    Ms. Hageman. It has been proven over, and over, and over 
again, yet our colleagues on the other side just simply can't 
get through that through their head because they lack the 
talking points, as we just saw.
    A few weeks ago, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations had Ms. Garcia Richard from New Mexico attend as 
the Minority witness. In her written testimony, she said that a 
state's ``ability to generate money for education is directly 
tied to the health and the productivity of state lands.''
    What I don't understand is what revenue you would generate 
for your state through a Federal conservation lease. Governor, 
will conservation leases generate any funds to local education 
or to the state in general?
    Governor Gordon. Mr. Chairman, Madam Congressman, no. That 
money would go to the Federal Government.
    And it is sort of a joke to think that we are going to make 
it more productive by taking it out of play. We, as you know, 
and Governor Lujan Grisham, and I have both addressed Congress 
on this fact. Our schools are funded by mineral development. 
The leases and all the ancillary pieces of the economy are 
funded by activities on Federal lands. Taking those out of play 
would be devastating to our economy.
    Ms. Hageman. One of the things that so many people don't 
understand is that our water development and the way that we 
manage our resources in the West, even on Federal lands, is 
typically done by private individuals to better the situation 
for their livestock production. But that also benefits our 
wildlife. You take cattle off of our Federal lands in the West, 
you are also going to have a substantially negative impact on 
wildlife, because we are not going to be developing the 
resources that they need to survive.
    This is going to have incredibly negative unintended 
consequences that the people in Washington, DC don't 
understand, and they should not be making policies like this 
sitting in their air conditioned office here.
    With that, I yield back.
    The Chairman [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Duarte, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Well, I am a people in Washington, and I would 
seek to understand more about what you do.
    I think it is under-appreciated, the 245 million acres in 
Bureau of Land Management. It looks pretty good to me from the 
air. I don't see every inch of it, by any means, mined and 
developed with gas rigs. Not that those things bother me much 
when they are done properly, sustainably, and effectively by 
operators that know what they are doing.
    What does bother me a lot are some of the mismanaged lands 
in California, the forests that burn purportedly because of 
climate change. But from my angle on the kaleidoscope, we have 
neglected them. We have turned those forests over to the 
priorities of the conservation groups for a few decades. And 
now they are burning out of control, and we are getting no 
value from that.
    We see some bumper stickers around rural communities that 
say graze it, log it, or watch it burn. And I believe we should 
be grazing it and logging it in California, much like we should 
be doing in South Dakota and Wyoming.
    I would invite you, Governor Noem, and then you, Governor 
Gordon, give us some detail. Talk to us about the things you 
think about, the effective resource managers on your ranches, 
and how those lead to not only the conservation of the 
resources on your ranches, but how, instead of the government 
coming out with resource conservation monies and paying 
billions of dollars to have somebody do it for them, for us, 
you guys do a lot of environmental services for free because, 
God forbid--we will try and accept it--you make a few nickels 
once in a while doing it.
    Explain the business of being a ranch owner to us, please.
    Governor Noem. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I 
would say for most ranchers, it is not a business model, it is 
their family legacy. It is what their fathers did and their 
grandfathers and grandmothers did. And it is something that 
they take a lot of pride in.
    I think probably one of the most devastating things I have 
ever seen in my entire life was when Winter Storm Atlas hit 
South Dakota when I served here in Congress, and tens of 
thousands, hundreds of thousands of cattle were dead overnight 
because of something out of ranchers' control.
    So, to paint the picture that they only care about dollars 
and cents just simply isn't true. And they make management 
decisions how best to support that herd, but also how to 
support that land and how to protect it. They are putting in 
investments to access water, and they are putting in different 
resources in order to manage noxious weeds. You could go 
anywhere in South Dakota and see that the private land and land 
in cooperation with ranchers is better cared for than much land 
that would be under a government jurisdiction or at the Federal 
level.
    What is interesting to me is that, if you look at BLM and 
what their mission is, is that it specifically is to use the 
land, it is a land management agency, and it is supposed to 
consider conservation in every activity that it conducts. When 
you start prioritizing one over the other, the entire mission 
of the agency fails. And the way that they are approaching 
this, by declaring this not a major rule, completely eliminates 
any of the scientific facts they would need to even know if 
this rule is going to work.
    When the former Congressman over here was chatting about 
conspiracy theories, this whole proposed rule is a conspiracy 
theory. They are avoiding Federal law. They may not even, under 
one of their processes they have established in this rule, even 
require these rules to be listed in the Federal Register 
anymore under the ACEC process. They are taking away all public 
input, potentially, in how they are going to create intact 
landscapes, which means the public will have no input, and they 
can immediately implement it overnight, which is not the 
authority of BLM.
    So, I am incredibly surprised by how this rule came forward 
because of how it is established, and it is ignoring the long-
set precedent that ranchers take every day to manage lands, and 
not asking for their input.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you. That is a great answer. No one 
understands ranching and government together better than the 
two of you.
    I will give what is left of the last minute to Governor 
Gordon, if we can, please. Thank you very much.
    Governor Gordon. Thank you. On a personal level, when I get 
up on the ranch, I go out and I look at how the grass is 
growing. We measure it on a monthly basis. You can go to our 
website and see our range studies over the last several years. 
We take our conservation very seriously.
    But more importantly, wherever you go in Wyoming, and I am 
thinking of the Thunder Basin, and Congresswoman Hageman knows 
it well. Secretary Perdue came out and actually took a ride 
through the Thunder Basin national grassland and visited with 
the ranchers there, because he wanted to see on the ground what 
was going on. You can't do windshield management. You have to 
look at the ground. You know that, as a farmer yourself.
    And what is frustrating about this rule is it will put in 
place all of these sort of constrictions on management. And as 
I mentioned before, it would inhibit our ability to be able to 
improve the range, and to be able to sustain the range so that 
our sage-grouse populations could happen. You know, from being 
from California, that dead and dying material oxidizes. It 
doesn't produce anything except CO2. And that either 
happens over time or it happens in a fire.
    Mr. Duarte. Out on the range there are lots of ideas in the 
world, we all learn from each other in farming and natural 
resources of all types, many businesses, do you categorically 
dismiss perspectives because of political party affiliation?
    Governor Gordon. Absolutely not.
    Governor Noem. We don't get that ability, as governor. As a 
governor you need to get things done, and accomplished, and do 
what is best for people. And we work on a bipartisan basis 
every single day.
    Mr. Duarte. Do you feel you are able to listen to an idea 
or perspective, and give it merit based on its----
    Governor Noem. The diversity of that perspective helps us 
make better decisions. When we hear those different opinions, 
we make better policy decisions.
    Governor Gordon. And there may be things that the governor 
and I don't agree on, and there may be things that a governor 
in Colorado and I don't agree on. But we find a way forward.
    Mr. Duarte. Even though you are in the same political 
party, you don't always agree?
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I am going 
to have to move on to the next question. I recognize the 
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Governor Noem. Good seeing you again.
    Governor Noem. Good to see you again, too.
    Dr. Gosar. And Governor Gordon, I am the lost sheep from 
Wyoming, the oldest brother.
    First, I have to start with the comments from my colleague 
from New Mexico. She mis-speaks. She said this rule will not 
stop oil and gas leases, it won't change a thing. Well, tell 
that to the Navajo allottees who saw their livelihoods and 
financial well-being dragged from them from one of their own 
Indigenous Secretary of the Interior, once again magnifying the 
old adage, ``I am here from the Federal Government, I am here 
to help.'' Run Forrest, run.
    Now, I want to get back to this from a little different 
tact. You are very aware of the equal footing clause, I might 
ask, and the multiple-use doctrine. Yesterday in a Committee 
hearing on Oversight, we had just the craziest, craziest 
hearing. And we had an individual talking about mercury 
toxicity. And little did she know that the No. 1 adage for 
mercury toxicity is catastrophic wildfires. Amazing. Absolutely 
amazing. It shows that this dog chases his tail round, and 
round, and round we go, and never catches it.
    So, we are looking at those aspects and primacy. Let's get 
back to Arizona. Arizona is a very unique state, because we 
were rejected by statehood the first time. And the President at 
that time, President Taft, who was the only president to go on 
to serve at the Supreme Court, actually forced the Federal 
doctrine on Arizona. But he also said that the commitment was 
the multiple-use doctrine would be very advantageous not only 
for the state of Arizona, but for the Federal Government in 
utilizing it. Now, we may not have as much gas and energy that 
you guys have, but we are loaded with minerals. We are loaded.
    So, this is a further attempt to victimize the West, not to 
empower them. But I keep coming back to that equal footing 
clause that states that what Eastern states got, we were 
entitled to without this Federal doctrine. I am going to ask 
you. If we were to return that equal footing clause to primacy, 
how would that affect your states, and how would they run more 
efficiently?
    Governor Noem, we will go with you first.
    Governor Noem. Well, it would be a game-changer for us, 
specifically. It would right the ship, and give us an 
opportunity to at least be treated in a manner which gave us 
equal opportunity to succeed. It is not the Federal 
Government's job to come in and make sure that we succeed, or 
to put their thumb on the scales, but to give us an opportunity 
to at least produce and succeed as every other state gets the 
opportunity to.
    Dr. Gosar. Governor Gordon?
    Governor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman. I 
knew your dad, I know many of your siblings----
    Dr. Gosar. Don't hold it against me.
    [Laughter.]
    Governor Gordon. I won't. And I know your county very well. 
And the example you give in Sublette, where you were raised, is 
absolutely critical.
    As you know, former Commissioner Joel Bousman has worked on 
trying to get primacy for that area, which has national 
forests, has BLM, has Federal leasing involved. And it would 
be, to the good governor of South Dakota's comment, a game-
changer.
    Really, states know how to do this. We have done it better 
than anyone else on sage-grouse habitat, and your home county, 
Sublette. And it really is thanks to state government, not the 
Federal Government, that we got a recipe that protects the 
wildlife, allows for energy development, and makes sure that 
the communities of Pinedale, Big Piney, and others have 
families that can live there and make a reasonable living.
    Dr. Gosar. Yes. So, I am one of these people that gets 
tired of playing defensive politics. So, I am going to 
highlight a program called SNPLMA, the Southern Nevada Land 
Exchange Project. It was by the late Harry Reid. And what he 
found was that Las Vegas was surrounded by BLM. He couldn't 
grow anymore. So, what he dug up is that he found in the 
inventory of Federal laws that the government had to get rid of 
the land they had no use for, or didn't have a direct aspect 
for. And, voila, Vegas grew. BLM sold land right and left. 
Maybe we ought to be looking at that law. If it was good enough 
for Harry Reid, it should be good enough for us, as states, and 
the supremacy of the state over its jurisdiction.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I thank the witnesses for 
attending today.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Puerto Rico, Mrs. Gonzalez-
Colon.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you, both governors, for being here.
    Happy to see you, Governor Noem.
    Governor Noem. Good to see you again, too.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. We were here together when I actually 
arrived here in Congress. And I am listening to you both in 
terms of that experience, and my main concern will be how, if 
in any way, the management engagement from BLM was done with 
your state. Was there any engagement before the publication of 
the rule?
    Governor Noem. Not with our office or with our state, 
specifically, no. There was an opportunity to listen and gather 
some information at one time. I would say it is a very 
different--well, it has happened. Waters of the U.S. was 
proposed much the same way. The 30x30 rule, which is absolutely 
a land grab by the Federal Government that is now being 
rebranded and brought forward, we are starting to see this as a 
pattern coming out of this Administration.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. You were saying in your testimony, in 
your statement that the proposed rule will also impact public 
safety in a negative way in your state. Can you elaborate on 
that?
    Governor Noem. Well, it is going to risk people's lives 
because it will not allow us to manage the Black Hills National 
Forest and Forest Service lands throughout that area in a way 
that protects our communities and homes that are there. We have 
seen devastating fires in the area. And because it is such a 
populated forest, if we do not manage it, it will increase that 
risk of wildfire, and we will lose people.
    The rule completely ignores that aspect, and does no 
analysis on what public safety ramifications may happen if they 
follow through on it.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. You know that I represent Puerto Rico 
in Congress, and we don't have the Bureau of Land Management 
back home.
    Governor Noem. Right.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. But I think it is important to know 
what kind of repercussions could be in the whole nation if we 
don't pay attention to this. Why should the general public and 
nationwide be concerned about the way this rule is being 
imposed?
    Governor Noem. Well, it will have long-lasting effects as 
far as precedent that it is setting for how every other rule is 
done. That is what I see consistently coming from the 
government, is once you allow them to overstep Federal law or 
to trample on our states' rights, they will continue to do so. 
And they will reference back to, well, we have already used 
this mechanism before under a rule through BLM, and they will 
continue to push it.
    That is why it is important to stop this, because, 
specifically on this rule, there is no scientific data, there 
is no analysis. They have purposely declared it not a major 
rule so they don't have to provide for you what the economic 
impact could be on the country.
    And for us specifically, it is our way of life. It is the 
people that live there and make a living off the land.
    Governor Gordon. And if I may, here is a direct impact.
    Governor Noem talked about forests. And we have seen that 
in California, we have seen that in Wyoming, we have seen that 
in Montana, really, everywhere across the West.
    The other thing we have seen, and I will point to Colorado 
a few years ago, where a massive grass fire overwhelmed 
communities. If we aren't able to treat invasive species on our 
Federal estate, there is a grass called cheatgrass, there is 
another one called Japanese brome. Both of them grow under 
really rapid conditions. They are annual grasses and they are 
like gasoline. In fact, they are characterized as being able to 
change the ecology of an area. So, if we are not able to treat 
that, and a spark hits that land, and a wind comes up, you will 
have devastation that can wipe out communities. We have seen it 
in Colorado. Governor Noem, Rapid City on the western edge, had 
real problems, and none of that was taken into effect.
    In fact, earlier today, I said one of the things that this 
Administration could do to get off their butt and actually do 
something about conservation is make sure that we get Rejuvra 
approved. The Ag Department says it is OK, EPA says it is OK, 
the Bureau of Land Management can't figure this out. That is 
one of the most important things they could do for 
conservation.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. And I need to agree with you. You said 
a few minutes ago that Secretary Perdue visited Wyoming to see 
what is going on in real life there. He did the same thing in 
Puerto Rico after the hurricanes. That is the kind of politics 
we should be pushing from our executive branch.
    I want to say thank you, both of you. Thank you for the 
conservation you do and your people do in your lands.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize 
myself for questions and, again, want to thank both of you for 
coming here today and spending your valuable time with us.
    Governor Noem, in your testimony, you talked about how this 
rule has no scientific basis. You talked about how the 
Administration is classifying it as a minor rule. And we held 
up the 88-page minor rule that they are proposing.
    And I know a few years ago I was out in Wyoming and South 
Dakota and in the Black Hills area, and I was there on a very 
sad day. It was a day that one of the mills in South Dakota 
closed, one of the few mills remaining out there. And I wasn't 
planning to meet with you, Governor Noem, but there was a 
forest fire that very day, and you had to fly over to be there 
for the forest fire.
    And I will say that some things do change, probably since 
you have been on the Committee. We actually passed out two 
bipartisan pieces of forestry legislation this week, one of 
them with a 39 to 0 vote, and it was on Good Neighbor 
Authority, which I know you worked on when you were here in 
Congress. And that bill had passed the Ag Committee 51 to 0. 
So, we are starting to wake up and realize the benefits of 
forest management. This will allow tribes and counties to do 
some of the same work that the states are able to do.
    But when I was there, I reviewed a report. And I have a 
forestry background. It was written not just by bureaucrats, 
but retired bureaucrats from the Forest Service, on how the 
forests should be managed. And it was offensive to me from a 
scientific standpoint on the basis that there was no science or 
knowledge that went into it. It was purely a biased report 
written to influence how the forest was going to be managed.
    So, it didn't appear to be a great day in the Black Hills 
with a mill closing down, a forest fire raging, and a new 
withdrawal from, if you will, from the Forest Service on land. 
But you mentioned that Good Neighbor Authority is working, and 
things are happening better in the Black Hills. I know both of 
you utilize the Good Neighbor Authority. Can you talk about how 
that and other programs that are run by the state can actually 
make conservation better and make our Federal lands better?
    Governor Noem. Well, in the Black Hills we have utilized 
Good Neighbor Authority to cooperate with other layers of 
government, with the state, with counties, with outside 
associations. And we have run incredible projects that have 
allowed us to go out and manage the forest to make sure that we 
were considering all aspects of what a successful forest looks 
like.
    Those are the kind of rules, suggestions, and regulations 
that I believe we should be focusing on in Congress to cut 
strings rather than to tie more on to us, to allow us the 
freedom to look at what specifically is happening in each 
situation and adapt to that. That was used very successfully 
for us to defeat and push back the pine beetle epidemic that we 
were dealing with at that time that was making the Black Hills 
so dangerous. And it worked overwhelmingly.
    Since then, we have seen more and more regulation coming 
in. Specifically, the GTR that was put forward by the Forest 
Service that cut our cubic cord feet was pretty devastating for 
us to see that it wasn't built on anything on the ground. And 
that is what is another aspect that is impacting the Black 
Hills right now, why we are seeing our mills being threatened 
and our timber industry struggling.
    I know Governor Gordon has been deeply involved in this, as 
well, as we have been trying to brainstorm on how we can keep 
the economy going.
    It is so interesting to me that we import a lot of our 
lumber from Canada, while we have excess lumber here that we 
just don't allow ourselves to utilize to help support our 
country. And now we have lumber from California from burned-out 
wildfires that is being shipped all the way to South Dakota to 
our two mills. It doesn't make any sense.
    The Chairman. I know, I almost passed out when I heard the 
solution was to ship in logs from California, and all that 
freight. Think of the carbon emissions on that.
    Governor Noem. Absolutely, they are actually doing it.
    The Chairman. Governor Gordon.
    Governor Gordon. And Mr. Chairman, the lesson is well 
learned in that particular instance. That is because the mill 
industry in the Northwest is dead. We put it out of business.
    So, in order to take care of those logs, we had to figure 
out a way, at enormous cost, both carbon and to the taxpayer, 
to get those logs to South Dakota, just to get them taken care 
of.
    Good Neighbor Authority has worked. It is incredibly 
valuable. We are working on it, obviously, in the Black Hills, 
but also in the western part of our state.
    And I will point out one other thing that is really 
critical about this. As we look at the Colorado River and the 
challenges it has had over the last several years, if we don't 
manage our watersheds well, we will compound our problems with 
droughts. We will compound our water shortage issues.
    And Mr. Chairman, as a forester, you know very well that 
when somebody says we are going to take this offline, we are 
not going to manage the forest, succession doesn't stop. You 
end up with post-successional forests that are tinder boxes. 
You end up with all kinds of strange things that happen. 
Management happens when we actually have the ability to do 
something.
    The Chairman. And the point I would like to make as we wrap 
up this panel is that, when we choose not to manage, we make a 
management decision. And if the Federal Government, the 
bureaucracy in the Federal Government is truly concerned about 
conservation, then let the people who know how to do 
conservation actually do conservation. Because the Federal 
Government's track record on conservation is really pretty 
poor. If you look at it compared to tribal governments, to 
state governments, and to private, you are looking at two 
different areas and, actually, two different universes.
    So, thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
    And Governor Gordon, you mentioned a great point. When 
these trees burn, they are releasing carbon dioxide. When they 
fall down and deteriorate over time, it is actually methane. 
They release CH4 from the digestion from the bugs 
that are eating them. So, you can burn it up as CO2, 
or let it rot and create CH4, or you can utilize 
those products and create good jobs in rural economies.
    But again, thank you both for being here today. And those 
were the last questions we have for Panel II.
    Some members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses that we will ask to respond in 
writing.
    We will now move on to our third panel. While the Clerk 
resets the witness table, I will remind the witnesses that 
under Committee Rules, they must limit their oral statements to 
5 minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the 
hearing record.
    I would also like to remind our witnesses of the timing 
lights, which will turn red at the end of your 5-minute 
statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone.
    As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to 
testify before Member questioning.
    At this point I would have liked to have introduced the 
Bureau of Land Management Director, Tracy Stone-Manning, to 
testify on H.R. 3397, a bill with explicit actions for the 
Director to take. However, the Director declined our invitation 
to testify, and instead we have Principal Deputy Director Nada 
Wolff Culver.
    Principal Deputy Director Culver, you are now recognized 
for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. NADA WOLFF CULVER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 
      DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Culver. Thank you, Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member 
Grijalva, and members of the Committee. I am Nada Wolff Culver, 
the Bureau of Land Management's Principal Deputy Director. I 
appreciate the opportunity to express the BLM's concerns 
regarding H.R. 3397, which would deprive the BLM of critical 
tools necessary to manage the challenges facing public lands 
today. The BLM opposes the bill.
    I also appreciate the opportunity to be here on a panel 
with my fellow Colorado residents, and I am also thankful to 
get to speak at this hearing today to get a chance to reiterate 
the intent and the content of the rule, how it works, 
consistent with the day-to-day management of our public lands.
    On behalf of the American people, the BLM manages 
approximately 245 million acres of public land, primarily in 12 
Western states, as well as 700 million subsurface acres. 
Congress provided clear direction to the BLM in the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, to manage public 
lands for multiple use and sustained yield, specifically to 
manage for uses such as renewable and conventional energy 
development, livestock grazing, timber production, fish and 
wildlife habitat, recreation, and conservation, including 
protecting cultural and historic resources, watersheds, and 
scenery. FLPMA also directs the BLM to ``take into account the 
long-term needs of future generations.''
    Today, public lands are under severe stress from 
increasingly frequent and intense wildfires, historic drought, 
influx of invasive species, and changing conditions on the 
ground driven by climate change. Simultaneously, public lands 
are under pressure from ever-increasing types and amounts of 
use.
    Simply put, the BLM's ability to continue to manage for the 
multiple uses outlined in FLPMA, which are a vital economic 
driver for communities across the West, depends on the 
resilience and the health of America's public lands.
    The proposed rule would help provide necessary direction to 
public land managers to work toward resilient, healthy 
landscapes that can support the full breadth of multiple use 
now and into the future. Recognizing that not every use can 
always occur on every acre, the BLM is working to ensure the 
appropriate balance of uses within the multiple-use framework 
on every acre.
    Conservation, defined in the proposed rule as protection 
and restoration, is a part of this balance and, as one type of 
multiple use, supports the continued resilience of the public 
lands. The proposed rule would direct land managers to identify 
intact landscapes and degraded landscapes, and consider whether 
and how land health, habitat, clean air, and clean water can be 
maintained or improved or restored as necessary.
    At the same time, the proposed rule would direct the use of 
the best available science and data, including Indigenous 
knowledge in decision making.
    The proposed rule also outlines a tool to support 
restoration, and to offset the impacts of development: 
conservation leasing. With conservation leases, the BLM could 
leverage private investment toward restoration and mitigation 
efforts taking place on public lands while working with 
partners, industry, and the public to site energy development 
and to conserve greater sage-grouse and wildlife habitat.
    The BLM received feedback from states, localities, and 
developers that such a tool is necessary to support durable 
lands restoration and mitigation on public lands to offset the 
impacts of development. The rule is responding to that input.
    And this is an important point overall: the concepts and 
the direction in this proposed rule arise out of years of the 
BLM's experience in implementing FLPMA and working with public 
land users on the ground. They have been discussed and 
implemented internally and externally. This proposed rule 
reflects the lessons learned, the needs identified, and the 
continuing conversations that BLM has with so many partners 
across this country who depend on the resources of our public 
lands.
    The BLM is currently in the process of receiving feedback 
on this proposed rule. The rule was published in the Federal 
Register on April 3, opening a 75-day public comment period. To 
date, the BLM has hosted five informational sessions and 
provided numerous briefings to a wide range of the interested 
public around the West and around the rest of the country. The 
BLM has received nearly 120,000 comments thus far.
    While our public outreach has been robust, in response to 
several requests, including from members of this Committee, 
today we are announcing an additional 15 days for public 
comment, bringing the comment period to 90 days. We will 
consider the valuable input we have received and continue to 
receive to inform the final rule.
    I am optimistic that this rule would help achieve our 
shared goals discussed by everyone here today to continue to 
manage public lands so they can support the multiple uses that 
we rely on now, while also maintaining the health of the lands 
for future generations.
    Every day, the BLM seeks a careful balancing across many 
uses and resources to steward the public lands for all. The 
proposed rule would help guide balanced management in a manner 
that does not elevate one use over others. The BLM would 
continue to permit multiple uses on the public lands, and 
conservation will remain compatible with many other uses.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to present this 
testimony, and I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Culver follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Nada Wolff Culver, Principal Deputy Director, 
       Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior

    Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns regarding 
H.R. 3397, which would require the Director of the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) to withdraw the proposed Conservation and Landscape 
Health rule (88 Fed. Reg. 19583 (April 4, 2023)) and prohibit the BLM 
from taking any action to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed 
rule or any substantially similar rule.
    The BLM's management responsibilities are at a pivotal moment, as 
our shared public lands face new and growing challenges resulting from 
a changing landscape, such as unprecedented drought and wildfire, while 
at the same time demands from commercial and recreation uses are 
increasing. The proposed rule is intended to provide tools to land 
managers on the ground to most effectively respond to these challenges 
and fulfill the BLM's mission so that our public lands can continue to 
support the people and wildlife that depend on them. It could help to 
ensure that the BLM has the ability to continue to responsibly manage 
energy development, grazing, mining, recreation, conservation, and 
other uses in a balanced manner consistent with the multiple-use, 
sustained-yield mission of the Bureau. It is important to note that 
this rule is at the proposed rule stage and the final rule could 
include modifications.
    Every day the BLM provides for a careful balancing across many uses 
and resources to steward the public lands for all. The proposed rule 
clarifies a framework confirming this approach and is consistent with 
the BLM's responsibilities, including under Section 102 and Section 
103(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), to uphold 
its multiple use mission while ensuring the health, diversity, and 
productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and 
future generations. The proposed rule is intended to help guide 
balanced management that does not elevate one use over others. The BLM 
permits multiple uses on the public lands and would continue to do so 
should this rule be finalized. Conservation principles, which are 
already established in BLM administrative policy and instruction 
memoranda, as well as applicable precedent, will continue to be 
compatible with many other uses and are key to ensuring that the public 
lands can continue to support multiple uses now and into the future.
    H.R. 3397 would unnecessarily interfere with the rulemaking 
process, and limit BLM's ability to manage for the challenges facing 
public lands today. The BLM strongly opposes this proposed legislation.
Overview

    On behalf of the American people, the BLM manages approximately 245 
million surface acres, located primarily in 12 western states. The 
Bureau also manages about 30 percent of the nation's onshore mineral 
resources across 700 million subsurface acres, including beneath 
surface areas managed by other Federal agencies, as well as state and 
private lands. Pursuant to the multiple-use mandate set out in FLPMA, 
the BLM manages public lands for a broad range of uses and values, such 
as renewable and conventional energy development, livestock grazing, 
timber production, hunting and fishing, recreation, and conservation--
including protecting scenic, cultural, and historic resources, 
watersheds, and scenery. FLPMA also directs the BLM to manage the 
public lands for sustained yield, so that the many resources of the 
public lands will continue to be available into the future. 
Approximately 155 million acres are managed for livestock grazing, and 
approximately 24 million acres are under lease for oil and gas 
development, with tens of thousands more acres leased or permitted for 
renewable energy development, outdoor recreation, or other uses. Public 
lands managed by the BLM also provide vital habitat for more than 3,000 
species of wildlife and support fisheries of exceptional regional and 
national value.
    For more than 75 years, the BLM has evolved to meet the needs of 
the Nation while maximizing opportunities for conservation, recreation, 
and commercial uses on public lands. Today, public lands are under 
severe stress from increasingly frequent and intense wildfires, 
historic drought, an influx of invasive species, and changing 
conditions on the ground driven by climate change. At the same time, 
the pressures of use and development on public and private lands are 
increasing.
    The challenges posed by maintaining the health of public lands in 
the face of a changing world are making it increasingly difficult for 
the Bureau to provide for the needs of the American people--whether 
through food, fiber, habitat, forage for livestock, energy needs, 
outdoor recreation opportunities, or many of the other uses of the 
public lands. For the BLM to continue to deliver on its multiple-use 
and sustained-yield mission, the Bureau needs to manage for the health 
of lands today, so that their resources and values remain available and 
in a condition that best meets the needs of current and future 
generations of Americans.
    The proposed rule would help provide necessary direction to public 
land managers to work towards resilient, healthy landscapes that can 
support the full breadth of multiple use. The proposed rule would 
direct land managers to identify intact landscapes and consider whether 
and how land health can be maintained or improved. As proposed, it 
would direct land managers to identify where lands are unhealthy or 
degraded, and to consider how they might be restored. The rule proposes 
land managers use the best available science and data, while 
meaningfully incorporating Indigenous Knowledge, to ensure that 
management is science-based and driven by conditions on the ground. In 
addition, with the recognition that not every use can always occur on 
every acre, the BLM is working to ensure the appropriate balance of 
uses within the multiple use framework on every acre. Conservation is a 
part of this balance and supports the continued resilience of the 
public lands.
    Among several meaningful updates, the proposed rule also seeks 
public and stakeholder input on conservation leasing as a potential 
tool that would support restoration and offset the impacts of 
development. Under this approach, the BLM could potentially leverage 
private investment by allowing members of the public to invest 
restoration and mitigation dollars on public lands, which will also 
provide industry with a tool to offset their impacts on public lands. 
This could provide a path to facilitate responsible development while 
ensuring the public benefits from those mitigation efforts. The 
proposed rule also attempts to respond to prior feedback from states, 
localities, and developers that such a tool could help to support 
durable mitigation and restoration on public lands. Responding to this 
input by providing additional structure for such an approach could 
improve the BLM's restoration and mitigation efforts.
    The BLM is currently in the process of receiving and reviewing 
feedback on this proposed rulemaking to ensure it achieves these 
important goals without unnecessary disruption to existing management. 
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 3, 
2023, opening a 75-day public comment period. To date, the BLM has 
hosted five informational sessions, including two virtual meetings and 
three in-person meetings, to provide the public with opportunities to 
learn more about the proposed rule, as well as numerous briefings to a 
wide range of the interested public. The BLM has received more than 
120,000 public comments, and will consider and respond to the comments, 
using this valuable input to inform the final rule.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)

    Congress provided clear direction to the BLM in the agency's 
organic act, FLPMA. FLPMA requires public lands to be managed for 
multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law. 
FLPMA 302(a), 43 USC 1732(a). In doing so, it defined the term 
``multiple use'' at FLPMA Sec. 103(c), 43 USC Sec. 1702(c), to mean:

        [T]he management of the public lands and their various resource 
        values so that they are utilized in the combination that will 
        best meet the present and future needs of the American people; 
        making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of 
        these resources or related services over areas large enough to 
        provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to 
        conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land 
        for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced 
        and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term 
        needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable 
        resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, 
        timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural 
        scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and 
        coordinated management of the various resources without 
        permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the 
        quality of the environment with consideration being given to 
        the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the 
        combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return 
        or the greatest unit output.'' [emphasis added]

Moreover, Congress further declared:

        ``[I]t is the policy of the United States that the public lands 
        be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of 
        scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air 
        and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; 
        that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain 
        public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food 
        and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and 
        that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy 
        and use . . . .'' [emphasis added]

    To ensure the BLM is able to meet these priorities, FLPMA provides 
that ``in administering public land statutes and exercising 
discretionary authority granted by them, the Secretary be required to 
establish comprehensive rules and regulations after considering the 
views of the general public . . . .'' To date, the BLM has established 
and maintains regulations for a wide variety of uses, from grazing to 
off-road vehicle management, from areas managed to protect natural 
values to mineral resources to rights-of-way. However, the BLM has not 
established comprehensive regulations governing the conservation 
elements of BLM's mission to manage for multiple use and sustained 
yield, which is increasingly necessary in light of the challenges 
resulting from our changing landscape.
    Ultimately, the proposed rule would maintain the BLM's commitment 
to its multiple-use and sustained-yield mission, helping to provide 
management direction to fulfill its congressionally directed 
obligations. If finalized as proposed, the rule would help enable the 
BLM to deliver on all aspects of the charge Congress has given the 
Bureau and fulfill its mission, now and into the future. The proposed 
rule would better address conservation (defined to include restoration 
and protection) as a ``use'' among other ``multiple uses'' and would 
establish direction and management tools for land managers to consider 
and better protect and restore healthy public lands.
The Proposed Rule

    The BLM's ability to manage for the multiple use and sustained 
yield of public lands depends on the health of the ecosystems and the 
ability of the lands to deliver associated services, such as clean air 
and water, food and fiber, renewable energy, and wildlife habitat. 
Ensuring resilient ecosystems has become imperative, as public lands 
are increasingly degraded and fragmented due to adverse impacts from 
climate change and a significant increase in authorized uses. The 
proposed rule as issued aims to provide a framework to restore degraded 
habitat, protect intact landscapes, and ensure informed decision making 
in planning, permitting, and programs, by identifying best practices to 
manage lands and waters to achieve desired conditions. The rule would 
also incorporate opportunities for Tribal co-stewardship and include 
Indigenous Knowledge as part of informed decision-making.
    The proposed rule defines conservation to include restoration and 
protection. It clarifies that conservation is one of the multiple uses 
of public lands under FLPMA's multiple-use and sustained-yield 
structure, as courts have already held, but it explicitly does not 
prioritize conservation over other uses. The proposed rule is 
consistent with the plain language of FLPMA.
Promotes Restoration of our Lands and Waters
    The proposed rule would direct the BLM to seek opportunities for 
restoration across the public lands to enable achievement of its 
sustained yield mandate, and it encourages active management to achieve 
ecosystem resilience where appropriate. The proposed rule seeks public 
input on the concept of conservation leasing, which BLM believes could 
ultimately provide a durable mechanism to support restoration of public 
lands in a manner consistent with the BLM's administration of other 
uses.
    Conservation leases could be issued in targeted areas to support 
the BLM's mission and policy goals through one of two allowed uses--
restoration or mitigation--and for a term consistent with those 
outcomes, for up to ten years as a standard term. While conservation 
leases would effectively restrict some other purposes, they would not 
disturb existing authorizations, valid existing rights, or state or 
Tribal land use management. In its current form, the proposal does not 
contemplate the BLM requiring conservation leasing; rather, the BLM 
would review applications from qualified third parties and ensure the 
proponent is experienced in and qualified to achieve the proposed 
restoration or mitigation outcomes by leveraging non-Federal funding. 
Proposals would be evaluated to determine if the proposed use would be 
suitable at the proposed location, considering other potential uses of 
the lands. The existence of a conservation lease could also provide 
support for successful restoration. For example, a non-profit sporting 
organization could put people to work on public lands to restore mule 
deer or elk habitat, and a conservation lease would help ensure that 
the work would take hold and flourish.
    Conservation leasing could also serve as an important tool for 
compensatory mitigation, which compensates the public for the 
unavoidable impacts of development on public land through investments 
in restoration and other mitigation measures. Compensatory mitigation 
could facilitate responsible development on public lands while ensuring 
ample availability of healthy rangelands for other multiple uses. 
Currently, however, there are often too many obstacles for partners to 
engage in successful compensatory mitigation on public lands. In their 
current form, the conservation leasing provisions in the proposed rule 
come, in part, in response to input from state, local, and industry 
partners who requested a reliable path to pursue compensatory 
mitigation on public lands to facilitate development projects, 
including participation by mitigation fund holders. Decisions to issue 
a conservation lease would utilize the appropriate NEPA process to 
ensure adequate public engagement and informed decisions.
Provides for Balanced, Responsible Development
    To support balanced and informed decision-making, the proposal 
would broaden the use of the fundamentals of land health, currently 
applied within the BLM's grazing program, and apply them consistently 
across other land management programs. Incorporating land health 
standards and guidelines broadly into land management is a best 
practice employed by state and Federal land management agencies, 
including the U.S. Forest Service.
    Extending the applicability of the fundamentals of land health 
would ensure the BLM programs will more formally and consistently 
consider the condition of public lands during decision-making 
processes. Expanding assessments to a scale beyond an individual 
grazing allotment could allow the BLM field offices to leverage those 
broader assessments with the goal of making individual decision-making 
processes more timely and efficient. The BLM has already seen success 
in BLM field offices that are currently leveraging broader land health 
assessments. Moreover, by using land health assessments and building 
conservation into land management, the proposal would enable the BLM to 
work more effectively with local communities and industry to identify 
areas of low resource conflict that are better suited to development 
uses while acknowledging areas important to other community needs or 
protection.
    In addition, as noted above, conservation leasing could provide a 
vehicle to more effectively carry out compensatory mitigation for the 
unavoidable impacts of development projects on public lands. The 
proposed rule does not contemplate the BLM requiring compensatory 
mitigation to be carried out via conservation leases or only on public 
lands; it simply provides another vehicle to support compensating the 
public for loss of use and resources on their public lands.
Protects the Healthiest Intact Landscapes
    To help direct resources to areas where they will have the 
strongest and most beneficial impact, the proposed rule would direct 
land managers to identify the most suitable intact landscapes for 
conservation. Intact landscapes are defined in the proposed rule as 
unfragmented ecosystems free of local conditions that could permanently 
or significantly disrupt, impair, or degrade the landscape's structure 
or ecosystem resilience, and that are large enough to maintain native 
biological diversity, including viable populations of wide-ranging 
species. Intact landscapes have high conservation value, provide 
critical ecosystem functions, and support ecosystem resilience. 
Moreover, fragmentation of these landscapes can impact their ability to 
deliver critical services, including clean drinking water and flood 
mitigation.
    To this end, intact landscapes would be managed at the local level 
under the proposed rule. When revising a land use plan, the BLM would 
review available information to identify intact landscapes and then 
determine which, if any, landscapes should be managed to protect 
intactness. In doing so, the BLM would consider a range of potential 
uses in accordance with its multiple-use management approach, and 
evaluate their impacts using the best available scientific information.
    The identification of any intact landscapes would be subject to 
notice and public comment as part of the larger land use planning 
process. Identification of an intact landscape does not require it be 
managed in any particular manner; rather, managers would retain the 
discretion to determine whether an area should be managed to protect 
its intactness or should be open to other uses. In identifying the 
areas that are most suitable for management as intact landscapes, the 
proposed rule would enable the BLM to work with communities to identify 
areas that the communities have targeted for strategic growth and 
development, as managing those areas for intactness is less likely to 
be appropriate.
    One of the principal tools that the BLM currently has available to 
manage intact, native landscapes on public lands is the designation of 
areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC), as provided by FLPMA. 
FLPMA directs the BLM to give priority to the designation and 
protection of ACECs when making land management decisions. Notably, 
ACECs can be designated to protect a wide range of values, including 
recreation, research, and cultural resources.
    Currently, the BLM's process for designating ACECs is established 
partially in regulation and partially in guidance. The proposed rule 
would formalize much of that guidance in regulation, ensuring 
consistent identification and management, while reducing duplicative 
steps in the management of these important sites. This would leverage 
the BLM's more than 40 years of experience inventorying, evaluating, 
and managing ACECs through the land use planning process to protect 
sensitive areas for future generations.
Conclusion

    The BLM is committed to its core mission of multiple use and 
sustained yield, which includes managing for healthy lands today so 
that the BLM can deliver on its important, congressionally-mandated, 
multiple-use mission now and in the future. The proposed rule would 
help the BLM respond to the pressures posed by unprecedented drought, 
intense wildfires, loss of wildlife, and an influx of invasive species. 
Given the significant challenges the BLM faces in maintaining the 
health of the public lands, the BLM again emphasizes its stringent 
opposition to the proposed legislation. Thank you again for the 
opportunity to present this testimony, and I look forward to your 
questions.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Nada Wolff Culver, 
          Principal Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management

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

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. During the hearing, Representative Curtis asked for a 
listening session in San Juan County, Utah.

    1a) Will you respond to Representative Curtis's request and hold a 
listening session in his district?

    1b) Will you hold this listening session before the comment period 
closes on July 5, 2023?
    Question 2. During the hearing, Representative Fulcher asked for a 
listening session in Idaho.

    2a) Will you respond to Representative Fulcher's request and hold a 
listening session in Idaho?

    2b) Will you hold this listening session before the comment period 
closes on July 5, 2023?

    Question 3. During the hearing, Representative Gosar asked for a 
listening session in Arizona.

    3a) Will you respond to Representative Gosar's request and hold a 
listening session in Arizona?

    3b) Will you hold this listening session before the comment period 
closes on July 5, 2023?

    Question 4. During the hearing, Representative Boebert expressed 
concern over the lack of in-person listening sessions and the decision 
of the BLM to hold these listening sessions in metropolitan areas.

    4a) Will you respond to Representative Boebert's concern and hold a 
listening session in her district?

    4b) Will you hold this listening session before the comment period 
closes on July 5, 2023?

    4c) Why did the BLM choose to hold an in-person listening session 
in Denver and not Grand Junction, despite Grand Junction being the 
``Western headquarters'' of the agency?

    Question 5. During the hearing, Representative Rosendale expressed 
concern over the lack of in-person listening sessions and the decision 
of the BLM to hold these listening sessions in metropolitan areas. He 
specifically noted the Montana Delegation letter sent on May 11, 2023, 
asking for a listening session in Montana.

    5a) Will you respond to Representative Rosendale's concern and hold 
a listening session in Montana?

    5b) Will you hold this listening session before the comment period 
closes on July 5, 2023?

    5c) Why has the agency not responded to the Montana delegation's 
letter?

    Question 6. How many more in-person listening sessions will you 
hold?

    Question 7. Representative Peltola expressed concern her rural and 
remote residents were unable to participate in listening sessions on 
this rule. Many rural and remote residents don't have access to 
broadband to connect to virtual sessions. Also, the closest listening 
session for Alaskans is over 2,800 miles from Anchorage and Fairbanks, 
Alaska to Reno.

    7a) How will you accommodate an in-person listening session for 
rural and remote residents in Alaska?

    Question 8. How often does the BLM meet with the stakeholders and 
leaseholders and local, county, and state governments to discuss their 
management of the lands within those states?

    Question 9. In your written testimony, you state, ``The BLM has 
already seen success in BLM field offices that are currently leveraging 
broader land health assessments.''

    9a) Will you provide a list of what field offices are conducting 
land health standards and guidelines? Please provide details on the 
frequency of the assessments and what the uses of the lands are where 
these standards are being applied.

    9b) How long have these offices been conducting this practice?

    9c) If BLM field offices are currently doing this, why is the 
proposed rule needed to expand land health standards and guidelines 
beyond grazing?

    Question 10. In your written testimony, you clearly state, ``While 
conservation leases would effectively restrict some other purposes, 
they would not disturb existing authorizations, valid existing rights, 
or state or Tribal land use management.''

    10a) Several Members, from both sides of the aisle, have expressed 
concern about the future uses of lands. The testimony clearly states 
conservation lease would restrict some uses. Please provide a list of 
what uses a conservation lease could restrict.

    10b) What parameters will the BLM put on conservation leases? 
Currently, there are no details on acreage, number of times a contract 
can be renewed, or who can obtain a lease. Please provide details on 
each of those items.

    Question 11. In your written testimony, it states the rule 
``clarifies that conservation is one of the multiple uses of public 
lands under FLPMA's multiple-use and sustained-yield structure, as 
courts have already held, but it explicitly does not prioritize 
conservation over other uses.''

    11a) What court decisions is this referencing?

    11b) Will you provide the court cases and summaries from the Office 
of General Counsel supporting this statement?

    Question 12. The submitted testimony agonizes the agency is facing 
challenges to provide for the needs of Americans. Specifically stating, 
``The challenges posed by maintaining the health of public lands in the 
face of a changing world are making it increasingly difficult for the 
Bureau to provide for the needs of the American people--whether through 
food, fiber, habitat, forage for livestock, energy needs, outdoor 
recreation opportunities, or many of the other uses of the public 
lands.'' If this is true, why would the agency then propose a rule that 
would limit its ability to provide these needs through the multiple 
uses of public lands?

    Question 13. I have sent 65 questions for the record to the BLM and 
Secretary Haaland during past hearings where this rule was addressed. 
All have gone unanswered.

    13a) Will you respond to all QFRs sent about this rule?

    13b) Will you respond before the comment period closes on July 5, 
2023?

    13c) Will you respond before issuing a final rule?

    Question 14. On May 17, 2023, I sent a letter with 13 of my 
colleagues asking Secretary Haaland to extend the comment period by 75 
days and hold more in-person listening sessions.

    14a) Will you commit to a comment period extension of at least 75 
days?

    14b) Will you respond to my letter in writing?

    14c) Will you respond before the comment period closes on July 5, 
2023?

    14d) Will you respond before issuing a final rule?

    14e) Why did BLM only extend the comment period by 15 days and not 
the requested 75 days?

    Question 15. During the hearing, Governor Noem of South Dakota 
raised a concern about foreign entities pursuing conservation leases. 
These foreign entities could be bad actors, such as China, looking to 
restrict America's ability to be independent in our production of 
energy, minerals, and food.

    15a) Did the BLM consider foreign entities pursuing conservation 
leases as part of its rulemaking?

    15b) What safeguards will the agency put in place to restrict 
conservation leases from being obtained by foreign entities controlled 
by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or under direct CCP influence?

    15c) What safeguards will the agency put in place to ensure 
conservation leases do not make America more dependent on countries 
with worse environmental and labor standards for energy, minerals, and 
food?

    15d) Will the BLM allow conservation leases to be obtained near 
military bases in the West?

    15e) How many foreign entities controlled by the CCP or under 
direct CCP influence currently have leases on BLM lands?

    15f) What current processes are in place at BLM to analyze whether 
current lessees are not under the influence of the CCP?

    Question 16. On June 13, 2023, the Small Business Administration 
Office of Advocacy sent a letter to Secretary Haaland expressing great 
concern over the impact of this proposed rule to small businesses and 
even questioned the legality to issue conservation leases under FLPMA. 
The letter states in part:

        ``The proposed rule lacks a proper factual basis for 
        certification that the rule will not have a significant 
        economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.''

        ``BLM's proposed rule has unintended consequences that are 
        contrary to the agency's goals and the statutory requirements 
        for land management under FLPMA.''

        ``The proposed rule offers too much discretion to BLM that may 
        result in elevating conservation above the other principal land 
        management uses.''

    16a) Have you received and read this letter?

    16b) Have Director Stone-Manning and Secretary Haaland received and 
read this letter?

    16c) Please provide the factual basis that the rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on small businesses under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.

    16d) Who was involved in the determination that this rule would not 
have a significant economic effect under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act?

    16e) During the hearing, you testified the BLM had not consulted 
with any small businesses on this determination under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. Will you commit to consulting with small businesses 
now to determine whether this rule will have a significant economic 
effect on small businesses?

    16f) Will you respond in writing to the Small Business 
Administration Office of Advocacy letter?

    16g) Will you respond before the comment period closes on July 5, 
2023?

    16h) Will you respond before issuing a final rule?

    Question 17. Deputy Director Culver, both Governors testified 
saying this rule will significantly impact their state economies, yet 
the BLM determined it was not a significant rulemaking and would not 
have a significant effect on the economy. Even the Small Business 
Administration Office of Advocacy is refuting this claim. Did anyone 
from the BLM request that this rule be deemed not significant by OIRA?

    Question 18. The word ``conservation'' appears in FLPMA 33 times, 
primarily in reference to the designation of specific areas within the 
National Landscape Conservation System.

    18a) Please provide the specific section(s) of FLPMA the BLM is 
using to justify elevating conservation as a ``use'' under FLPMA.

    18b) Does the word conservation appear in Section 102 of FLPMA?

    18c) Does the word conservation appear in the definition of 
multiple use as defined by section 103(c) of FLPMA?

    Question 19. Why do you believe this rule would be a more effective 
alternative to address climate change and conserve land as opposed to 
proactive forestry practices, which store and retain carbon in a 
continual cycle of growing, harvesting, and replanting?

    Question 20. The BLM seeks comments on this question: ``Should the 
rule expressly authorize the use of conservation leases to generate 
carbon offset credits?'' The federal government should not engage in 
carbon banking. This is completely incompatible with the agency's 
multi-use and sustained yield mandate.

    20a) Under what legal authority does the BLM have the ability to 
sell carbon offset credits on public lands?

    20b) Does FLPMA, which was passed in 1976, contemplate the issue of 
carbon offset credits?

    Question 21. On the Bureau of Land Management's website, there are 
a few industry specific Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) documents. 
However, there is not a document for all the current, multiple uses of 
BLM land under FLPMA.

    21a) How are these actions not evidence of BLM choosing a 
predetermined outcome before the public comment period is even over?

    21b) Will you create FAQ documents for all current, multiple uses 
on BLM lands?

    21c) Why is there no FAQ document for timber harvesting?

    21d) Why is there no FAQ document for oil and gas production?

    21e) Why is there no FAQ document for mineral development?

    Question 22. Deputy Director Culver, Governor Noem and Governor 
Gordon testified about the continued locking up of lands and the 
detriment to their states. I am afraid the administration does not care 
about these concerns. There are many land management tools to restrict 
use. Another, vaguely defined conservation lease is not needed.

    22a) Does a wilderness area conserve land?

    22b) How many BLM acres are currently designated as wilderness?

    22c) Does a wilderness study area conserve land?

    22d) How many BLM acres are currently designated as wilderness 
study areas?

    22e) Does a national monument designation conserve land?

    22f) How many BLM acres are currently designated as national 
monuments?

    22g) Does an Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 
conserve land?

    22h) How many BLM acres are currently designated as ACEC?

    Question 23. Under BLM's existing regulations, the agency charges 
rental fees of at least fair market value for usage of BLM land. How do 
you plan to determine fair market value of conservation leases?

    Question 24. Under this rule, BLM would be required to identify 
intact landscapes as a part of the RMP process and would have to 
develop a restoration plan with any new or revised RMP. Staff would 
also have to report annually on the results of land health assessments. 
These are just some of the various new requirements placed on BLM 
employees by this rule.

    24a) How will the agencies be able to meet all of these new 
undertakings when they cannot even meet requirements in existing 
statute like quarterly lease sales under the Mineral Leasing Act?

    24b) Will you request more funding from Congress in order to meet 
these new requirements?

    Question 25. Under Executive Order 13211, Federal agencies are 
required to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for 
any proposed significant energy action that is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. Amazingly, the Department concluded that the rule would not 
affect energy supply or distribution. I have heard from conventional 
energy stakeholders as well as renewable energy stakeholders who have 
expressed serious concern that this rule would limit their ability to 
produce energy on BLM lands.

    Please provide the documentation to the Committee to support the 
assertion that the rule would not affect energy supply or distribution.

    Question 26. The rule itself is relatively silent about how the 
conservation leases themselves will be granted. Will they be done upon 
request, or will they be granted competitively according to an auction 
system?

    Question 27. Will the conservation leases be limited to surface 
activities or include mineral rights? If they will include mineral 
rights, how does BLM intend to ensure that an appropriate return is 
granted for American taxpayers?

    Question 28. Will current oil and gas production, permits, and 
leases be exempt from the rule and thus be allowed to be processed and 
or developed once the rule is in place?

    Question 29. In meeting the requirements and or intent of the 
rule--establishing ACEC's for example--do you anticipate the barring of 
future, or revoking pending, oil and gas leases or permits in areas 
that are currently available or potential future development?

    Question 30. Please provide the factual basis, including supporting 
documentation, for how BLM came to the determination that this rule 
will not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    Question 31. Please provide the factual basis, including supporting 
documentation, for how BLM came to the determination that this rule 
will not increase costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, 
Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

    Question 32. Please provide the factual basis, including supporting 
documentation, BLM's claim in the rule that the ``proposed rule would 
benefit small businesses by streamlining the BLM's processes.''

    Question 33. Please provide the factual basis, including supporting 
documentation, for how BLM came to the determination that this rule 
will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Question 34. Please provide the factual basis, including supporting 
documentation, for how BLM came to the determination that this rule 
will have ``no substantial direct effects on federally recognized 
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, and that consultation 
under the DOI's tribal consultation policy is not required.''

    Question 35. Is the definition of conservation in this rule 
consistent with the definition of conservation that has never been 
publicly provided for the purposes of the administration's 30 by 30 
Initiative.

    Question 36. Why is the BLM proposing to remove the public comment 
period on ACECs as part of this proposed rule?

    Question 37. In regards to the relationship with RMPs:

    37a) How many RMPs will need to be updated if this proposed rule is 
finalized?

    37b) What will be the cost and time of those RMP updates?

    37c) If RMPs will not need to be updated, why is the BLM proposing 
a rule that would dictate land managers act inconsistently with their 
own resource management plan?

    Question 38. The proposed rule states that ``Some public lands 
could be temporarily closed to public access for purposes authorized by 
conservation leases, such as restoration activities or habitat 
improvements.'' How long would these temporary closures last?

    Question 39. How many recreation visits to BLM lands are attributed 
to commercial recreation, such as outfitting and guiding, versus non-
commercial recreation?

    Question 40. The rule defines the term ``high-quality information'' 
to specifically include Indigenous Knowledge. Despite this, BLM did not 
consult with any tribes on this proposed rule. Therefore, should I 
assume that the proposed rule itself does not rely on ``high-quality 
information''?

    Question 41. Why does the proposed rule not use the definition of 
``public lands'' that appears in FLPMA?

    Question 42. Why does the proposed rule not define multiple use?

              Questions Submitted by Representative Levin

    Question 1. How is the Bureau of Land Management aiming to balance 
the growing demand for renewable energy in the face of the climate 
crisis with conservation, which is essential for climate resilience?

    Question 2. Can you provide some of examples of how the 
Administration is already working to strike a balance between those two 
important priorities?

    Question 3. While I support the general concept of conservation 
leasing, I want to make sure that any final conservation rule fully 
incorporates the feedback of key stakeholders, including those 
developing renewable energy projects. Deputy Director Culver, thank you 
for your announcement this morning that BLM will be extending the 
comment period to allow for additional engagement, including with those 
seeking to develop renewable energy projects. Will you commit to 
working with these important stakeholders to ensure their concerns are 
incorporated into the final rule?

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Principal Deputy Director Culver. 
I now recognize Ms. Kathy Chandler-Henry, Board Chair of the 
Eagle County Board of Commissioners, to testify for 5 minutes.
    Commissioner Chandler-Henry, you are now recognized.

 STATEMENT OF KATHY CHANDLER-HENRY, BOARD CHAIR, EAGLE COUNTY 
            BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, EAGLE, COLORADO

    Ms. Chandler-Henry. Good morning, Chairman Westerman, 
Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee. Thank 
you for the opportunity today to testify in opposition to H.R. 
3397, and to express my support for the BLM's proposed public 
lands rule.
    I was lucky to grow up in the small town of Eagle in the 
central mountains of Colorado. Spending time on my family's 
ranch and exploring the mountains and surrounding areas 
instilled in me an ethic to protect these places.
    Eagle County has grown since I was a kid. Our surrounding 
public lands, ranching heritage, and beautiful mountains make 
Eagle County a uniquely desirable place to visit, to call home, 
raise a family, ski, hike, raft, hunt, or fish. But our public 
lands are challenged by the impacts of changing climate, 
continued population growth, and increased demands on our 
natural resources. We must balance these demands with 
protecting our mountain ecosystems.
    The proposed public lands rule helps with this balancing 
act by clarifying the ability of BLM to consider conservation 
values when developing resource management plans, to manage for 
resilient ecosystems, and to promote collaboration among public 
land users.
    Over 80 percent of Eagle County's nearly 1.1 million acres 
is public lands. Eagle County is home to portions of the White 
River National Forest, which is the most visited forest in the 
nation, more visitors than Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon, 
and Rocky Mountain National Park combined. Eagle County is also 
home to the BLM's Castle Peak and Bull Gulch Wilderness Study 
Areas.
    About a quarter million acres in Eagle County is managed by 
the BLM. Like the rest of Colorado, where only 16 percent of 
BLM's 8.3 million acres are durably protected, most of these 
lands in Eagle County are not permanently conserved. These 
public lands contribute to our world-class outdoor recreation 
experiences, and help ensure that our local economy thrives.
    Tourism and outdoor recreation account for roughly 50 
percent of Eagle County's annual revenues. Maintaining our 
proud ranching history alongside tourism and ski resorts can be 
seen throughout the county with numerous grazing allotments on 
both BLM and Forest Service lands.
    I would like to applaud the BLM for creating a new tool, 
conservation leases, as part of the proposed rule. These leases 
would be temporary, allowing local groups to work with BLM on 
restoration projects or renewable energy companies to enter 
into leases for compensatory mitigation. This is a very 
promising and complementary tool to support landscapes across 
my county and around the West.
    Clarification in the proposed rule that appropriately 
balances conservation values with other types of land practices 
will allow the BLM to create management plans that benefit 
rural economies like ours.
    The proposed rule further establishes a guiding principle 
that BLM manage for resiliency in public lands through 
protection of intact, native landscapes and restoration of 
degraded landscapes.
    Eagle County is a headwaters county. Our community members 
rely on public lands not only for their quality of life and 
wildlife habitat, but also to provide our communities with safe 
drinking water. Water from Eagle County flows into the mighty 
Colorado River, and it helps provide water for drinking, 
agriculture, power, and industry for 40 million people 
downstream. Maintaining healthy watersheds that can be 
resilient in the face of drought and fire is a priority for our 
county, and we believe the proposed rule will assist in that 
resilience.
    The management of public lands has a significant impact on 
our local communities. Having a Federal land management partner 
with clear direction to work with us on balancing multiple 
uses, including conservation, will only strengthen the 
collaboration we already rely on, and will provide our 
communities with more certainty that our needs will be 
considered in BLM's planning and land management decisions.
    If enacted, H.R. 3397 would undermine BLM's ability to 
ensure conservation of critical public lands. The bill would 
prevent local managers from working with communities like ours 
to protect important recreation and conservation areas that are 
vital to our economies and ways of life.
    In conclusion, I support the BLM's proposed public lands 
rule. It will empower the agency to deliver on its multiple-use 
mandate by placing conservation values on par with other uses 
on our public lands. As climate change, energy development, 
recreation, and tourism pressures continue to grow, this rule 
will promote ecosystem resilience.
    Clarification of BLM's multi-use approach and providing 
tools to collaborate with all users is the best method of 
managing these public lands that we so dearly love.
    Thank you so much for your consideration.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Chandler-Henry follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Kathy Chandler-Henry, Eagle County Colorado 
                          County Commissioner

Introduction

    Good morning, Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in 
opposition to H.R. 3397, and to express my support for the Bureau of 
Land Management's (BLM) proposed Conservation and Landscape Health or 
Public Lands Rule.
    I was lucky to grow up in the small town of Eagle, in the central 
mountains of Colorado. Spending time on my family's ranch and exploring 
the mountains and surrounding public lands instilled in me a 
conservation ethic to protect these places for my children and their 
children to enjoy.
    When I graduated high school, Eagle County only had 7,000 
residents. Now there are 56,000. Our surrounding public lands, ranching 
heritage, and thriving outdoor recreation economy make Eagle County a 
uniquely desirable place to call home, raise a family, or to visit to 
ski, hike, boat, hunt or fish. But we are in danger of loving these 
lands to death. Our public lands are challenged by the impacts of a 
changing climate, continued population growth, and increased demand for 
natural resources, development and outdoor recreation. Balancing the 
demands on natural resources with protecting our mountain ecosystem is 
one of the top goals of the Eagle County commissioners.
    The proposed Public Lands Rule helps with this balancing act by 
clarifying the ability of the BLM to consider conservation values when 
developing Resource Management Plans. It allows us, in concert with the 
BLM, to manage for resilient ecosystems, especially important in this 
time of threats to western water and increased wildfire dangers. And 
finally, the Public Lands Rule promotes the BLM's mission of multiple 
use and allows collaboration among users, including timber, grazing, 
extraction, mining, and recreation to mitigate and restore our 
treasured public lands.
Consideration of Conservation Values

    Over 80% of Eagle County's nearly 1.1 million acres is public 
lands. Eagle County is home to portions of the White River National 
Forest (the most-visited national forest in the nation with over 17.8 
million visitors per year--more than Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand 
Canyon, and Rocky Mountain National Parks combined). Eagle County is 
also home to Eagles Nest, Holy Cross and Flat Tops Wilderness Areas, 
and the BLM's Castle Peak and Bull Gulch Wilderness Study Areas.
    About a quarter million acres in Eagle County are managed by the 
BLM. Like the rest of Colorado, where only 16% of BLM's 8.3 million 
acres are durably protected, most of those Eagle County lands are not 
permanently conserved.
    These public lands contribute to our world-class outdoor recreation 
experiences and help ensure our local economy thrives. Maintaining the 
historic ranching cultural identity alongside tourism and ski resorts 
can be seen throughout Eagle county with numerous grazing allotments on 
BLM and Forest Service lands.
    I'd like to applaud the BLM for creating a new tool--conservation 
leases--as part of the proposed rule. These ``leases'' would be 
temporary, allowing local groups to work with BLM on restoration 
projects or renewable energy companies to enter into leases for 
compensatory mitigation purposes to offset the impacts of projects on 
public lands elsewhere. This is a very promising and complementary tool 
to support intact, well functioning landscapes across my County and 
around the West.
    Clarification in the proposed rule that appropriately balances 
conservation values with other types of land practices will allow the 
BLM to create management plans that benefit rural economies like ours.
Management for Resilient Ecosystems

    The proposed Rule furthermore establishes a guiding principle that 
BLM manage for resiliency in public lands through protection of intact, 
native habitats, and restoration of degraded habitats.
    Eagle County is a headwaters County. Our community members rely on 
public lands not only for their quality of life and wildlife habitat, 
but also to provide our communities with safe drinking water. Water 
from Eagle County flows into the mighty Colorado River and helps 
provide water for drinking, agriculture, power and industry for 40 
million people downstream. Maintaining healthy watersheds that can be 
resilient in the face of drought and fire is a priority for our County 
and our state, and we believe the proposed BLM rule will assist in that 
resilience.
Multiple Use and Collaboration

    Eighty-five percent of BLM lands in our local field office are open 
to oil and gas development. These include popular recreation and 
wildlife areas on the Colorado and Eagle Rivers. We've worked for years 
to protect these areas and prevent permitting of potentially damaging 
uses that could fragment these intact landscapes.
    The management of public lands has a significant impact on our 
local communities. Having a federal land management partner with clear 
direction to work with local communities on balancing multiple uses, 
including conservation--like what is proposed in the new rule--will 
only strengthen the collaboration we already rely on and will provide 
our communities with more certainty that our needs will be considered 
in BLM planning and land management decisions.
    These BLM lands play an important role in supporting world-class 
recreation opportunities that create Colorado's $9.6 billion outdoor 
recreation economy. Tourism and outdoor recreation account for roughly 
50% of Eagle County's $181 million in annual revenues. Eagle County has 
worked hard to create a diversified economy that includes and balances 
development while conserving our world class public lands. We rely on 
having federal land management partners that work with us to balance 
these needs.
    If enacted, H.R. 3397 would tie the hands of the BLM, undermining 
the agency's ability to ensure conservation of critical public lands in 
Eagle County and across the West. The bill not only derails the 
agency's effort to balance conservation with other multiple uses, it 
puts an end to any ``substantially similar rules.'' H.R. 3397 would 
prevent the agency from balancing its management practices, preventing 
local managers from working with communities like Eagle County to 
protect important recreation and conservation areas vital to our 
economies and ways-of-life.
    I would like to commend the BLM agency staff who have led an 
inclusive public process. They have conducted outreach to solicit 
feedback and information on the proposed rule that they can consider 
before revising and proposing a final rule. I appreciate that the BLM 
offered a 75-day public comment period and hosted five informational 
meetings, including one in Colorado. H.R. 3397 would shut down and lock 
out the public's ability to participate and provide meaningful feedback 
on this important rule before the comment period is over.
Conclusion

    I support the BLM's proposed public lands rule. It will empower the 
agency to deliver on its multiple use mandate by placing conservation 
values on equal footing with other uses on our public lands. As climate 
change, energy development, recreation and tourism pressures continue 
to grow in Eagle County and Colorado, this rule will promote ecosystem 
resilience. Clarification of BLM's multi-use approach and providing 
tools to collaborate with all users is the best method of managing 
these public lands we love.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Chandler-Henry. I now 
recognize Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, the President of the Western 
Energy Alliance.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN SGAMMA, PRESIDENT, WESTERN ENERGY 
                   ALLIANCE, DENVER, COLORADO

    Ms. Sgamma. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Grijalva.
    I really am glad that we have 15 more days to comment on 
the rule. I am very glad to hear that, Deputy Director.
    But I think this rule is so nebulous, and it raises so many 
different questions that I don't think it should have been put 
out as a proposed rule. I think it should have been put out as 
a request for information, or an advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking, because there are so many nebulous concepts in this 
rule, I don't see how BLM goes through this comment period, 
even the extended comment period, and comes out with a rule 
that can really withstand legal challenge.
    There are so many concepts that BLM has redefined within 
this rule that Congress simply had defined already in FLPMA. 
So, we have conservation leases, which were not contemplated by 
NEPA. We have conservation being elevated to a principal use on 
par with the principal uses that are very clearly defined in 
FLPMA.
    So, while BLM would like to change what FLPMA says, 
Congress is the only one who can change FLPMA.
    And right now, you look at what are the principal uses. 
They are specifically livestock grazing, mineral exploration 
and production, fish and wildlife management and development, 
recreation, and timber. But conservation is a goal, it is not a 
use. So, were Congress to want to change that, they certainly 
could. But BLM simply does not have the authority to redefine 
FLPMA.
    I mean, with this rule, BLM is really attempting to give 
itself power to set broad questions of policy that Congress 
simply did not give it.
    BLM had its chance, specifically with FLPMA, to set 
wilderness study areas. It did so. It reported to Congress on 
that, I believe, in the early 1990s. It seems that BLM now 
wants to use areas of critical environmental concern in a 
wilderness study area-like manner. It seems to want to re-play-
out history. And Congress gave it its chance. So, BLM really 
needs to stay within the boundaries that Congress gave it. And 
if BLM doesn't like those boundaries, if members of this 
Committee who mostly are not here want to change that, they 
need to do the hard work of changing the law.
    So, we don't see how this rule comes out in a way that will 
stand, really, the test of not only time, but of any kind of 
legal challenge. It seems to be that BLM is just defining 
itself new powers.
    I think the governors did such a great job of talking about 
all that was wrong with the rule. And I know we are kind of 
long on time here, so I don't need to use my full time for 
that. I would just echo many of the things they would say.
    And I am particularly concerned with how BLM has redefined 
terms that it simply doesn't have the ability to do.
    So, I appreciate the ability to be here today. We really 
call on BLM to rescind this rule, and we certainly support H.R. 
3397. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sgamma follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Kathleen Sgamma, President,
                        Western Energy Alliance

    Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today. It has been six years, 51 weeks since I 
appeared before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to 
testify on the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Planning 2.0 rule, a 
rule that was overturned by Congress in 2017 under the Congressional 
Review Act (CRA) and a rule that is only different from BLM's proposed 
conservation and landscape health rule by the terms used and the add-
ons attached. I wonder if many aspects of this new rule don't run afoul 
of the CRA requirement that a rule so overturned ``may not be reissued 
in substantially the same form . . .''
    With the proposed conservation and landscape health rule, BLM is 
attempting to upset the balance on federal lands that has been in place 
for nearly 50 years, since the passage of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976. With this rule, BLM would eventually 
become an agency like the National Park Service that is focused 
primarily if not solely on conservation and preservation, rather than 
remain the foundational multiple-use agency that FLPMA, BLM's organic 
statute, requires.
    Nearly 40% of the United States consists of lands managed by 
federal, state, or local government in various designations.\1\ 
Americans enjoy 112 million acres of wilderness areas,\2\ 85 million 
acres of national parks,\3\ 58.5 million acres of roadless areas in 
National Forests,\4\ 95 million acres of wildlife refuges,\5\ 39 
million acres in BLM's National Landscape Conservation System, and 21.3 
million acres of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.\6\ Further, 
Interior Secretary Haaland has withdrawn from energy and mineral 
leasing 589,000 acres in Alaska, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico and 
is contemplating another withdrawal of 225,000 acres in Colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ USGS Gap Analysis Project, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), July 
5, 2022.
    \2\ Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute home page, U.S. 
Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, accessed June 8, 2023.
    \3\ National Park System About Us page, U.S. National Park Service, 
accessed June 8, 2023.
    \4\ Welcome to Roadless Area Conservation, USDA Forest Service, 
accessed June 8, 2023.
    \5\ National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 
accessed June 8, 2023.
    \6\ Public Land Statistics 2021, U.S. Department of the Interior/
Bureau of Land Management, June 2022, Table 5-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Among the vast 714 million acres of federal landholdings and 
mineral estate, there are extensive working landscapes that contribute 
to the wealth and prosperity of all Americans. These lands are 
appropriate for, ``. . . the Nation's need for domestic sources of 
minerals, food, timber, and fiber'', as FLPMA states. Within FLPMA, 
Congress specifically defined ``principal or major uses'' as limited to 
mineral exploration and production, livestock grazing, rights-of-way, 
fish and wildlife development, recreation, and timber. Of course FLPMA 
calls for the protection of the environment, water, and cultural 
resources, but does not list conservation as a use.
    With the conservation rule, BLM is elevating conservation to a use 
ostensibly on par with the FLPMA-defined uses and tipping the balance 
that has been, however imperfectly, maintained on its 244 million 
acres. Further, because conservation-only would apply everywhere and is 
not compatible with anything, it would always be in direct conflict 
with productive uses. BLM would have the difficult task of trying to 
navigate through those conflicts, which past experience has shown is 
not something at which BLM excels. The rule is a bridge too far from 
FLPMA. The majority of BLM lands are appropriate for productive 
multiple uses. These productive activities are important not only to 
supply Americans with the basics of modern life, but also to sustain 
rural communities across the West.
    At Western Energy Alliance, we are proud that oil and natural gas 
producers operating on federal lands provide about 10% of American 
production and return $9.2 billion in revenue to the American people. 
Leased acreage is at a historic low even as federal onshore revenue is 
at a high. We are much more efficient on federal lands, producing more 
from less land, a balance that the members of Congress who passed FLPMA 
in 1976 would be proud of and which I hope this committee appreciates 
today. We produce a huge resource for the American people while 
protecting the land and disturbing just 0.06% of public lands.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Fiscal Year 2022 oil and gas statistics, BLM, February 10, 
2023. We calculate surface disturbance using the method BLM has 
historically used of five acres per federal well. This chart was 
released yearly by BLM during the Bush Administration. Since BLM 
stopped releasing it during the Obama Administration, likely because 
the low disturbance didn't fit the preferred narrative, Western Energy 
Alliance re-creates it every year. The five-acre disturbance was used 
by BLM to account for all disturbance resulting from the well pad, 
including roads to access the well pad. Because of horizontal and 
directional drilling that reduce surface disturbance up to 70% by 
clustering multiple wells per pad, we believe five acres overestimates 
surface disturbance but have stuck with it as a conservative estimate.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsThose who claim we should not produce oil and natural gas on 
federal lands because of climate change conveniently ignore the fact 
that if we do not produce them on federal lands, we must produce from 
nonfederal lands or import the energy from overseas where it is not 
subject to strict environmental standards. Federal production is some 
of the most sustainable in the world because of all the additional 
protections on federal lands. In the continued absence of energy 
sources that do everything that oil and natural gas do, just saying 
``no'' to federal production means less clean energy and more 
greenhouse gas emissions.
    FLPMA's intent was a sensible approach to the management of federal 
lands. However, BLM's proposed conservation rule would impose unduly 
restrictive measures that violate the multiple-use and sustained yield 
mandate by closing or restricting unnecessarily large amounts of land 
to productive uses. Not only would the rule change the face of FLPMA, 
but it attempts to enable BLM to sidestep its statutory mandates in the 
Mineral Leasing Act, the Taylor Grazing Act and the 1872 Mining Law. If 
finalized, the rule would make it more difficult to develop in energy-
rich basins across the West, decrease investment, and prevent job 
creation.

    Whereas in the Planning 2.0 rule BLM called it ``landscape-level'' 
planning, BLM is now talking about ``intact landscapes.'' Whereas 
Planning 2.0 called for downplaying the voices of communities that 
derive their livelihoods from multiple uses on federal lands and their 
elected officials, in the current rule BLM would shut down public 
comment completely when designating Areas of Critical Environmental 
Concern (ACEC) and not even bother to engage the public in determining 
what areas would be subject to conservation leasing. We find the 
following aspects of the rule particularly troubling:

     Making conservation a multiple use and prioritizing 
            ecological resilience and intact landscapes over productive 
            uses, thereby expanding the intent of FLPMA and providing 
            BLM an avenue to preclude FLPMA-defined uses on public 
            lands. Essentially anything designated an intact landscape 
            will be managed as an ACEC or wilderness.

     Establishing a conservation leasing program that is 
            completely at odds with the concept of leasing in FLPMA. 
            BLM simply does not have the authority to issue leases for 
            conservation to the exclusion of FLPMA-specified land uses. 
            Ironically, the proposed rule's purported interest in 
            promoting FLPMA's goals is at odds with FLPMA's fundamental 
            requirement of land use planning. Even if BLM possessed 
            statutory authority to issue conservation leases, it could 
            only do so after designating areas as eligible for 
            conservation leasing through a land use planning process 
            and complying with the National Environmental Policy Act 
            (NEPA). The rule appears to side-step the NEPA requirement. 
            BLM does not seem to have considered how federal and state 
            governments would be compensated for the loss of mineral 
            and grazing revenues.

     ACECs have historically been used to preclude productive 
            multiple uses. The rule would greatly expand the size and 
            use of ACECs and make it more difficult to remove ACEC 
            designations. The rule would allow interim management for 
            ACEC nominations that have not yet gone through the 
            required planning process. Large-scale ACECs could severely 
            decrease the amount of land available for productive uses.

     Adding several new definitions not found in the law or 
            revising definitions to establish conservation as a 
            priority in planning and permitting processes. For 
            instance:

            +  ``Intact landscape'' and ``resilient ecosystems'' are 
        new concepts that would aid in designating large amounts of 
        land off-limits to FLPMA-defined uses. The rule lacks objective 
        standards so that their meaning and the resulting management 
        would lie in the eye of the beholder.

            +  ``Landscape'' has been expanded to include watersheds 
        and ecoregions.

            +  ``Protection'' is a common notion now redefined as 
        conservation, indicating a step further than FLPMA's standard 
        of ``undue degradation''. ``Unnecessary and undue degradation'' 
        has been expanded to encompass harm to the land or resources 
        that BLM peremptorily deems excessive or disproportionate.

            +  ``Casual use'' is redefined to apply only to short-term, 
        noncommercial uses, thereby obviating casual activities related 
        to oil and natural gas that do not cause significant surface 
        disturbance as previously defined.

            +  ``Sustained yield'' includes the new concept of 
        ``ecosystem resilience'' and violates FLPMA by erasing the 
        concept of ``multiple use'' from the definition. The proposed 
        rule seeks to transform FLPMA's sustained yield goal to a 
        preservation mandate in a manner inconsistent with FLPMA and 
        its judicial interpretation.

            +  ``Important resources'' are now arbitrarily determined 
        by BLM, giving itself broad discretion.

       The numerous, nebulous concepts in the proposed rule and the 
            questions arising about how they would be applied to land 
            management indicate that BLM should have pursued an 
            Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or a Request for 
            Information instead of advancing a proposed rule. We have 
            joined other groups including the Public Lands Council, 
            National Cattlemen's Beef Association, American Mining and 
            Exploration Association, Safari Club International, 
            National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 
            American Farm Bureau Federation, and Federal Forest 
            Resource Council in requesting BLM withdraw the proposed 
            rule and engage meaningfully with appropriate stakeholders 
            before moving forward with this rule. At the very least, 
            BLM should acknowledge that this is a major rulemaking, 
            extend the comment period, and hold meaningful public 
            meetings in every state with significant BLM lands.

     Formalizing a compensatory mitigation framework to offset 
            impacts to important, scarce, or sensitive resources to the 
            maximum extent possible. Compensatory mitigation applied to 
            the maximum extent possible is highly subjective and could 
            be used to preclude development. Fundamentally, the Mineral 
            Leasing Act does not permit BLM to require compensatory 
            mitigation of federal lessees and require them to offset 
            on-lease impacts with off-lease mitigation actions.

     Requiring a Fundamentals of Land Health review prior to 
            authorization for use, a process currently applied only to 
            grazing. BLM already struggles with large backlogs in 
            grazing permit renewals because of this review requirement. 
            Applying it to all uses would only serve to increase 
            permitting backlogs for all productive uses.

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to 
discussion during the hearing to better understand BLM's intentions. I 
urge Congress to pass H.R. 3397 to overturn BLM's conservation and 
landscape health rule.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Sgamma, and thank you to all 
the witnesses. We will now move to questions. And for the first 
round of questions, I recognize the gentlelady from Colorado, 
Mrs. Boebert, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses for being here today, especially from Eagle County.
    Principal Deputy Director Culver, nearly 50 percent of my 
district is Federal lands, and more than 90 percent of the 
BLM's 245 million acres are located in Western rural 
communities. Consequently, this rule will negatively impact 
rural America significantly more than urban areas. Why did BLM 
hold its in-person meeting off to brief the public on this rule 
in Denver, away from where most rural stakeholders actually 
are?
    Ms. Culver. Thanks for the question, Congresswoman. I am 
really glad to get the opportunity, as someone who was at all 
of the public information sessions, as well as some additional 
briefings we have been doing, to let you know that we----
    Mrs. Boebert. I am short on time. So, I just would like to 
know why it was held in Denver, away from stakeholders.
    Ms. Culver. We held three information sessions in three 
areas where we felt a lot of people would be able to attend, 
and we----
    Mrs. Boebert. Where were all three of those areas?
    Ms. Culver. Our three in-person information sessions were 
held in Denver, Colorado; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Reno, 
Nevada.
    Mrs. Boebert. Right. And Denver is a very urban area. And 
my rural area in Colorado's 3rd District, half of the state of 
Colorado nearly, is impacted the most by this. And you chose to 
have that meeting in person in Denver, rather than on the 
Western Slope or Southwest Colorado.
    Just this week, I heard from one of my constituents who is 
a farmer and rancher in Mesa County that this unconstitutional 
rule could prevent her livestock from grazing on BLM land where 
they currently graze and where she has an active permit. 
Ranchers and farmers across the West still do not have clear 
answers as to what the impact of this rule will be on their 
current grazing leases or what happens when they are up for 
renewal even.
    We heard from one of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle today that other multi-use activities won't be harmed. 
But let me ask you this. Will this rule lock up more land and 
prevent other multiple-use activities under the guise of 
conservation?
    Ms. Culver. No, it will not, Congresswoman. We have had----
    Mrs. Boebert. There will be no additional land held up, 
locked up, and no multiple use will be prevented from this 
rule? That is your promise to my constituents and everyone----
    Ms. Culver. BLM implements multiple-use management on every 
acre of public land, as prescribed in FLPMA.
    Mrs. Boebert. Since the rule was proposed with little to no 
stakeholder input, there are over 86,000 submitted public 
comments from a wide range of stakeholders who have a lot of 
questions. And I want to dive into some of those that have been 
sent to me.
    What law passed by Congress has given the BLM the authority 
to propose this rule? Because it sure seems like the BLM is 
trying to rewrite FLPMA here, and has no authorization from 
Congress for this rule, similarly to what we heard Ms. Sgamma 
speak to.
    Ms. Culver. We are implementing the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act, including our authority to implement for 
multiple use and sustained yield.
    Mrs. Boebert. Do you feel that the BLM is defining new 
powers through this FLPMA and through this rule?
    Ms. Culver. We are following FLPMA and Congress' direction 
to manage for multiple use.
    Mrs. Boebert. We heard concerns earlier from both Governor 
Noem and Governor Gordon about this rule and how it will 
prevent active forest management, which is a very big issue, 
especially in my district. We have had four of the largest 
wildfires in our recorded history in my district, and it will 
lead to more wildfires.
    Is active forest management, including mechanical thinning, 
consistent with the BLM's definition of conservation in this 
proposed rule?
    Ms. Culver. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Boebert. You will allow mechanical thinning to 
continue.
    Ms. Culver. BLM manages every acre under our multiple-use 
mandate, and restoration in many places includes that kind of 
active management.
    Mrs. Boebert. OK. Let the record show that this rule will 
not affect mechanical thinning and the active management of our 
forests. I want the record to show that you have promised that, 
because what we are seeing, what we are hearing, the questions 
that are coming up, this looks like a huge threat to forest 
management.
    Is this rule an attempt to further the Administration's 
30x30 agenda?
    Ms. Culver. I just at least want to finish answering your 
last question.
    Active forest management is part of restoration, so 
different tools are appropriate in different places. I just 
want to finish my sentence since you want to make sure we have 
the record clear.
    Mrs. Boebert. Well, I was asking if mechanical thinning 
would be impacted. Would it be reduced or restricted?
    Ms. Culver. And then, in terms of the agenda, I think 
certain aspects of different management could certainly be 
considered conservation that would support the America the 
Beautiful----
    Mrs. Boebert. OK, I just want you to answer my last 
question that I had asked previously.
    Is this an attempt to further the Administration's 30x30 
agenda, and eventually go into the 50x50 agenda that we hear so 
much of?
    Ms. Culver. This is the BLM implementing its multiple-use 
and sustained-yield mission under the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act, to do that so that we can continue to support 
all the uses we have been talking about today.
    Mrs. Boebert. So, you want to further the Administration's 
30x30 agenda to lock up 30 percent of America's lands and 
waters by 2030.
    Ms. Culver. This rule will not lock up----
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. My time is expired.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from Alaska, Mrs. Peltola.
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you. I just wanted to see if Ms. Wolff 
Culver would like to answer any of the previous questions in 
more detail.
    Ms. Culver. Thank you so much for that opportunity. I 
really appreciate the opportunity to reiterate that the way we 
have defined conservation in this rule is to include both 
restoration and protection. Those are active uses under the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act. It is part of the 
specific direction we have from Congress, and is some of our 
additional policy right now.
    We see active restoration as a vital part of managing our 
Federal lands, and we are very grateful for the funding that 
Congress has given us to do even more restoration of our public 
lands.
    Mrs. Peltola. OK. And I am sensitive about the issue that 
Representative Boebert brought up about rural people not having 
access to public comment. And I am just wondering if you can 
explain how remote people in Colorado were able to make 
comment, although the hearing was in Denver.
    Ms. Culver. Certainly. Thank you for the opportunity.
    We did have two virtual listening sessions. Recordings are 
posted online, along with all the slides, frequently asked 
questions, documents, a user's guide, and numerous fact sheets. 
We wanted to provide that support in as many places as 
possible.
    In those information sessions, we did have quite a few 
people from different states who came, which was wonderful to 
see. We had Coloradans in Albuquerque, we had Wyomingites in 
Colorado and in Denver, and we had Californians in Nevada.
    At the same time, our BLM leaders around the West have been 
meeting with their local communities. I know that our Colorado 
State Director spent most of the last week in Western Colorado 
meeting with the counties, CCI, with Colorado cattlemen. 
Similar in Wyoming, in Arizona, all around the West. So, we are 
trying to give every opportunity for people to ask questions, 
and then to submit comments.
    Mrs. Peltola. OK. That is really good news. And I really 
appreciate the virtual forums, the Zooms and things like that, 
the Teams meetings.
    I just want to put a plug in for Americans who don't have 
access to broadband, Internet, or Wi-Fi. There are many, many 
Americans, certainly across Alaska and across the United 
States, who either can't afford it or there just isn't stable 
and quality Internet to stay connected, especially on a visual 
platform. A lot of times, when people have their videos on, you 
just drop off.
    And one of the frustrations I have had is the state 
agencies and the Federal agencies who say, ``Go to our website, 
look at our website,'' and some of them are challenging to 
navigate, and you have to have Internet to be able to even get 
onto the website.
    So, I was very sensitive to her concerns about rural and 
remote people being able to be part of the public process, and 
I appreciate your answer for the ways that you were able to be 
inclusive.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
    And regarding the comment period, I do appreciate the wink 
and a nod on 15 days, even though we requested in our letter 75 
days. I still think 15 days is totally unacceptable, especially 
when you think about people having to travel from different 
states to come to one of those hearings, or to do it online, 
where they may not have access.
    I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, 15 days, you 
might not even find out about the 15 days until most of it has 
gone by. Typically, these numbers are 60, 90, or 180, round 
numbers like that.
    That all said, under the BLM rule, there is the thought 
that this could require any use or permitted activity to be 
offset by a separate conservation lease. That is a concern. Can 
you comment? Is that a scenario where, let's say, somebody is 
seeking a grazing lease or a timber, any kind of permitted 
activity, do you see a scenario where a separate conservation 
lease could be required of this person, and then will it cost 
them money in order to have to have a lease for a conservation 
area?
    And I am directing that to Principal Deputy Director 
Culver, please. Thank you.
    Ms. Culver. Sure, thank you for the opportunity. And if I 
am not answering all of it, I am sure you will follow up with 
me.
    The idea with the conservation leases is it is one way that 
an entity who is carrying out a permitted activity on public 
lands that results in an unavoidable impact to public lands 
could mitigate, could offset that. It doesn't require that 
every activity be offset. That generally happens on a case-by-
case basis.
    As with the rest of this rule, it is a framework for, if 
you are seeking to offset impacts that occur on public lands, 
one option would be to do that offset on public lands, and one 
tool could be a conservation lease.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, that is a scenario where--let's say I am 
seeking a grazing lease. I might have to offset that with a 
conservation lease and I won't have to pay for this lease?
    Ms. Culver. Thanks for clarifying the question.
    No, right now we continue to manage grazing under the 
Taylor Grazing Act and our current grazing policy. This rule 
wouldn't affect that.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. That is just an example. How about a 
timber operation, where you have mechanical devices and such?
    Ms. Culver. Similarly, the requirements for compensatory 
mitigation happening so far on BLM lands have happened in the 
context of mining, where we have regulations requiring that.
    And also when we are working with states. So, as noted 
here, we work very closely with states. We manage the habitat 
and they manage the wildlife. Often these states require 
mitigation for loss of wildlife habitat that may be happening 
for a permitted activity on BLM land.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, it sounds like you might be deferring to 
states on that.
    Ms. Culver. Yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. There is also a question here that these 
conservation leases could be part of a tool or a requirement to 
have carbon offset credits. Are we looking at activities, 
permitted activity, possibly being required to have to have 
carbon offsets to do them?
    Ms. Culver. The rule doesn't contemplate implementing that 
kind of requirement.
    One of the questions that we wanted to get input on from 
the public is should we be defining the types of permitted uses 
more specifically for conservation leases?
    Should we be permitting use of them for carbon offset 
credits?
    Again, like the compensatory mitigation issue you raised, 
those requirements would be coming from a separate agreement or 
project, or from a state policy.
    Mr. LaMalfa. A great amount of effort is being made on this 
whole carbon content situation. Do you know what the percent of 
our atmosphere actually is carbon dioxide?
    Ms. Culver. Not off the top of my head, sir.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, I will give you the number. It is 0.04 
percent of our atmosphere. Not some much higher number that the 
average person on the street thinks it is anywhere from 20 to 
50, with all the advertising out there. It is 0.04 percent. In 
1960, it was 0.03.
    So, what we are talking about is, over this period of time, 
a change of 1/100 of 1 percent in carbon is what everybody is 
getting hysterical about, and this is going to be so very 
detrimental to our country, its economy, and basically replace 
our economy with those of some other country in the Pacific 
Rim, or maybe offsetting clean American natural gas with 
Russian natural gas, which is known to be 40 percent dirtier 
flowing into Europe or what have you.
    So, I would be very cautious that we would look at carbon 
credits as some type of an additional offset in order for legal 
and necessary permitted activities.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, the time has flown by and I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Hoyle, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    I represent Oregon's 4th Congressional District, and the 
BLM manages 2.1 million acres of O&C lands in Western Oregon. 
About 800,000 of those acres are in Oregon's 4th District, and 
the rest are in Mr. Bentz's district. And I have spoken to this 
Committee before about how these lands are unique, with a 
checkerboard ownership pattern of tribal, private, state, and 
Federal lands. They are important to me, they are important to 
my district. And the O&C lands represent the vast majority of 
the timber lands that the BLM oversees, like well over 95 
percent.
    For over a century, the O&C lands have provided wildlife 
habitat, recreational opportunities, stream buffers for fish 
habitat, and for timber harvests that are crucial to Oregon's 
rural economies. In fact, the O&C Act of 1937 was one of the 
first Federal conservation laws, and it is directed that all 
timber lands should be managed under sustained yield so that 
harvest levels are in balance with forest growth. And later on, 
the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 made sure that 
the BLM manages all its land for sustained yield and multiple 
uses.
    However, section 701(b) of FLPMA is clear. If there are 
inconsistencies between FLPMA and the O&C Act, the O&C Act 
shall prevail. So, that brings me to my concern today.
    I am confused about why the BLM's public land rule does not 
mention the O&C lands, and my concern is there is no mention of 
them, nor an acknowledgment that the O&C Act even exists, much 
less that it would prevail in an inconsistency. So, was this an 
oversight, or is this an intentional change in policy?
    And to you, Ms. Wolff Culver, I would like to know, and the 
counties I represent would like to know, they deserve to know, 
whether the BLM intends to implement this rule on O&C lands.
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the question.
    Right now, as you noted, FLPMA specifically acknowledges 
the Oregon and California Lands Act, and the BLM manages land 
in Oregon under both authorities, and ensures that we comply 
with both of them. And our intent with this regulation is the 
same. We are not amending the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act, nor are we seeking to change the O&C Act or the 
Taylor Grazing Act, for example. We currently manage in a way 
that complies with all of those bills, all of those laws, and 
we would continue to do so.
    Ms. Hoyle. To follow up, what I would like to know, because 
again, these lands are unique and my concern and the concerns 
of my constituents are that this is a change in policy. I would 
like to know if you could put that in writing in this rule 
that, in the case of inconsistencies of FLPMA and the O&C Land 
Act, that the O&C Land Act will prevail.
    Ms. Culver. Certainly, and thank you for following up. 
Certainly, we do not intend to change the way that FLPMA defers 
to the O&C Act, and can certainly take into account how we 
might be more explicit about that in the rule, because the 
intent here was not to undermine that relationship between the 
two laws.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you for saying that is not your intent, 
but it is important to me, it is important to my constituents, 
it is important to these lands that are absolutely unique, and 
especially as we see drought and wildfires and all of the 
challenges of managing multiple uses and multiple ownership of 
lands, it is critical that the O&C Land Act prevails.
    And what I would like, and I don't know but I would guess 
that my colleague, Mr. Bentz, would like, certainly, what my 
counties would like, is clarity in writing. I appreciate you 
saying, ``We would like to see that,'' but what I would like to 
see is I would like to see that in writing, explicitly in this 
rule.
    Ms. Culver. Thank you. Understood.
    The Chairman. Does the gentlelady yield back?
    Ms. Hoyle. I yield back, sorry.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Culver, thank you for being here. I appreciate you 
taking the time to do this.
    Where is your boss?
    Ms. Culver. The Director is at a meeting in Utah.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, that meeting was more important than 
showing up and talking about this issue in front of the Natural 
Resource Committee?
    Ms. Culver. The Director was scheduled to be in the West, 
meeting with all of our executive leadership team across the 
BLM.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK. Ms. Culver, on May 11, the entire Idaho 
Delegation sent a letter addressed to the Director, and it was 
on this issue.
    [Slide.]
    And basically, it expresses concern, in fact, I think it is 
up on the board right now. It expresses concern about this 
issue. It asks for a public hearing, and it describes how 
devastating this rule, if implemented, is going to be on our 
state.
    And I have to tell you, being from Idaho, I am not feeling 
the love here. You don't call, you don't write, you don't 
respond, because we never get any response at all.
    Were you even aware of this letter, Ms. Culver?
    Ms. Culver. Yes. We have received a lot of letters with 
different asks, either for extensions or for us to complete the 
rule, to undertake this rulemaking, et cetera.
    Mr. Fulcher. Is it typically your habit not to respond to 
those, or is it still forthcoming?
    Ms. Culver. You will receive a response, absolutely.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK. Thank you for that. Ms. Culver, just to 
point out the importance of this, 62 to 63 percent of my state 
is Federal lands. The only state by percentage more is Nevada. 
Utah is right there with us, about that same percentage. But 33 
million acres, 33 million.
    And by the way, thanks to lack of management, not climate, 
somewhere between a half million and a million acres a year 
burns up. And that is because of fuel load, and because we 
can't touch the ground that we live on, for the most part. We 
can't put any intelligence into the management of that. That is 
how significant this is to us.
    I think I know exactly why the Director isn't here, and 
that is because she didn't want to answer these questions. I at 
least thank you for showing up.

    Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a copy 
of this letter from the Idaho Delegation, with your permission.

    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                                                   May 11, 2023    

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

    Dear Director Stone Manning:

    As the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) considers a major shift in 
the long-standing and well understood multiple-use approach of federal 
land management, we are discouraged to see Idaho was not listed as one 
of the sites for in-person public meetings regarding the proposed 
Public Lands Rule. Further, we were disappointed to see not only was 
Idaho not included, but the in-person locations are geographically 
concentrated away from many of BLM's constituents. For example, the 
closest in-person meeting for Idaho residents is Reno, Nevada, a trip 
that can take anywhere between 5 and 14 hours by car.

    Additionally, while significant strides have been made in rural 
broadband development, some Idaho residents still lack reliable 
coverage needed to communicate and participate in a virtual meeting. 
This includes those in sparsely populated areas. With the COVID 
emergency ending, it is important for the BLM to meet with shareholders 
in person and face the public.

    Idaho has 12 million acres of BLM managed land, and this rule will 
significantly impact how Idahoans interact with those public lands. By 
categorizing conservation as a use, rather than an outcome, this rule 
will effectively ensure the uses Idahoans have traditionally enjoyed on 
our public lands will be placed in competition with conservation, 
rather than in harmony. This action is in direct conflict with the 
congressional mandate to manage public lands for multiple use.

    Given the impact this rule will have on all Idahoans, we urge you 
to hold in-person meetings in Idaho to gather feedback from the 
stakeholders that this proposed rule will impact. The BLM is proposing 
extensive management practice changes with the capacity to severely 
disrupt multiple uses from grazing to recreation as well as other 
considerations such as Tribal access. Therefore, it is imperative that 
the BLM hears directly from Idahoans, in the state of Idaho, in-person. 
We would also encourage you to personally attend these in-person 
meetings as head of the BLM. That would offer both direct feedback and 
good interaction with your Idaho State Director and her team. We look 
forward to a modification of the schedule for in-person meetings soon.

            Sincerely,

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

        Mike Simpson                  Russ Fulcher
        House of Representatives      House of Representatives

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Fulcher. Ms. Culver, have you been to Idaho before?
    Ms. Culver. Yes. My mother-in-law is from Shoshone.
    Mr. Fulcher. Have you spent any time with the stakeholders 
that work on that land, that live there, that attempt to 
operate or make a living on that land?
    Ms. Culver. Yes, in my capacity at the BLM, I have not done 
an official tour, but yes, I have spent a lot of time----
    Mr. Fulcher. So, then you know, if you have met with these 
people, that a proper grazing project is conservation, that 
proper recreational access is conservation, that a proper 
thinning program or a timber managed program is conservation.
    So, then you understand why we are concerned about making a 
separate category for conservation inadvertently makes it 
compete with other forms of conservation in conjunction with 
other uses. The multiple-use structure has been in place for 
decades, and the worst problem we have in my home is not being 
able to execute on it.
    And the arrogance, quite frankly, just the flat-out 
arrogance for the Administration, for yourselves to promulgate 
something like this, thinking you know better than the people 
who live on this property, who depend on it, who work on it, 
who have the biggest vested interest in it, and biggest 
investment in it, to see it prosper for years and years and 
generations and generations, the arrogance is unbelievable, 
especially when the majority of the Administration, I would 
say, probably hasn't even been there.
    I want to just summarize. I think you get a pretty good 
feel of where we are at, but I am just going to summarize here 
this request. I would like to have an in-person hearing in my 
state. The closest in-person hearing to Idaho was Reno, Nevada. 
Depending on where you are, that is a 5-hour drive, minimum, or 
a 14-hour drive, maximum, for my constituents, the people who 
are impacted the most by this.
    I am going to assume you can't answer that question now, 
but I want an in-person hearing. Or maybe you can.
    Ms. Culver. No, I cannot answer the question right now, but 
I appreciate the request.
    Mr. Fulcher. But I am going to get a response back on this 
letter?
    Ms. Culver. Absolutely.
    Mr. Fulcher. I am going to restate, creating a category of 
conservation as a use makes it compete.
    There is significant arrogance by making this decision and 
imposing it on the people who live there.
    And conservation is an all-of-the-above approach.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you for the testimony to all three of our witnesses. I 
always love it when our entire witness panel is women, because 
we have a lot of women in agriculture, a lot of women in 
ranching, a lot of women in conservation in New Mexico.
    And the issue about grazing is as important to us in New 
Mexico as it is to any of our other Western states. That is a 
key element of our economy. It is a key element of our 
heritage. In New Mexico, we have been grazing sheep and cattle 
and now ibex and a lot of other things on our lands for 
centuries. Since before there was a United States, we have been 
grazing on those lands. And then some of those lands were lost 
and taken into public land, even though they had been used in 
common by the people who lived there before we became part of 
the United States.
    So, the issue of will the proposed rule affect existing 
grazing permits or leases, that is key to us. So, Deputy 
Director Culver, tell me what the answer is to that once again, 
and where can we look to find that in our rule and the previous 
regulations you have issued?
    Ms. Culver. I think at the outset I want to just re-
emphasize that the rule sets out a framework. It doesn't make 
any decisions. Any on-the-ground decisions will be made by 
local land managers. I would encourage everyone to search the 
word ``local'' in the rule if you are looking at it online. We 
really emphasized that. That process will not change. In terms 
of day-to-day decisions on managing grazing, that will not 
change, that will continue to be managed at the local level. 
The rule itself, again, doesn't change the Taylor Grazing Act. 
It doesn't affect any existing authorizations.
    In the context of conservation leasing, a conservation 
lease would have to be issued in a way that respects any 
existing, permitted, authorized use. So, the issuance of a 
conservation lease would only occur over a grazing permit if 
those two uses were consistent.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. For example, a rancher that might 
already have a grazing lease could come and work with you, and 
decide, ``How can I work with the existing USDA programs to 
actually also restore?'' Because we do know that, with that 
many hundreds of years of grazing, there is work that needs to 
be done. Is that right?
    Ms. Culver. Yes. The BLM manages 155 million acres for 
grazing. We see that use as key to the success of the concepts 
in this rule and, in particular, conservation leasing as an 
opportunity for ranchers to work with the entities who may be 
providing funding for some of the practices that they already 
are, as you noted, undertaking, but might be more formally set 
out in a lease, and might be a source of additional income.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And this issue of being able to bring 
additional income in is really important, because when we look 
at the statistics there are way too many ranchers and farmers 
who actually don't make a profit on their lands. It is 
consolidated. We have a lot of small holdings, so that issue is 
really important to them.
    What about future permits and leases? Will this affect 
future grazing permits and leases?
    Ms. Culver. The rule itself doesn't take a position, one 
way or another. I think what it looks at is what different--
there are certain aspects of conservation. Grazing practices 
can be one aspect. We are trying to set out a framework to 
ensure those are taken into account.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Great. And I am looking at page 
19,591, where you actually do explicitly state that it is not 
intended to preclude uses such as grazing, mining, and 
recreation, and they would not disturb existing authorizations, 
valid existing rights, or state or tribal land use management. 
So, you have that in there as you discuss the rule. And I think 
making sure that you can now point to specific places in the 
rule will help this clarity, because my constituents also want 
that clarity.
    The State Land Commissioner testified, was it last week or 
2 weeks ago? And she is in favor of this process, but also 
wants to make sure that there is a commitment to continue to do 
that work with the state and the tribes. Do we have that 
commitment from you?
    Ms. Culver. Yes, I appreciate the opportunity to 
acknowledge that request. We have heard it.
    Again, what we are putting in here is what we intended the 
rule to say and how we expect it to work. And if it needs to be 
clearer, that is the feedback we are looking for right now, and 
we are so appreciative to get it.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. OK, thank you.
    And Mr. Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into 
the record one letter of various that we have seen from the 
Office of the Governor of the Pueblo of Tesuque in opposition 
to H.R. 3397. It is dated June 15, 2023.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes Mr. Stauber for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    The Department of the Interior has told this Committee that 
the new conservation leases created by this rule are simply a 
new tool for folks to offset impacts of activities on Federal 
lands, and are not a new requirement. However, given this 
Administration has a track record of moving the goalposts left 
and right to their political benefit, we cannot rely on what 
they say. We must watch what they do.
    Ms. Sgamma, do you believe that this rule would create a 
new requirement for companies to purchase conservation leases 
for energy projects on Federal lands?
    Ms. Sgamma. I think that is the goal, yes. And they do not 
have the authority to require that type of off-site mitigation.
    Mr. Stauber. And what kind of impact will this have on the 
small businesses?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, I think the Small Business 
Administration's Advocacy Office said it best in a recent 
letter. Yes, this will impact small businesses. Most of our 
companies are independent producers, small producers, with an 
average of 14 employees.
    Mr. Stauber. And I agree with you that this rule will have 
a significant impact on small businesses. And as it turns out, 
the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy 
agrees.
    And Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent for the SBA Office 
of Advocacy comment letter on the BLM's proposed rule sent this 
Tuesday to Secretary Haaland be entered into the record for 
today's hearing.

    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The letter can be found on page 38.]

    Mr. Stauber. I want to quote from that letter: ``Given the 
rule has the potential to impact a substantial number of small 
businesses across various industry sectors, BLM must properly 
and thoroughly consider these impacts and modify the proposed 
RFA analysis accordingly.''
    Ms. Culver, the Department of the Interior determined that 
the proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. But you failed to conduct an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis, or even provide the factual 
basis for certifying that small businesses won't be impacted. 
Why did you refuse to analyze this rule's impact on our small 
businesses?
    Ms. Culver. I appreciate that question. When we looked at 
the economic analysis that we created as part of this rule, we 
looked at----
    Mr. Stauber. Did you create that yourself, or with the 
small businesses?
    Ms. Culver. It was done by experts within the BLM.
    Mr. Stauber. OK, and not small businesses that may be 
affected. Is that correct?
    Ms. Culver. The BLM prepared an economic analysis as part 
of the rule.
    Mr. Stauber. No, ma'am. My question was you didn't talk to 
small businesses that could be affected by this. You just said 
no.
    Ms. Culver. No, it was prepared by an expert at the BLM.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. So, you didn't consult with small 
businesses. That is correct?
    Does your department not care about small businesses and 
their successes, which are the engine and innovators of our 
economy?
    Ms. Culver. I couldn't agree more that our public lands are 
a key to supporting the success of so many small businesses 
around the West and around the country. We really value those 
partnerships and the support they provide.
    Mr. Stauber. Why didn't you include the small businesses in 
your decision?
    Ms. Culver. I am not quite sure what you are asking. 
However, I think we prepared the economic analysis, the 
evaluation of significance, working with the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Analysis, the Office of Management 
and Budget, the Department of the Interior, Council on 
Environmental Quality, and all of those agencies that provide 
that direction to us.
    Mr. Stauber. That is the same Department of the Interior 
that banned mining in northeastern Minnesota for political 
reasons only? That is the Interior Department you are talking 
about.
    As I just noted, the SBA's Office of Advocacy has called 
foul on you for failing to conduct this analysis, and has 
called on the BLM to ``provide a supplemental document with an 
initial Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis that includes a 
discussion of the impacted small entities, what if any impacts 
those small entities may face, and what regulatory alternatives 
the agency considered.''
    Yes or no, will you commit right now to fulfilling the 
Office of Advocacy's request?
    Ms. Culver. I need to review their request and look at what 
is in the rule, because we did complete the required analysis. 
So, I really look forward to reading that comment.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chairman, this Administration has 
continually failed to consider small businesses in their 
reckless regulatory onslaught. I appreciate you holding this 
hearing today to allow us to conduct oversight on this 
rulemaking, and I look forward to working with you and the 
Committee on Small Business to stand up for small businesses 
across this country. And I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just have to 
say that the whiplash you get in this Committee is 
unbelievable.
    Last panel, the governor, both of them, complained about 
how this rule takes away public input, and they got an amen 
corner from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But 
last week, we had a Committee hearing, and the Committee balked 
at the need for public input as it relates to mining and its 
impact. So, I guess it just depends on who the public is.
    Deputy Director Culver, I want to know more about ACEC, and 
how it integrates with the needs of and coincides with respect 
for tribal communities.
    And Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter two 
resolutions into the hearing record. One is from the National 
Congress of American Indians, outlining how ACEC can elevate 
tribal traditional knowledge and protect tribal traditional 
cultural resources. And the second is by the Affiliated Tribes 
of Northwest Indians identifying new pathways for designating 
conservation areas that protect and prevent irreparable damage 
to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and 
wildlife resources, or other natural systems of processes.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And I want to enter it into the record, and I am asking you 
this question because I have actually heard from some of my 
colleagues that they know what is best when it comes to tribes. 
They either appropriate or discredit viewpoints of Indigenous 
peoples based on, I guess, political points they want to score. 
But folks have actually said that there is no need for 
meaningful consultation. There is actually no need for 
consultation by Indigenous communities, which I find 
outrageous. And it actually strikes me quite often as settler 
colonialist rhetoric, which makes all of my hair stand up on 
the top of my head.
    So, do you believe that we should be speaking for tribes 
without including them into these processes and discussions?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the question. Your hair looks 
great.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you.
    Ms. Culver. This Administration, from Day 1, has committed 
to making sure that we are engaging in meaningful consultation 
with tribes, and not just in a pro forma way, but a proactive 
way to ensure additional engagement. That is why we have 
committed to co-stewardship, and have really led the way at the 
Department of the Interior on that issue.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. Because, as we have heard, 
people actually want to feel included in discussions, including 
tribal communities that don't want other folks speaking for 
them.
    Can you go a little deeper in terms of how this proposed 
rule incorporates requests from tribes and Indigenous 
communities, and sort of what co-management, co-stewardship 
actually looks and feels like, and should in a non-appropriated 
way?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the question.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. A long question----
    Ms. Culver. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about 
this.
    One of the aspects of this rule that we are very proud of 
is that it explicitly incorporates requirements to evaluate 
Indigenous knowledge as part of the best available science that 
we are taking into account in decision making.
    We also explicitly emphasize the importance of consulting 
and working with tribes when we are doing land use planning, 
where we allocate lands for different management.
    And in the context of areas of critical environmental 
concern, we received numerous letters, and the resolutions also 
that you mentioned from tribes, asking that we formalize the 
process for identifying and protecting and designating those 
areas to be managed. It is one tool the BLM has. It is required 
under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act for us to use 
it, to prioritize its use, and it explicitly considers historic 
and cultural resources.
    So, what we have done in this regulation is note the 
importance of evaluating whether an ACEC could be designated, 
just another acronym here at the BLM, whether we would use 
that, and to look at proposals from tribes, and to consider 
opportunities for co-stewardship. And what that could look like 
is how we incorporate Indigenous knowledge into the management 
decisions, or how we might work together, for example, to 
ensure that there is adequate education about the resources for 
which that area was designated.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that explanation and 
response.
    I was having some discussions with some different tribal 
communities. And when I was sharing what I was hearing in this 
Committee, and I was questioning if they felt that they were 
being silenced, they said, ``Keep asking questions about this 
issue, because it is important that we are seen and valued in 
these discussions.''
    So, with that I want to thank you for your responses.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Rosendale, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
    Ms. Culver, as I sit here and listen to all of this, as 
much as you would try to deny it, what I see and what I read, 
and the reality is the BLM trying to expand its powers, an 
attempt to expand your powers.
    And the fact that no hearings have been held in the areas 
where the impacted land is located demonstrates, quite frankly, 
the complete disregard that the agency has for the opinion of 
the people that are going to be impacted by it the most. 
Holding a hearing in an intensely urban area, instead of out in 
the field, where the people that are going to be impacted, the 
people that are actually managing those lands now, nowhere near 
them, is an insult, quite frankly.
    The Montana Delegation also sent a letter out to the 
Department of the Interior and to BLM, trying to obtain a 
hearing to be held in the areas that were going to be impacted. 
Again, nothing. We sent that back on May 11.
    This rule completely contradicts the Taylor Grazing Act and 
FLPMA. It does contradict it. And the Supreme Court has 
recently ruled in agency over-reach, West Virginia v. EPA, and 
now you have heard it from Congress that you are getting 
outside of the lines.
    So, please, save money, save time, save aggravation for the 
people across this nation who have to go through that legal 
process to show that this is out of line, and simply stay in 
your lane. OK? We make the laws. Stay in your lane. That is 
where we need to stay.
    Ms. Sgamma, we have heard navigating through conflicts is 
not something that the BLM excels at. Can you give us some 
examples in your experience where the BLM failed to mitigate 
conflict, and how it has affected your members?
    Ms. Sgamma. I am not sure I can think of a specific example 
right off the top of my head. But in general, when you look at 
the definition of conservation leases, you can't help but see 
that the way it is defined in the proposed rule is going to 
preclude productive uses. So, I don't see how there isn't an 
inherent conflict with that.
    And I think you are absolutely right, that Congress simply 
hasn't given BLM the power to redefine away FLPMA terms.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you. Do you believe that this rule, 
would it be enacted, in any way provides more clarity about how 
the lands can be used, or how they should be managed? Or does 
it produce more ambiguity and subjectivity?
    Ms. Sgamma. I think it is really nebulous at this point 
with this proposed rule, which is why we have joined with 
Public Lands Council, the Cattlemen's Beef Association, 
American Mining and Exploration Association, Safari Club 
International, and others asking that this rule be pulled back, 
or at least go through another iteration of comments once BLM 
has a chance to react to everything that they are given in this 
comment period, because there are just too many new terms and 
too many questions raised.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you so much. And if the rule would 
take effect, do you believe it would result in better or worse 
outcomes for the environment and the land quality, and why?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, again, I think it is so nebulous, how 
this is intended and how it would be actually used, that I 
don't know what would come out of this. And that is why I think 
BLM needs to do another round of public comment and explain 
itself better.
    Mr. Rosendale. And would your definition of public comment 
include areas that are actually where the lands are located, so 
that the people that are in the field managing them might be 
included?
    Ms. Sgamma. I do agree, indeed, that this should be out in 
rural areas because it is really rural areas where this is most 
impacted.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Commissioner, let me ask you a question. Before I ascended 
into this position, I was a County Commissioner, Chair of my 
local County Board. And there is a mythology that goes on about 
this is the West, and this is the West that it has always been, 
and this is the West that it will continue to be.
    The West has changed. The dynamics are different. And at 
least in my county we had to deal with habitat restoration and 
a conservation plan in order to deal with endangered species, 
deal with land use decisions. And those are all difficult and 
done at the local level.
    But at the end of the day, it was in response to guidance, 
it was in response to a law, a Federal law, and the end result 
was benefit: more assurity about what zoning was, a 
conservation ethic that got strengthened in terms of protection 
of areas, and no grazing rights were lost, no mining operation 
in the Silver Bell Mountains was closed, dire consequences did 
not hit my county of Pima. In fact, it is highly supported and 
seen as something important.
    My question about mythology is you have heard back and 
forth today that this rule provides an opportunity for local 
communities to look at restoration and conservation as a 
legitimate use of BLM lands. That is all it does. It doesn't 
change the fundamental ground that we are working with, but it 
provides an opportunity for the future. And I think, more 
importantly, the word doesn't get used enough, but the 
restoration of areas that need to be restored.
    The mining industry left messes all over the West that 
nobody talks about. No restoration, no remediation, the 
taxpayer having to carry that burden. Here is an opportunity. 
Could you speak to what it means to local people to have this 
opportunity, and why a kind of mythology that doesn't exist 
can't help us going into this century in dealing with issues 
like climate.
    Ms. Chandler-Henry. Thank you so much for that very 
perceptive question, Congressman Grijalva, and you have really 
hit the nail on the head.
    In our county, we really rely on collaboration. We rely on 
working with our Federal land managers. Our small businesses 
are based on outdoor recreation and tourism, our small 
businesses rely on conservation values, and they rely on the 
certainty that this proposed rule would implement to look at 
those conservation uses on par with every other use.
    In our county, we have to pay businesses to come in and 
take the timber out for our forest restoration programs. It is 
not a big moneymaker for us. Oil and gas is negligible. Our 
extractive industry is tourism, outdoor recreation. We are a 
rural area. We work hand in glove with our ranchers and our 
conservationists. The conservation district is run by our 
ranchers. It works with our open space, and we work closely 
with BLM to make all that work.
    Mr. Grijalva. Deputy Director, the proposition that we are 
seeing here today, either there is no rule because the freedom 
and fundamental life of our nation is at stake in this rule--
talk about restoration. Talk about the new players that haven't 
been talked about in this part of the discussion, because 
restoration is a use. And the way this is being interpreted is 
that restoration for many communities--and conservation--is an 
important element that we are adding to the portfolio about 
what BLM should be doing.
    I don't want to repeat the 1872 law of mining, where we get 
to do nothing but give mining everything they want. This rule 
gives the public, regardless of where you live, you own part of 
this public land, each individual in this country, and the 
response has to be landscape. It can't be short-term parochial, 
with collateral damage being OK here but conservation being 
important somewhere else.
    Please.
    Ms. Culver. We really intentionally defined the 
conservation aspects of this rule as including both restoration 
and protection, considering those both very active uses. We 
have received, as I mentioned before, a lot of funding recently 
from Congress for restoration. We see that as something that 
this rule can really help us implement.
    Our public lands will benefit from this type of 
restoration, whether it is making them more resilient for fire 
or drought, or addressing impacts of other development. And the 
intent of this rule, the way it is structured, the actual words 
of it, it is a structure, it is a framework.
    And what we are ensuring is that one element of 
conservation restoration is taken into account in decision 
makings, looking for those opportunities, identifying the best 
places to do that. And the rule is very explicit that we do 
that with our partners, as we always do.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Bentz, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank all of the 
witnesses for their patience. My question is directed to 
Principal Deputy Director Culver, and I just wanted a little 
background.
    My district in Oregon is larger than the entire state of 
Washington. I think we have somewhere around 72,000 square 
miles of space in my district. And of that, about 50 million 
acres is public land. Exactly how much is BLM and how much is 
Forest I couldn't tell you, but there is a lot more BLM than 
Forest. So, this rule has a great importance to me and to the 
people I represent.
    I am looking at your Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR part 
1600 to 6100 that was published in the Federal Register on 
April 3. I am looking at, I think, about the fourth page, and 
it would suggest that there is a gap in your regulations. You 
agree with that, of course, because it says so right here in 
your document. Right? I am reading it: ``This proposed rule is 
intended to address this gap in the Bureau's regulations.'' 
What is that gap?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the question, Congressman Bentz. 
The reference there is the lack of explicit regulations 
discussing this particular aspect of the multiple use and 
sustained yield.
    Mr. Bentz. I think it would be better to carry that a 
little further, because I have been studying this the entire 
time I have been sitting here, trying to figure it out. And I 
want you to tell me what it actually means.
    Because the way I read it, and you can tell me if I am 
right or wrong, but the way I read it is it suggests that you 
are now going to take conservation as--it is never defined, by 
the way, in here, so I am not sure what it is. I did dig up a 
definition of it. It is fairly broad: ``The act of protecting 
the Earth's natural resources for current and future 
generations.'' That is the National Geographic Society's 
definition. Is that yours?
    Ms. Culver. In the rule we define conservation as 
``maintaining resilient, functioning ecosystems by protecting 
or restoring natural habitats and ecological functions.''
    Mr. Bentz. Are you reading that out of your BLM U.S. 
Department of the Interior Manual H-4180? Is that where you are 
getting that?
    Ms. Culver. I am reading it out of section 6101.4 of the 
proposed regulations, sir.
    Mr. Bentz. It is suggested in this article by Michael Bloom 
out of my law school, a faculty guy, ``BLM defines rangeland 
health as the degree to which the integrity of the soil and 
ecological processes of rangeland ecosystems are sustained.'' 
Are you trying to change the standard that currently is in your 
manuals with this rule? I think you are, but you can tell me. 
You have to be. There is a gap, you are filling it, so you have 
to be changing, right?
    Ms. Culver. We are providing additional detail on how to 
carry out this work. And if we need to update manuals and 
guidance, we will do that.
    Mr. Bentz. Additional detail. You are filling a gap with 
something. So, you are saying it is not changing anything. This 
is just additional detail of something that already exists. Is 
that your argument?
    Ms. Culver. We are setting out a framework of how to 
explicitly address these two aspects of conservation, 
protection and restoration, with specific tools and processes 
in the regulation.
    The gap, in part, refers to the fact that this is a portion 
of our regulations that was reserved for additional regulation. 
And the BLM promulgates new regulations as we see the need for 
more direction.
    Mr. Bentz. OK. Then at least you do agree these are 
additional regulations, and there will be additional work to be 
done across the entire scope of your activities as a bureau. Is 
that correct?
    Because that is exactly what it says here on the fourth 
page: ``The proposed rule recognizes the BLM has three primary 
ways to manage resilient public lands,'' and then it walks down 
through how the proposed rule would require the BLM to plan for 
and consider conservation as a use on par with all other uses, 
and identify the practices and ensure conservation actions are 
effective in building resilient public lands.
    And then it goes on to say that you currently can't apply 
some of these standards, but you are going to start doing so. 
It says they are applicable to grazing now, but you want to 
extend that applicability to other activities on public land. I 
mean, it is in your rule. So, am I correct there? That is a new 
step on your part.
    Ms. Culver. The rule would apply. The land health standards 
that currently apply specifically to grazing, consideration of 
grazing, make that explicit to apply to other uses. We have 
heard for a long time from the grazing community that they 
comply with these fundamentals of land health, and that should 
be explicitly applied to other uses of the public lands.
    Mr. Bentz. I have to hop back to the O&C lands because, 
indeed, as Congresswoman Hoyle suggested, there needs to be 
much clarity in the rule. And I think she was trying to ask 
about the letter they sent to you, one of the county 
commissioners from one of the counties that has a lot of this 
type of land in it, conservation as a use cannot be applied to 
O&C timber lands. Is that correct?
    Ms. Culver. The way we have defined conservation in the 
regulations includes restoration, which is certainly something 
that we do in compliance with the O&C Act. So, we would apply 
this regulation in a way that complies with the Oregon and 
California Lands Act.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it would be easy 
to forget that we are talking about public lands that belong to 
the people of the United States if you are listening in to this 
hearing where so many questions and speeches seem to suggest 
that these public lands should simply be available to various 
extracting industries for commercial purposes, and that they 
should continue to have the type of impunity that they have had 
for decades.
    But I think that the BLM public lands rule is on the right 
track. I don't think it is wildly controversial at all. BLM has 
been in the conservation business for a long time, and has done 
all kinds of rulemakings and policy guidance for every type of 
extractive industry that operates on BLM lands, but never for 
conservation. So, I would say it is about time.
    And I want to just enter into the record two letters that 
Congresswoman DeGette and I have sent on this matter. One is 
from February this year, signed by 40 Representatives in 
support of this rule, and another from earlier this week, where 
we co-led a letter with Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico 
outlining the positives that we see in this common-sense step 
reflected in the proposed rule. We had 45 Representatives and 
Senators sign that letter. So, Mr. Chairman, without objection, 
I hope we would like to enter that into the record.
    The Chairman. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                     Congress of the United States

                             Washington, DC

                                              February 15, 2023    

Hon. Debra Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C St., NW
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Secretary Haaland:

    In order to combat the climate and biodiversity crises, we 
encourage you to shift the focus of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
to emphasize conservation by utilizing all the administrative tools at 
your disposal. These tools include designating Wilderness Study Areas, 
meaningful protection for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 
(ACECs), and connecting landscapes for safe travel for wildlife. We 
urge you to use your statutory authority established by theLand Policy 
and Management Act (FLPMA) to provide protections for our public lands 
and waters and drastically increase the opportunity of overcoming these 
crises.
    Under FLPMA, the Department of the Interior has the authority to 
update inventories of the resources it manages--including areas that 
qualify for wilderness designation, ACECs, and other conservation 
areas. Under section 202 of FLPMA, once such inventories have been 
completed, the Interior Department may then move to administratively 
protect lands as new Wilderness Study Areas. Managing these BLM lands 
in a wilderness-like state would help achieve President Biden's goal to 
protect 30 percent of lands and waters by 2030.
    Our remote lands are frequently overlooked in conversations about 
addressing the climate crisis, but their contributions will be crucial. 
Public lands not only support complex ecosystems, but also can 
sequester carbon and make areas more resilient to the impacts of 
climate change.
    The largest opportunity to protect our public lands lies with the 
BLM. For years, DOI and the BLM have not utilized their ability to 
protect these lands, leaving critical habitats vulnerable to 
degradation of their unique resources. Without proper protections, 
these lands face many threats that could jeopardize wilderness-quality 
values the BLM stated these lands have.
    FLPMA directs the BLM to give priority to the designation and 
protection of ACECs. These are places where special management 
attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to 
important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife 
resources or other natural systems or processes. For decades, this 
designation has gone largely underutilized, with inconsistent 
identification, designation, and management. If fully embraced, ACECs 
can preserve and protect historical and cultural resources and sites as 
well as promote public access and enjoyment of the open air, outdoor 
areas and historic resources of the nation.
    Protecting new Wilderness Study Areas and ACECs in a durable way as 
envisioned in FLPMA would be a significant step to mitigate climate 
change and reach the administration's 30 x 30 goal. Thank you for your 
commitment to the stewardship of our nation's public lands.

            Sincerely,

        Jared Huffman                 Diana DeGette
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Doris Matsui                  Eleanor Holmes Norton
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Melanie Stansbury             Adam B. Schiff
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Jill Tokuda                   Julia Brownley
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Stephen F. Lynch              Earl Blumenauer
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Andre Carson                  Gwen S. Moore
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Donald S. Beyer Jr.           Katie Porter
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Barbara Lee                   Suzanne Bonamici
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Nanette Diaz Barragan         Salud Carbajal
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Pramila Jayapal               Mike Levin
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress
        Raul M. Grijalva              Mike Thompson
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Teresa Leger Fernandez        Mark DeSaulnier
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Jan Schakowsky                Mark Pocan
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Betty McCollum                Joe Neguse
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Brittany Pettersen            Rick Larsen
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Steve Cohen                   Lisa Blunt Rochester
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Judy Chu                      Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Raul Ruiz, M.D.               Debbie Dingell
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Yadira Caraveo, M.D.          Jason Crow
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Kevin Mullin                  Sara Jacobs
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

                                 ______
                                 

                     Congress of the United States

                             Washington, DC

                                                  June 12, 2023    

Hon. Debra Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C St., NW
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Secretary Haaland:

    On April 3, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published in 
theRegister a draft ``Conservation and Landscape Health'' rule. The 
draft rule provides tools for the BLM to improve the resilience of 
public lands in the face of a changing climate and biodiversity loss; 
conserve important wildlife habitat and intact landscapes; plan for 
development; and better recognize unique cultural and natural resources 
on public lands. We strongly support the progress and direction of 
BLM's long-overdue draft rule. We believe the final rule should build 
upon the draft to ensure that the rule achieves its potential to 
balance various multiple uses of BLM lands for the benefit of current 
and future generations.

    The draft rule laudably:

     Clarifies conservation as a legitimate land use, alongside 
            other land uses, and prioritizes lands to be managed for 
            conservation.

     Promotes restoration of our lands and waters, empowering 
            federal land managers and state partners to leverage 
            federal dollars from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and 
            the Inflation Reduction Act, towards restoration and 
            improving land health.

     Includes regulations for Area of Critical Environmental 
            Concern (ACEC), which are areas where special management is 
            required to protect important natural, cultural, and scenic 
            resources, or to protect from natural hazards.

     Provides for nomination of ACECs by tribes and members of 
            the public.

    The BLM oversees some of our nation's most spectacular landscapes, 
more than 85 percent of which remain in their natural state. These 
lands provide connectivity corridors and habitat for wildlife, allow 
for natural carbon sequestration, and provide clean water and air for 
local communities. Protecting our public lands also provides increased 
opportunities for recreation, including hunting and fishing.
    Lands managed by the BLM are often overlooked in conversations 
about addressing the biodiversity and climate crises, but their 
contributions are crucial. Sustainable and resilient public lands are 
critical to Western economies and great quality of life. This draft 
rule provides an important framework to modernize BLM's conservation 
regulations and can be strengthened.

    We encourage Interior to implement the draft rule by:

     Conducting an inventory of intact natural landscapes.

     Ensuring that identification and consideration of ACECs is 
            prioritized and that ACECs are properly managed.

     Identifying and protecting habitat connectivity.

     Restoring streambeds and riparian areas.

     Protecting mature trees from a myriad of growing threats, 
            including uncharacteristic wildfires and climate change.

    In addition, the BLM should coordinate with tribal governments to 
refine the rule and ensure that it:

     Advances opportunities for co-stewardship.

     Incorporates Indigenous knowledge.

     Respects tribal sovereignty and treaty rights.

     Protects tribal cultural sites.

     Carries out tribal consultation in ways that honor tribes' 
            unique historic and contemporary connections to public 
            lands.

    We support your commitment and stand ready to work with you and 
communities across the West to conserve public lands for generations to 
come. We look forward to the completion of this important rulemaking.

            Sincerely,

        Jared Huffman                 Diana DeGette
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Martin Heinrich               Richard J. Durbin
        United States Senator         United States Senator

        Dianne Feinstein              Earl Blumenauer
        United States Senator         Member of Congress

        Alex Padilla                  Suzanne Bonamici
        United States Senator         Member of Congress

        Edward J. Markey              Raul M. Grijalva
        United States Senator         Member of Congress

        Bernard Sanders               Doris Matsui
        United States Senator         Member of Congress

        Cory A. Booker                Ro Khanna
        United States Senator         Member of Congress

        Elizabeth Warren              Sydney Kamlager-Dove
        United States Senator         Member of Congress

        Adam B. Schiff                Betty McCollum
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress
        Maxine Waters                 Adriano Espaillat
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Joe Neguse                    Brittany Pettersen
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Yvette D. Clarke              Mark DeSaulnier
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Mark Pocan                    Julia Brownley
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Barbara Lee                   Judy Chu
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Gabe Vasquez                  Sara Jacobs
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Donald S. Beyer Jr.           Eleanor Holmes Norton
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Chellie Pingree               Andre Carson
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Ted W. Lieu                   Katie Porter
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Becca Balint                  Mike Thompson
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Melanie Stansbury             Seth Magaziner
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Nanette Diaz Barragan         Jerrold Nadler
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        David Trone                   Ritchie Torres
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Zoe Lofgren
        Member of Congress

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
    Deputy Director Culver, is it correct that congressional 
intent for the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, FLPMA, 
is to include conservation as part of BLM's multiple-use 
mandate?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the question. Absolutely, it is.
    The definition of multiple use is very clear. It includes, 
for example, natural, scenic, scientific, and historical 
values. Those are certainly aspects of conservation, as are 
management of habitat.
    And I think the quote that I have read a few times lately 
comes from the former governor of Idaho, Mr. Andrus, who was 
the Secretary of the Interior when FLPMA passed in 1976. And he 
talked about the importance of these public lands for all 
Americans, and said in response to the passage of FLPMA, 
``Conservation is no longer a pious ideal. It is an element of 
our survival.'' I take that as something that maybe we should 
have gotten around to these regulations earlier, as you note, 
but I take that to reiterate that that was the intention at the 
time of the passage.
    Mr. Huffman. And is it fair to say that over the years you 
have done a lot of rulemaking when it comes to mining, and 
grazing, and oil and gas activities on our Federal public lands 
and other commercial uses?
    Ms. Culver. We do have standalone regulations for all of 
those activities, as well as for rights-of-way. And when we saw 
the need, we updated our regulations to address renewable 
energy, wind and solar explicitly. We just issued updated 
regulations on that today.
    Mr. Huffman. But you have never done a rulemaking for 
conservation?
    Ms. Culver. We have not.
    Mr. Huffman. So, that does not seem radical. It seems long 
overdue and sensible, putting it on equal footing.
    And let's just establish that you are not putting a thumb 
on the scale for conservation and elevating it over other uses 
in your multiple-use portfolio, are you?
    Ms. Culver. We are not. And the rule is explicit that this 
is one of the multiple uses.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. The bill before us today would not 
only close the door to you taking this step, it would lock the 
door, and it would prevent you from doing other regulatory 
actions in this space. How would that tie your hands and your 
ability to carry out your multiple-use mandate under FLPMA?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for that question and for pointing 
that out, that there may be unintended consequences or intended 
of such a law, because the rule itself actually reiterates 
numerous policies and activities that are already underway.
    For example, compensatory mitigation, restoration, planning 
ahead for managing to restore habitat, working with our 
partners to identify the best places to manage for healthy 
public lands and to manage for restoration.
    As I mentioned in my testimony, the ideas and the concepts 
and the tools in this rule and this proposed rule grow out of 
activities and ideas that are already underway at the BLM and 
have been for decades.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Deputy Director.
    I just want to note, as I close, that of the 245 million 
acres of public lands BLM manages, 90 percent are open for oil 
and gas leasing. The vast majority are open for hardrock 
mining. It is high time that we elevate conservation to equal 
footing with these other uses, and this rule seeks to do just 
that.
    I will note, Deputy Director, that I have had some solar 
power developers that are a little bit nervous about this rule. 
I think they are misinterpreting what is going on here, but it 
would be very important, as you go forward, I think, to provide 
some assurance and clarity that, just as this would not prevent 
other uses, it would certainly not stand in the way of our 
renewable energy goals and solar development on public lands.
    With that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the bill's sponsor for questions.
    Mr. Curtis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to direct 
my questions to the Deputy Director, and thank you for being 
here, and all the witnesses, for your long hours that you have 
been here.
    Deputy Director, I am from Utah. BLM manages 22.8 million 
acres of public land in Utah. That is 42 percent of our state. 
If you go more specifically to my district, I don't have the 
specific numbers for BLM, but Federal lands represent about 90 
percent, a high percentage of my district. Can you explain, 
given those numbers, why there were no public meetings in Utah 
about this rule?
    Ms. Culver. Thanks for the question. We identified a number 
of places to hold information sessions, and have again 
continued to provide responses and information sessions and 
briefings as requested.
    Mr. Curtis. The governors of South Dakota and Wyoming were 
here earlier, and they also expressed that there were no public 
meetings in their states with similar numbers. Do you not feel 
that you have missed something here by not coming to the people 
in these good areas and getting their input?
    Ms. Culver. Having worked on a number of regulations, and 
seen the Federal Government issue regulations for many years, I 
think we have one of the most robust outreach processes I have 
ever seen with the information sessions online, the information 
we have posted online, the information we have made available 
around the West, the amount of outreach going on from our State 
Directors, yes.
    Mr. Curtis. To be clear, then, you are saying states with 
significant impact by this rule didn't need to be heard from, 
and that that was adequate. Is that what you are telling me?
    Ms. Culver. With respect, Congressman, that is absolutely 
not what I am saying.
    Mr. Curtis. Then help me understand why you wouldn't hold a 
single public meeting. I don't know about the other states in 
the region, but these three I know about. Why wouldn't you hold 
a single public meeting, not one?
    Ms. Culver. We did not hold public meetings to receive 
comment. We held information sessions to provide additional 
information. And then we have been supplementing those with 
meetings held with our State Directors, our districts, and our 
field offices. Just as so many people have talked about how 
well they work with their local BLM, their state BLM, their 
districts, those are the people who we are having help us with 
additional outreach.
    Mr. Curtis. Let me get to that in a minute. BLM has not 
responded to letters my colleagues on the Committee and I have 
sent. How can Utah ranchers, farmers, and recreationalists have 
their voices heard, when you are not responding to our letters 
and you are not holding hearings? What do you want me to go 
back and tell them?
    Ms. Culver. We have been doing briefings for anyone who 
asks, and we are happy to continue doing that. We are in a 
public comment period right now. That is when we will respond.
    Mr. Curtis. Good. I am asking for a briefing in San Juan 
County.
    Ms. Culver. Understood.
    Mr. Curtis. You are willing to do that?
    Ms. Culver. I have responded to briefings. We have been 
doing most of them virtually. But I am sure we can figure that 
out.
    Mr. Curtis. That is a yes.
    Ms. Culver. I will need to confirm, but I am sure we can 
find a way to continue discussions with San Juan County.
    Mr. Curtis. No, I want an in-person briefing in San Juan 
County, where they are impacted by this in a dramatic way.
    Ms. Culver. I understand your request. As I said, we are 
not holding public hearings, but we are providing additional--
--
    Mr. Curtis. Are you willing to extend the comment period, 
given the fact that so many people have not been heard from?
    Ms. Culver. I am. Today, we announced the extension of the 
comment period by an additional 15 days.
    Mr. Curtis. Fifteen?
    Ms. Culver. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Curtis. That gives you 2 weeks to get down to San Juan 
County. I will meet with your scheduler immediately, as soon as 
you are ready.
    Ms. Culver. Having driven from Albuquerque to San Juan 
County to Salt Lake City on Monday, I think it can be done, but 
I hear you.
    Mr. Curtis. Please. We would like that to happen.
    So, I am curious of two questions. One is it sounds like 
you are a little bit familiar with the geography in Utah. Can 
you give me an example where you feel like this rule would have 
made a difference in Utah in the last decade? What would it 
have preserved that was not preserved?
    Ms. Culver. Absolutely. To give an example that is from a 
little farther north in the state, we recently permitted the 
TransWest Express transmission line. As part of that process 
that line goes through a number of Western states, including 
Utah.
    Mr. Curtis. So, you are saying that would not have been 
permitted under this rule?
    Ms. Culver. What happened with that was the company, in its 
own discussions, agreed to compensatory mitigation to provide 
funding.
    Mr. Curtis. I only have 30 seconds left. Let me try to make 
a point with you.
    Ms. Culver. We could have worked out----
    Mr. Curtis. I know. This is my time.
    Ms. Culver. We could have worked----
    Mr. Curtis. I have 30 seconds.
    Ms. Culver. I know. I thought you wanted me to explain. I 
am so sorry.
    Mr. Curtis. OK. Thirty seconds, right? You have no funding 
in my district. You have two BLM agents for the entire Bears 
Ears area. How is funding going to change so that you have the 
resources to do this?
    Ms. Culver. Most of this will be part of our ongoing 
standard practices such as land use planning and permitting 
projects. We expect that it will be funded in that way.
    Mr. Curtis. All right. I am, unfortunately, out of time. 
Hopefully, you interpret from my results that we don't feel 
heard, that we feel like we are doing a very good job of 
conservation ourselves. And I really would challenge you to 
point out anything where your involvement would have provided 
better conservation than what we have done. And I wish I could 
give you a chance to respond. I am out of time.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
    The Chairman. You can respond, if you would like.
    Ms. Culver. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. The example I 
was going to give with the transmission line, there are 
millions of dollars for compensatory mitigation. If we had had 
this opportunity, this rule, it would have been easier to work 
with local communities to propose projects and to implement 
those projects directly with the communities, instead of going 
through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
    Mr. Curtis. I think my question is what would have been 
preserved, and particularly in the south, that was not 
preserved because this rule was not in place?
    Ms. Culver. So, I think what we are looking at is the 
rulemaking easier for our land managers to find that----
    Mr. Curtis. I know, but what would have been preserved that 
wasn't preserved by my locals that this law would help you do, 
this rule would help you do?
    Ms. Culver. I think there are significant restoration 
opportunities in San Juan County that this rule could help.
    Mr. Curtis. I am talking about preservation, not 
restoration, preservation. And you don't have the money for 
restoration, by the way.
    Ms. Culver. We have just received a lot of funding for 
restoration from the Congress, and we are very grateful for 
that, and we look forward to directing it around your state.
    Mr. Curtis. OK, but not a single example of what would have 
been preserved that wasn't preserved.
    Ms. Culver. This rule is a framework. It does not make a 
decision to preserve something that isn't already preserved. It 
provides a way to use that tool.
    Mr. Curtis. OK. I just want to point out that we are doing 
a very good job of preserving ourselves, and I am not sure that 
there is anything in this rule that will do a better job of 
preserving in the area.
    Ms. Culver. And our intent is to support those activities 
through the rule.
    Mr. Curtis. We can go on, Mr. Chairman, but I will yield.
    The Chairman. I thought we were canning pickles or 
something. We are talking about preservation, I thought it was 
a conservation discussion, but the Chair now recognizes Mr. 
Gosar for 5 minutes.
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much.
    I want to make it perfectly clear I am against this rule 
and so are my constituents. And that is why I am also 
requesting an in-person meeting in Arizona with the BLM, with 
my constituents, and myself. I think we deserve it, and we 
demand it.
    Deputy Culver, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
at section 202(c)(9) requires the Bureau to coordinate the 
proposed rule with states and local governments. This probably 
has been asked before, but has that occurred?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the question, Congressman. That 
section actually pertains to our land use planning process, 
where we certainly do coordinate closely with our cooperating 
agencies.
    In terms of the rule itself, much of the input that we have 
received over the decades of implementing FLPMA with our 
partners is reflected in the rule.
    Dr. Gosar. So, yes or no? Is that a yes or a no?
    Ms. Culver. Yes, we have consulted with states and other 
partners over the years on the concepts in this rule.
    Dr. Gosar. Can you provide us with a report documenting the 
coordination process, including the steps you took to satisfy 
the criteria for coordination set forth in FLPMA, and efforts 
to reach consistency with the state and local positions?
    Specifically, I would like the report to address the 
following four elements of this criteria:
    (1) because of the importance of the public lands to 
Western states, and I made myself very clear in the first or 
the second panel, and in particular the rural areas and their 
economies. FLPMA section 202(c)(9) requires meaningful 
coordination by the BLM with state and local governments with 
respect to land use inventory, planning, and management 
activities.
    (2) in addition, FLPMA section 202(c)(9) authorizes the 
elected and appointed officials of state and local governments 
to furnish advice to the BLM concerning the development and 
revision of land use guidelines, land use rules, land use 
regulations for the public lands with their respective states.
    (3) FLPMA section 202(c)(9) also requires the BLM to 
provide state and local governments meaningful involvement in 
the development of BLM land use programs, land use regulations, 
and land use decisions for public lands.
    And finally (4) under FLPMA section 202(c)(9), land use 
plans adopted by the BLM must be consistent with state and 
local plans to the extent possible, unless FLPMA any other 
Federal law requires otherwise.
    Furthermore, the BLM must assist in resolving, to the 
extent practical, inconsistencies between the Federal land use 
plans and the state and local government plans. Are you capable 
of doing that?
    Ms. Culver. The rule would, at some point, I assume, if the 
rule is finalized, it will be carried out through the land use 
planning process, at which point we would be----
    Dr. Gosar. I think, first of all, you have to go through 
these four aspects. You haven't done them. And you have heard 
the parade of my colleagues saying you are way out in front of 
your skis.
    The gentleman from Montana had it right. We are the people 
that are making the laws, not you. You are part of the 
enforcement aspect and implementation. And we have this all 
backward, really backward. And that is why I brought up the 
SNPLMA, the Southern Nevada land exchange that Harry Reid 
piloted, because if this is what you are going to continue to 
do, then it should be up to the states and to the local 
governments to go back and attain those jurisdictions over 
those lands.
    I find this offensive. And he said, ``Stay in your lane.'' 
I think that is the best advice I possibly can tell. And I will 
be very frank with you. I think more and more states need to 
take the BLM and the Forest Service to court, because you are 
too far over the skis, you are out of your lane. And that is 
not right.
    This Constitution, this country was formulated on real 
basis. And when you look at the equal footings clause, 
particularly the Arizona model in regards to Taft, that formed 
contracts with the states. So, it is not if you are 
predisposing one part of multiple use over another, it is you 
must use all of those, otherwise you are subservient back to 
the state.
    So, I tell you, I am very disappointed in what I have seen, 
and I hope that you will--I don't hope; I will be looking 
forward to your answers.
    Thank you, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. It looks like we 
are down to only one person left to ask questions. And since 
when I am talking, there won't be anybody to tell me I am over 
time, this could go on for a while. But again, I thank the 
witnesses for being here.
    Ms. Sgamma, I am going to ask you, and it is going to be a 
difficult question I am going to ask you, because I am going to 
ask you to maybe help me role play, and I am going to do my 
best to be a rural Coloradan. You will have to pretend with my 
accent and maybe that you are out in rural Colorado and I am a 
friend, and I come up to you.
    And I say, ``Hey, Kathleen, I have known you for a while. 
You are a smart person. You follow all this stuff. I know you 
go to DC and you testify before committees, and you are really 
tuned in on what the Federal Government and the BLM is doing. I 
saw where they are proposing this new rule to do something with 
conservation and I thought that is what their job was, anyhow. 
I thought we spent billions of taxpayer dollars to fund 
agencies to take care of our land and practice conservation. 
What is this conservation easement thing I am hearing about, 
and how is it going to affect me here in Colorado?''
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, besides the fact that you really don't 
sound like you come from Colorado, I would have to say I think 
it is still pretty unclear what the intention is.
    We keep hearing that this is just a framework, that this is 
just multiple use. But Congress didn't define conservation as a 
multiple use. So when you look at these conservation leases, 
you can't help but think that it is going to preclude other 
uses, it is going to preclude the grazing, it is going to 
preclude oil and gas development, solar, wind. So, at this 
point it is hard to say exactly what the impact will be.
    But just looking at the plain language of it, and hearing 
what it is not going to do, it makes me nervous that when they 
say it is not going to do this, it is not going to stop 
grazing, or it is not going to stop energy development, that 
what we are going to actually see out of the rule is the exact 
opposite, that it will be used to stop those primary principal 
multiple uses on Federal lands, and that it will be used to 
elevate conservation above other productive uses so that it 
passes over that conservation.
    Because we all do conservation on Federal lands. We are 
always conserving, we are restoring, we are reclaiming. Oil and 
gas companies are always reclaiming the land and restoring it. 
And we do that conservation in agreement with BLM. But it is 
going to pass over from conservation to preservation only. We 
see the BLM trying to become like the National Park Service, 
and move from its multiple-use mandate to a preservation-only 
type of mandate.
    The Chairman. So, in layman's terms, they are saying it is 
not going to change anything, yet they need this massive rule 
to go into effect so they can do the job that they are already 
supposed to be doing?
    Ms. Sgamma. Right. BLM already has the ability to do 
conservation. In fact, there are 38 million acres in the 
Landscape Conservation System that BLM manages already. So, BLM 
clearly has been doing conservation.
    What we are concerned about is when they say it is not 
going to stop grazing, it is not going to stop leasing, it is 
not going to stop mining, that, in fact, that is exactly what 
is going to happen.
    The Chairman. And thank you for that. I was very confused 
when I saw this proposed rule come out, and I asked the same 
questions. Why? Why do they need this? What is the ulterior 
motive?
    And we have heard that it is not going to do anything, but 
I am going to read from the letter that Mr. Stauber submitted 
for the record from the Small Business Administration Office of 
Advocacy, and this is directly from their letter: ``BLM has 
not, however, clarified within the proposed rule how 
conservation leases will be compatible with the other principal 
uses laid out in FLPMA. In at least two instances, mining and 
grazing, the proposed rule is incompatible.''
    ``Without proper clarification from BLM regarding the 
implications of conservation leases on other uses, and the 
inevitable incompatibility that may result, the proposed rule 
has the effect of placing conservation leases above other 
interests. This is contrary to the statutory intent outlined in 
FLPMA. As indicated above, BLM does not have statutory 
authority to create such additional uses that would make the 
other principal uses incompatible. According to the statutory 
text cited throughout this letter, Congress did not intend for 
land uses to be excluded on a programmatic level.''
    So, even the Small Business Administration disagrees and 
says that BLM apparently doesn't know, somebody doesn't know 
what they are talking about within the Administration.
    And Ms. Culver, you talked about experts in the BLM, and I 
know you are a political appointee, I don't think you went 
through Senate confirmation, but your boss did. And I know 
politics change. And whoever is in the White House, their 
politics get to filtrate throughout the Administration. But was 
it political staff or was it career staff that wrote this 88-
page rule?
    Ms. Culver. Thanks for the question, Mr. Chairman. The rule 
was written by career staff. We engaged subject matter experts 
throughout the BLM, both headquarters and around the West, in 
creating----
    The Chairman. What would happen if the career staff said, 
``I am not going to write that rule?''
    Ms. Culver. Well, that did not happen, so I can't really 
speculate. As I mentioned, a lot of the ideas in this rule you 
can see reflected in BLM land use plans, and in decisions, and 
in discussions----
    The Chairman. The bottom line is we know that nothing would 
happen. The career staff, they work for the Federal Government. 
There are no repercussions for when they do their work, when 
they don't do their work. Who do career staff answer to?
    Ms. Culver. They report generally to additional career 
staff.
    The Chairman. Career staff report to career staff, who are 
writing rules. They answer to nobody. They have never been 
elected. They never have to go out and face the public. They 
can put their own views, their own biases. Whatever they want 
to they can write into these rules. And guess what? After you 
are gone and this Administration is gone, they will still be 
there, and they will be the ones enforcing these rules. They 
have full enforcement.
    They also get to be the judge and the jury, because if 
somebody complains, there is an administrative law judge there 
in the agency that can rule in favor of the career bureaucrats. 
It is a broken system. It gets abused.
    And that is the big problem that I have with this, because 
it is totally unnecessary. If there was leadership and people 
were doing the right thing, we would be conserving our lands. 
We would be providing access to it. But guess what? I know I am 
the only one left here, but we answer to people. We answer to 
voters all across this country. So, we are going to push back, 
because we don't think career bureaucrats buried in some 
cubicle over in some nondescript building should be determining 
what happens out on our Federal lands. And we are just not 
going to allow that to happen.
    We may not be able to pass this law out of the House and 
the Senate and get the President to sign it, but either way it 
goes, I will be in contact with my friends over at the 
Appropriations Committee and have an amendment in the 
appropriations bill that says no appropriations shall be used 
to implement this rule that the BLM is proposing. It is sad it 
has to happen that way, but at the end of the day we do control 
the purse strings. They may still have their job, but it will 
be against the law if we are able to pass this in 
Appropriations.
    And it is too bad we can't actually work on these things, 
and you all have hearings in all the states, that you respond 
to questions in letters that I write, that letters not just the 
House writes, but Senators write, as well, and we get to the 
point where it is the elected representatives facing off 
against the unelected bureaucrats. And as administrations 
change, unfortunately, the career bureaucrats don't.
    So, with that, I want to thank the witnesses for being here 
today.
    I do have some things for the record. I ask unanimous 
consent that the following letters from 93 different 
organizations representing a wide variety of stakeholders, 
including those involved in grazing, forest management, 
recreation, conservation, and energy and mineral development be 
added to the record for today's hearing.
    Each letter details different concerns and expresses 
support for H.R. 3397 or opposition to the BLM proposed rule. 
These groups include the American Forest Resources Council; 
Public Lands Council; American Farm Bureau Federation; National 
Mining Association; Independent Petroleum Association of 
America; National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association; and 
America Outdoors Association.
    And without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                  ARIZONA CATTLE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 3397: A bill requiring the withdrawal of a proposed rule 
        relating to conservation and public health

    Dear Chairman Westerman:

    The Arizona Cattle Growers' Association fully supports H.R. 3397, 
introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Curtis, which requires the Bureau 
of Land Management to withdraw its proposed rule relating to 
conservation and public health. We thank the Committee for holding a 
hearing on this important issue on June 15.
    Every special designation of public land leads to the elimination 
or undue restriction of grazing. As drafted, the BLM proposed rule will 
have the same effect. Ranchers and their communities throughout the 
west are rightly concerned about the agency's proposal. Real 
conservation of public land requires the presence of people who care 
about the land. Simply tying up land with no responsibility for 
management will foment more of the conditions like out-of-control 
wildfires and invasive species that are the scourge of healthy 
landscapes.
    Attached are ACGA's detailed comments on the rule submitted to the 
agency. Do not hesitate to contact Jeff Eisenberg of my staff if you 
have any questions about the comments or the rule.

            Sincerely,

                                            Mike Gannuscio,
                                                          President

                                 *****

                               ATTACHMENT

                                                   May 24, 2023    

U.S. Department of the Interior
Director (630), Bureau of Land Management
1849 C St. NW, Room 5646
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Sir or Madam:

    The Arizona Cattle Growers is the largest and oldest association 
representing ranchers. Ranching is central to the history and 
development of our great state. As the federal and state governments 
own over 80% of the land in the state, public land is an integral part 
of agriculture in the state. For this reason, BLM decisions have an 
important effect on our members' operations. The BLM's proposed rule on 
``Conservation and Landscape Health'', issued on April 3, 2023, is of 
great concern to us. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments 
on this important proposal.
    Grazing has a large footprint on BLM lands. Of the 245 million 
acres administered by the BLM, 155 million acres are dedicated to 
grazing. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 first recognized the importance 
of grazing for protecting public lands. Similarly, a guiding principle 
in the current proposal is to ensure the resilience of BLM lands by 
``preserving and protecting certain public lands in their natural 
condition.'' Proposed 43 C.F.R. Sec. 6101.5. A critical tool for 
accomplishing this goal is by protecting ``intact'' landscapes. 
Proposed 43 C.F.R. Sec. 6102.1(a). As explained below, BLM land 
dedicated to grazing is ``intact'', ``resilient'' land. Because the 
proposal leaves very vague the boundaries between the overlapping 
relationship of ``intact'' and grazing land, our comments are aimed at 
clarifying the distinction by suggesting language to protect grazing 
operations that are meeting applicable management goals.
    Grazing on BLM land is currently administered under the 
fundamentals of land health at 43 C.F.R. Sec. 4180.1. The proposal 
characterizes these fundamentals as the ``science for management 
decisions to build resilient public lands.'' 88 Fed. Reg. 19583, 19586. 
Land dedicated to grazing is expected to achieve the applicable 
standards and the management practices are expected to conform to the 
guidelines. 43 C.F.R. Sec. 4180.2. Should the grazing land fall short, 
the authorized officer is required to take remedial action. The 
proposed rule applies the fundamentals of land health (taken verbatim 
from the existing fundamentals of rangeland health at 43 CFR 4180.1 
(2005)) and related standards and guidelines to all renewable-resource 
management, instead of just to public-lands grazing. 88 Fed. Reg. 
19583, 19586.
    The preamble explains that conservation leases authorized under 
section 6102.4(a)(3) are ``not intended to provide a mechanism for 
precluding other uses, such as grazing, . . .'' 88 Fed. Reg. 19591. 
Nevertheless, a potential conflict arises between conservation leases 
and grazing arises when grazing leases are up for renewal. If a 
potential conflict is foreseeable in the proposed rule, it should be 
addressed and resolved in the final.
    The regulations adopted in this proposal contain the process for 
ensuring that grazing BLM lands takes place on resilient lands. Under 
43 C.F.R. Sec. 4180.2(c)(1), the authorized officer is required to use 
monitoring to determine compliance with land health standards. See also 
proposed rule 43 C.F.R. Sec. 6103.2(b). Should the grazing not meet the 
standards, the officer is to propose ``appropriate action to address 
the failure to meet standards or to conform to the guidelines.'' Id. In 
other words, current regulations require grazing to be on resilient 
lands and prescribe the measures to ensure this happens. This framework 
for managing grazing is consistent with the proposed rule to maintain 
or restore resilient intact ecosystems. Proposed rule 43 C.F.R. 
Sec. 6102.1(a).
    The potential for conflict arises under proposed rule 43 C.F.R. 
Sec. 6102.2(a), which requires authorized officers to ``identify intact 
landscapes on public lands that will be protected from activities that 
would . . . significantly disrupt, impair, or degrade the structure or 
functionality of intact landscapes.'' Furthermore, authorized officers 
must determine during the planning process which tracts of public land 
will be put to conservation use. Proposed rule Sec. 6102.2(b).
    We recognize that there are any number of environmental groups that 
want to eliminate public land grazing and of course would assert that 
the grazing disrupts, impairs, and degrades the structure and 
functionality of intact landscapes. Under proposed rule 43 C.F.R. 
Sec. 6102.5(b)(8), authorized officers are required to ``consider a 
precautionary approach for resource use when the impact on ecosystem is 
unknown or cannot be quantified''. This section opens the door for 
interminable fighting about the effects of grazing and whether existing 
monitoring data provides an accurate characterization of the resources 
of the land in question.
    Fortunately, the foundations for land health point the way for 
resolving this uncertainty. As indicated above, the foundations require 
monitoring to measure compliance with the standards and guidelines. The 
need for quantitative data collection permeates the management 
prescribed in this proposed rule. The BLM should make management 
decisions based on facts, not the biases of individual stakeholders or 
even individual authorized officers. The federal government owes the 
public a duty of fairness in its administration of its legal 
responsibilities. The only fair way to administer grazing is to base 
decisions on empirical data.
    There is wide-spread agreement among the range science community 
about range monitoring. The BLM has been a key participant in these 
discussions through the years and has the necessary access to this 
consensus to implement it effectively on its lands. There is no reason 
for grazing land management not to be based on facts. The 
``precautionary principle'' has no place in the grazing arena where 
there are well-known systems for rangeland data collection. See 
proposed rule 43 C.F.R. Sec. 6102.5(b)(8).
    It may be that data collection is not possible with other resource 
uses of BLM lands, and therefore the impact of the use on ecosystem 
resilience is ``unknown or cannot be quantified.'' This uncertainty may 
be due to the difficulty of measurement in a particular case, or 
because BLM does not have the staff to carry out its duties under the 
law. However, individual ranchers should not be punished with the loss 
of their livelihoods because the federal government is unable to 
perform its duties in managing rangelands.

    For the foregoing reasons, we propose amending proposed rule 43 
C.F.R. Sec. 6102.5(b)(8) as follows (the changes are in red):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2531.002

    .epsIn our view, the provisions of this rule should not affect 
continued grazing use of BLM lands that is in compliance with the 
fundamentals of land health and other applicable legal requirements. 
See 43 C.F.R. Sec. 4130.1-1(b)(1). In a similar vein, the area of land 
in a grazing allotment that is meeting the fundamentals of land health 
standards and guidelines should not be reduced due to a reallocation of 
the land to a conservation use or to create ``intact'' land under the 
proposed rule. Changes in the existing rule and the proposal are 
necessary to effectuate this goal:

    1. 43 C.F.R. Sec. 4110.4-2, Decrease in land acreage, add a new 
paragraph (a) and reletter the subsequent paragraphs:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2531.003

    .eps2. Under proposed rule 43 C.F.R. Sec. 6102.2, add a new 
sentence at the end of existing section (a) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2531.004

    .epsAs discussed above, grazing lands are intact that are resilient 
when managed properly. Moreover, most often ranchers have the most 
contact with the land and the resources and are in the best position to 
manage it. We would think the BLM should be reluctant to give up these 
valuable benefits by replacing grazing leases with conservation uses 
when grazing leases that are meeting land health standards come up for 
renewal.
    Moreover, people, families, and communities depend on the economic 
benefits generated by grazing on BLM land. If the BLM can recognize 
that some of its authorizations, such as infrastructure and energy 
projects or mining, will cause ``permanent impairment of ecosystem 
resilience,'' \1\ then it should certainly honor its long-standing 
relationship with the many people who make ``resilient'' use of the 
land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19592
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you for your consideration of our views.

            Sincerely,

                                            Mike Gannuscio,
                                                          President

                                 ______
                                 
                                                   June 6, 2023    

Tracy Stone-Manning, Director
Bureau of Land Management
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Director Stone Manning:

    On April 3, 2023, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published the 
proposed rule on ``Conservation and Landscape Health.'' The rule, which 
amends a long-standing interpretation of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act (FLPMA), has raised significant concern among the 
grazing community.
    The undersigned organizations represent cattle and sheep producers 
who have, for generations, been partners with the BLM in managing the 
245 million acres of federal land in the West as well as hundreds of 
millions of acres of private land nationwide. These producers are the 
original conservationists of these landscapes, having managed lands, 
waters, wildlife, and adverse conditions to ensure the resources remain 
healthy and resilient to provide for the diverse needs of people, 
animals, and the environment. These producers have always been the 
BLM's primary partner in fulfilling your mission of managing landscapes 
for multiple use and sustained yield. Yet, in the promulgation of the 
proposed rule, the BLM neglected to engage with these partners.
    The proposed rule was developed without any stakeholder discussion 
or advanced notice. Despite the ongoing discussions about sage grouse 
plan revisions, mitigation, conservation practices, grazing regulations 
revisions, and resource resilience, the BLM did not provide any 
indication they were promulgating this proposal. Individually, each of 
the components of the proposed rule would have warranted substantive 
and detailed discussion. Together, they demand the BLM do the necessary 
work of engaging with stakeholders to avoid conflict and develop 
durable outcomes. This discussion certainly should be longer than 75 
days during one of the busiest times of year for federal grazing 
permittees.
    The five public information sessions have done little to compensate 
for the agency's lack of advanced discussion. Instead of holding 
dialogues in places where federal grazing permittees and other multiple 
use stakeholder groups operate, the agency elected to host briefings in 
urban centers. Each of these sessions has featured a briefing, after 
which BLM staff have been unable to answer questions about future 
implementation of the proposed rule, instead urging attendees to answer 
those questions in the public comments. The format of these events, the 
expectation that permittees from 12 western states would drive to just 
three urban centers, and the lack of meaningful dialogue with 
stakeholders at the briefings has left the grazing community with the 
conclusion that the BLM is not committed to open dialogue on this 
proposal.
    To create a ``durable mechanism'' to improve landscape health, 
these concepts would have been more appropriately explored in one of 
the agency's more appropriate tools like a Request for Information, an 
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or--most appropriately, a 
scoping period attached to a programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement. Instead, the agency moved straight to a proposed rule, 
inappropriately bypassing key stakeholder discussions and regulatory 
processes that would have informed a more durable process. For this 
reason, the undersigned organizations request BLM withdraw the proposed 
rule and begin again, engaging with stakeholders in a forum that would 
promote open dialogue and address fatal flaws in the existing proposal.
    If the BLM instead forges ahead with the proposed rule, the 
undersigned organizations request a 105-day extension to the public 
comment period, to allow for a full 180 days. The undersigned 
organizations are actively engaging with other multiple use groups 
across the West, doing the hard work that should underpin federal lands 
management. Additionally, we request the agency hold public meetings 
and forums for discussion in each of the states where user groups were 
previously omitted: Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Utah, 
Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. 
While we appreciate the agency's recognition that some groups may 
prefer virtual meetings, virtual meetings should not replace in-person 
engagement in states where broadband access often precludes robust 
participation.
    Over the last several generations, ranchers have been at the front 
of the line helping the BLM conserve wildlife habitat, reduce wildfire 
risk, support balanced multiple use, reduce on-range conflicts, and 
identify areas of greatest need. We urge the BLM not to compromise that 
relationship by forging ahead with a rule that will undoubtedly result 
in ranchers and other multiple use groups being forced from the 
landscape over time. We support durable conservation, we support 
creative partnerships, and we have always been willing to do the hard 
work that partnership requires. We urge you to seriously consider our 
request and be willing to engage with this community into the future.

            Sincerely,

        Public Lands Council          Montana Wool Growers Assoc.

        National Cattlemen's Beef 
        Assoc.                        Nebraska Cattlemen

        American Sheep Industry 
        Assoc.                        Nevada Cattlemen's Association

        American Farm Bureau 
        Federation                    Nevada Farm Bureau Federation

        American Quarter Horse 
        Association                   Nevada State Grazing Board 
                                      Central Committee

        American National Cattle 
        Women                         Nevada Wool Growers Association

        National Lamb Feeders 
        Association                   New Mexico Cattle Growers Assoc.

        Arizona Cattle Growers 
        Association                   New Mexico Farm & Livestock 
                                      Bureau

        Arizona Farm Bureau 
        Federation                    New Mexico Wool Growers Assoc.

        Arkansas Cattlemen's 
        Association                   North Dakota Farm Bureau

        California Cattlemen's 
        Association                   North Dakota Stockmen's Assoc.

        California Farm Bureau        Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association

        California Public Lands 
        Council                       Oregon Cattlemen's Association

        California Wool Growers 
        Association                   Oregon Farm Bureau

        Colorado Cattlemen's 
        Association                   Oregon Public Lands Council

        Colorado Farm Bureau          Southern Arizona Cattlemen's 
                                      Protective Assoc.

        Colorado Public Lands 
        Council                       South Dakota Cattlemen's Assoc.

        Colorado Wool Growers 
        Association                   South Dakota Public Lands Council

        Florida Cattlemen's 
        Association                   Tennessee Cattlemen's Association

        Idaho Cattle Association      Utah Cattlemen's Association

        Idaho Farm Bureau 
        Federation                    Utah Farm Bureau Federation

        Idaho Public Lands Council    Utah Wool Growers Association

        Idaho Wool Growers 
        Association                   Washington Cattlemen's 
                                      Association
        Indiana Sheep Association     Washington Farm Bureau

        Kansas Farm Bureau            Washington State Sheep Producers

        Minnesota Lamb & Wool 
        Producers Assoc.              Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

        Montana Assoc. of State 
        Grazing Districts             Wyoming Stock Growers Association

        Montana Farm Bureau 
        Federation                    Wyoming State Grazing Board

        Montana Public Lands 
        Council                       Wyoming Wool Growers Association

        Montana Stockgrowers 
        Association

                                 ______
                                 
                                                   June 7, 2023    

Tracy Stone-Manning, Director
Bureau of Land Management
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Director Stone Manning:

    On April 3, 2023, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the 
proposed rule entitled ``Conservation and Landscape Health'', 
purportedly to ``advance the BLM's mission to manage the public lands 
for multiple use and sustained yield'' by ``wise management decisions 
based on science and data.'' We write today to ask you, on behalf of 
the BLM, to uphold commitments you made in your June 8, 2021 testimony 
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to ``listen . 
. . and seek to work with all . . . That's how we find durable 
solutions, by working together.\1\ '' The proposed rule and process 
surrounding the rule fall short of that commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/BB980035-6C2E-
47E4-9614-8F5151232144
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the significant implications of the rule for all multiple 
use and conservation communities, the proposed rule was developed 
without stakeholder input or advanced notification. The concepts of the 
rule are not new; for decades, the agency has contemplated improvements 
to landscape health evaluations, how to avoid ``random acts of 
conservation'', and how the agency can be more intentional about 
evolving land uses, however the mechanisms to address these issues have 
been difficult to find. There are few simple answers in natural 
resource management, so these are conversations that should be 
facilitated by the agency, with the involvement of all stakeholders, to 
develop durable solutions--not confined to a 75-day public comment 
period.
    There are so many nebulous concepts in the proposed rule and the 
agency has thus far been unable to answer key questions about the 
concept of conservation leases. It is therefore unreasonable for the 
BLM to have published this proposal; instead, the agency should have 
pursued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or a Request for 
Information for a meaningful regulatory process. We therefore request 
the agency withdraw the proposed rule and reset the conversation to 
ensure appropriate stakeholders are at the table to find durable 
answers to some of the West's most pressing challenges.
    Absent the BLM's willingness to restart the conversation, we 
request an extension to the comment period to facilitate robust 
discussion. We request a 105-day extension of the comment period to 
allow for the kind of meaningful back-and-forth that is required for 
such a significant shift in agency management. During that additional 
105 days, we request you hold public meetings that provide opportunity 
for discussion in each state affected by the proposed rule. The current 
meeting schedule includes only three states of the 12 where BLM 
currently manages surface occupancy. Virtual meetings should not be a 
replacement for in-person engagement in 75 percent of the agency's 
footprint.
    As the BLM moves through the regulatory process, we urge the agency 
to move with careful intention when engaging with the public. The 
undersigned organizations represent a wide variety of multiple use 
groups--people who live, work, recreate, and are generationally-
invested in the 245 million surface acres and 700 million subsurface 
acres across the country.

            Sincerely,

        Public Lands Council          Federal Forest Resource Coalition

        National Cattlemen's Beef 
        Assoc.                        Western Energy Alliance

        American Sheep Industry 
        Assoc.                        American Forest Resource Council

        American Quarter Horse 
        Association                   American Council of Snowmobile 
                                      Associations
        American Mining and 
        Exploration Assoc.            National Assoc. of State 
                                      Departments of Agriculture

        National Association of 
        Counties                      America Outdoors Association

        Association of National 
        Grasslands                    Farm Credit Council

        Safari Club International     Essential Minerals Association

        Partnership of Rangeland 
        Trusts                        Family Farm Alliance

        American Farm Bureau 
        Federation                    Wild Sheep Foundation

                                 ______
                                 

               American Exploration & Mining Association

                           Spokane Valley, WA

                                                  June 15, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: June 15, 2023 Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3397

    Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

    The American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA) submits the 
following statement for the record for the above-referenced hearing.
    AEMA supports H.R. 3397, which would require the Director of the 
Bureau of Land Management to withdraw its Conservation and Landscape 
Health rule, also called the Public Lands Rule. We urge the committee 
to approve it swiftly.
Who We Are and the Importance of the U.S. Minerals Mining Industry

    AEMA is a 128-year-old, 1,400-member national trade association 
representing the mineral development and mining industry, with members 
residing across 46 states, 7 Canadian provinces or territories and 10 
other countries. AEMA is the recognized national representative for the 
exploration sector, the junior mining sector, as well as mineral 
developers interested in maintaining access to public lands. Thus, AEMA 
represents the entire mining life cycle, from exploration to mineral 
extraction and then to reclamation and closure. More than 80 percent of 
our members are small businesses or work directly for small businesses.
    American miners continue to play an indispensable role in building 
and defending our Nation. From foundations to roofs, power plants to 
wind farms, roads and bridges to communication grids and data storage 
centers, America's infrastructure begins and ends with minerals and 
mining. As just one example, steel resulting from mining operations 
directly supplies the construction and development of roads, railways, 
appliances, buildings, stadiums, bridges, airports, conventional and 
renewable energy facilities, and other structures. Steel is used to 
reinforce concrete and other construction materials and 6 billion tons 
of steel are used across the U.S. National Highway System. Steel 
requires iron ore for its production, and 65 percent of the global zinc 
consumption is used to coat steel, for purposes of making it resistant 
to corrosion. Other metals important to steel alloys, including 
manganese, chromium, nickel, aluminum, vanadium, tungsten, titanium, 
cobalt, and niobium, are specifically identified on the U.S. Geological 
Survey's (USGS') final 2022 list of critical minerals.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/24/2022-
04027/2022-final-list-of-critical-minerals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another example is copper, with its flexibility, conformity, 
conductivity, and resistance to corrosion, that make it an ideal and 
essential clean energy metal.\2\ Forty-three percent of U.S. copper 
demand comes from the construction industry, as the average American 
home contains 439 pounds of copper. An electric vehicle (EV) uses 
approximately four times as much copper as a conventional car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ According to the World Bank, copper is used in ten low-carbon 
energy technologies. https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/
961711588875536384/Minerals-for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-
of-the-Clean-Energy-Transition.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Infrastructure improvement and development at all levels depends on 
metals and mining. Beyond hard-rock mining, AEMA also represents the 
industrial minerals industry. Industrial minerals include any rock or 
mineral with economic value that is not used as a source for metals, 
gemstones, or energy production. Industrial minerals are classified as 
non-fuel minerals and differ from construction aggregates like sand, 
gravel, and crushed stone. Many different types of industrial minerals 
serve multiple uses, some of which are considered critical minerals and 
many of which are essential to our nation's economic and national 
security. The most widely used industrial minerals include limestone, 
clays, diatomite, kaolin, bentonite, silica, barite, gypsum, potash, 
pumice, and talc.
    Similarly, there is no substitute for phosphorus in agriculture and 
in the development of our Nation's food supply. Phosphorus is essential 
for plant nutrition and plays a vital role in photosynthesis, energy 
transfer, root formation, seed formation, plant growth and improvement 
of the quality of fruits and vegetables. China has been the leading 
producer of phosphates, followed by the United States. The Society for 
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration's (SME) website \3\ provides a deeper 
introduction to industrial minerals and explains why securing domestic 
production is essential to America's future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.smenet.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is no question that the minerals we produce are indispensable 
to modern society. They are also essential to fighting climate change, 
and for zero-emission technologies such as wind turbines, solar panels, 
storage batteries and EVs. As these technologies are deployed in ever-
greater numbers, the demand for minerals is skyrocketing, and our 
Nation must do more to keep up. The International Energy Agency (IEA) 
published a report at the end of July 2022 titled ``Global Supply 
Chains of EV Batteries,'' and noted that demand for EV batteries will 
increase from 340 GWh today to about 3500 GWh by the year 2030. To meet 
that demand, 50 new lithium mines, 60 more nickel mines and 17 more 
cobalt mines would need to come into production.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4eb8c252-76b1-4710-
8f5e-867e751c8dda/GlobalSupply ChainsofEVBatteries.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress has taken note of this surge in demand, and through the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 and the Inflation 
Reduction Act of 2022, has decided--and we agree--that it is 
inappropriate, unwise and dangerous to rely on hostile, untrustworthy 
or unstable countries to supply our country's minerals. Congress has 
sent a clear message--Now is the time to get serious about building a 
reliable mineral supply chain (emphasis supplied). AEMA and its members 
stand ready to help build that supply chain right here in America.
    Our members take great pride in producing the metals and other 
important minerals America needs for national and economic security, as 
well as the materials people use in their everyday lives. We are proud 
of our members' contributions across the communities and regions where 
they operate, many of which are rural areas facing significant economic 
and social development challenges. Notably, the U.S. mining industry is 
the safest, most environmentally responsible mining industry in the 
world. Our members have repeatedly demonstrated that mining and 
protecting the environment are compatible, as mineral producers make 
possible the development of society's basic needs and consistently 
minimize modern society's impacts on the environment.
We Need a Reliable Domestic Mineral Supply Chain

    Recent global events have exposed the United States' supply chain 
vulnerabilities, highlighting the importance of an abundant and 
affordable supply of domestic minerals for America's future.
    The fact is, global mineral demand is skyrocketing. As noted in a 
report from the International Energy Agency, keeping global temperature 
rise to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels will 
quadruple the demand by 2040 for the minerals needed to build wind 
turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. A faster energy 
transition--reaching net zero globally by 2050 as the Biden 
Administration has called for--would require critical mineral inputs to 
increase sixfold by 2040.
    Solar panels require silver, tin, copper, and lead; wind turbines 
use rare earths, copper, aluminum, and zinc; electric vehicles are 
built with copper, aluminum, iron, molybdenum; and rechargeable storage 
batteries use lithium, vanadium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese. 
Approximately 40 percent of the gold now produced is used in 
electronics and computer chips that are needed for clean energy 
technologies to meet carbon emission reduction objectives to address 
climate change.
    President Biden has promised to convert the entire U.S. government 
fleet--about 640,000 vehicles by 2030--to EVs. That plan alone could 
require a 12-fold increase in U.S. lithium production to manufacture 
the lithium-ion batteries that power EVs, according to Benchmark 
Minerals Intelligence, as well as increases in output of domestic 
copper, nickel, and cobalt--and that's just for the U.S. Government 
vehicle fleet. The magnitude of the minerals needed for a 100 percent 
EV market is even more staggering, and simply cannot be ignored.
    Unfortunately, a lack of access to economically viable mineral 
deposits and a lengthy, inefficient federal permitting system has 
resulted in the United States being increasingly dependent on foreign 
sources of strategic and critical minerals. It's time that we, as a 
Nation, recognize this vulnerability and the vital importance of 
minerals to our national security, our economy, and our everyday lives. 
We have heard a lot over the years about the importance of energy 
independence, but it is equally as important, if not more so, that we 
are minerals independent.
    The Department of Interior's recent mineral withdrawal on the 
Superior National Forest is a painful example of a lack of coherence in 
the Biden administration's strategy in establishing robust, secure 
mineral supply chains that could contribute to their goals of ramping 
up deployment of low-or zero-carbon energy technologies to fight 
climate change. Projects such as Twin Metals, located within the 
boundaries of the Superior National Forest withdrawal, and now in 
serious jeopardy because of the withdrawal, could supply more than 90 
percent of the United States' nickel, 88 percent of our cobalt, and 
roughly 33 percent of the Nation's copper. Renewable energy 
technologies simply do not function without these metals, especially 
copper.
    Made in America must include ``mined in America'' and sourcing 
minerals from U.S. mines that use state-of-the-art environmental 
protection measures, put a premium on worker health and safety, and 
have financial assurances that guarantee reclamation when mining is 
complete.
    Recycling will play an important role in meeting increasing metal 
demand, but it will not be enough. The IEA's report estimates that by 
2040, recycling metals from spent batteries could only supply about 10 
percent of the minerals that will be needed.
    The United States and our economy simply need more mines. According 
to the USGS' Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023, our country's import 
dependence for key mineral commodities has doubled over the past two 
decades, with the United States now 100 percent import-reliant for 15 
of its key minerals and more than 50 percent import-reliant for an 
additional 36 key mineral commodities. This foreign reliance continues 
despite the existence of significant mineral deposits of many of these 
commodities within our borders. Moreover, U.S. mineral import reliance 
continues to increase as mineral demand from essential industries, such 
as energy and transportation, soars. Notably, the World Bank sees 
mineral demand for advanced energy technologies jumping by nearly 500 
percent by the year 2050.\5\ Copper demand alone may rise as much as 
350 percent by 2050, according to one estimate.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Minerals-
for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-Clean-Energy-
Transition.pdf
    \6\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0959378016300802
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to Federal Public Lands is Vital for Domestic Mining

    In the United States, most hardrock mining takes place on federal 
land, after a lengthy and rigorous permitting process that involves 
local, state and federal regulatory agencies and many diverse 
stakeholders. Even after the mine begins operation, it must adhere to a 
myriad of environmental laws and regulations, and financial assurance 
instruments ensure that cleanup and restoration will take place when 
mining activities cease. However, mineral deposits are unique and rare. 
Unlike other economic development or infrastructure projects that have 
some flexibility in choosing where they are sited and can move 
accordingly--mineral deposits are where they are.
    Almost every year, the federal lands available for mineral entry 
shrinks. According to the GAO, the federal government manages about 650 
million acres, or 29 percent, of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the 
United States.\7\ Former Department of Interior Solicitor, John Leshy 
(now a professor at the University of California Hastings College of 
Law), estimated in 2021 that of the approximate 650 million acres of 
public lands, roughly 400 million acres are set aside for conservation 
and preservation purposes and are functionally off-limits to mining.\8\ 
He also calculated that during the period from 1980 to 2020, the acres 
of conservation and preservation lands grew from 250 million acres to 
400 million acres.\9\ Federal lands have been withdrawn from mineral 
entry to protect a variety of ``special places,'' from national 
monuments and wilderness areas to military bases. For example, the 
National Conservation Lands System already includes 35 million acres of 
pristine, culturally diverse and scientifically important sites that 
have been withdrawn from mineral entry, including: 122 national 
monuments, 28 of which are managed by BLM; 23 national conservation 
areas; 30 National Scenic and Historic Trails; 200 designated Wild and 
Scenic Rivers; 260 congressionally designated Wilderness areas; and 491 
wilderness study areas.\10\ Congress has closed or withdrawn areas to 
mineral exploration in favor of other uses, including for the 
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ GAO Letter report to Senator Tom Udall entitled ``Hardrock 
Mining: Availability of Selected Data Related to Mining on Federal 
Lands,'' May 16, 2019, available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-
435r.pdf.
    \8\ John D. Leshy, America's Public Lands--A Look Back and Ahead, 
67th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, July 19, 2021.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ BLM website: https://www.blm.gov/programs/national-
conservation-lands.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     National Parks;

     National Monuments;

     Indian reservations;

     Various types of Bureau of Reclamation projects;

     Military reservations;

     Scientific testing areas;

     Wildlife protection areas;

     National Wilderness Preservation System and Wilderness 
            study lands; and

     Wild and Scenic River designated and study areas.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ See BLM website: https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-
minerals/mining-and-minerals/locatable-minerals/mining-claims/locating-
a-claim; see also Attachment 5, ``List of Select Federal Laws Amending 
or Affecting the Mining Law of 1872,'' identifying principal laws under 
which federal lands have been withdrawn from mineral entry.

    After Executive Order 14008 in which President Biden set a goal of 
preserving and restoring 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 
2030,\12\ AEMA grew concerned that more withdrawals were on the way. 
That has proven to be true, as two withdrawals have been finalized in 
the first half of 2023 already, and more are in process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ See Executive Order 14008 ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at 
Home and Abroad'' (January 27, 2021) and the ``America the Beautiful 
Initiative.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shrinking the available land base where mineral exploration and 
mining are allowed reduces the number of future mineral discoveries 
that can become mines. This ultimately increases the Nation's reliance 
on foreign minerals and thwarts the country's goals to increase 
domestic production and become more mineral independent. A 1999 report 
by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences 
notes that ``Only a very small portion of the earth's continental crust 
(less than 0.01%) contains economically viable mineral deposits.'' \13\ 
The Academy further noted that, on average, 1,000 mineral targets must 
be examined before discovering the deposit capable of becoming a mine. 
Every time we declare land off-limits to mining, we shrink the playing 
field and stack the odds higher against discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, 
``Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands'' (1999), P. 23-24, available at 
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9682/hardrock-mining-on-
federal-lands
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM Proposed Rule on Conservation and Landscape Health

    It is against this backdrop that AEMA opposes the Bureau of Land 
Management's (BLM) Proposed Rule on Conservation and Landscape Health 
(Proposed Rule), which would significantly change the way BLM manages 
the 245 million acres of public land it oversees, most of it in western 
states. The Proposed Rule is illegal and should be withdrawn 
immediately. If BLM refuses to withdraw the rule, Congress must act 
swiftly and approve H.R. 3397.
    While the Proposed Rule pays lip service to the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1701 et seq.) as 
amended, (``FLPMA''), it fundamentally violates FLPMA in multiple ways, 
including illegally adding ``conservation'' as a ``use'' when Congress 
did not include it in FLPMA's specific list of uses (FLPMA Section 
103(l); redefining key terms already defined by Congress in FLPMA, 
``multiple use'' and ``sustained yield'' (FLPMA Section 103(c and h)); 
contorting the scope and definition of ``areas of critical 
environmental concern'' beyond FLPMA's scope and using current 
administration ``conservation,'' ``restoration,'' and ``ecosystem 
resilience'' policies to impermissibly withdraw public lands from 
public use in violation of FLPMA Sec. 204.
    Since 1970, Congress has consistently and repeatedly recognized 
that minerals and mining are essential to all facets of our economy, 
society, and national defense. The U.S. Mining Law, as amended (30 
U.S.C. 21a et seq.) (``Mining Law''), the Mining and Minerals Policy 
Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. Sec. 21(a)) (``MMPA''), the National Materials 
and Minerals Research Policy Act of 1980 (30 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1601-
1605) (``MMPRDA''), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 
(30 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1607, et seq.) (also known as the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law) (``IIJA''); and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 
(H.R. 5376) (``IRA'') all direct the executive branch agencies to 
respond to the Nation's need for domestic minerals (see e.g., 30 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 21a and 1602) and direct the Department of Interior (``DOI'') 
to streamline the permitting processes for domestic mineral 
development. IIJA Section 40206; IRA Sec. 13401. In stark contrast with 
these legal obligations, BLM's Proposed Rule Sec. 6102.4(a)(4) ``would 
preclude the BLM, subject to valid existing rights and applicable law, 
from authorizing other uses of the leased lands that are inconsistent 
with the authorized conservation use.'' FR at 19591.
    The provisions requiring identification and conservation of 
``intact landscapes'' and ``watershed scale'' ecosystems are simply new 
terms to articulate the Planning Rule 2.0 approach for landscape-scale 
planning that Congress killed in 2017.\14\ These provisions violate the 
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 801 et seq.) (``CRA''). 
BLM cannot legally breathe new life into this rejected approach. See 5 
USCS Sec. 801(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ H.J. Res. 44, Pub. L. 115-12, 131 STAT. 76 (March 27, 2017): 
``Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land 
Management of the Department of the Interior relating to ``Resource 
Management Planning'' (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 89580 (December 12, 
2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In issuing the Proposed Rule, BLM violated a host of procedural 
laws that have substantive implications. The Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(``RFA''), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 601 et seq.) (``SBREFA''), requires 
federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis, subject 
to notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act, if the 
rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small businesses and governments. BLM summarily concluded--without 
making the required fact-based certification--that it did not apply, so 
did not conduct the required regulatory flexibility analysis. See FR at 
19594. In similar cavalier fashion, BLM announced it would apply a 
categorical exclusion to the rulemaking and, therefore, violated its 
obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 4321 et seq.) (``NEPA'').
    Cherry-picking preferred Executive Orders (E.O.), while ignoring 
others, does not legitimize the Proposed Rule. Specifically, BLM leans 
on E.O. Nos. 13990 and 14008 to support the climate change and 
ecosystem resilience provisions in the Proposed Rule. However, BLM 
ignores E.O. 14017 and its focus on resilience--in America's supply 
chains--including critical and strategic mineral and rare earth element 
(``REE'') supply chains and domestic sources. It is time that DOI and 
BLM acknowledge that energy transformation and climate change actions 
require more minerals and that national security demands domestic 
sources of minerals. The Proposed Rule would thwart these equally 
important administration policies.

    Regardless of this administration's policy inconsistencies, 
Congress has spoken clearly and unequivocally on numerous occasions 
including FLPMA, the MMPA, the MMPRDA, the IIJA, and the IRA to define 
mineral exploration and production as a ``major'' and important use of 
public lands, one that is important for national security and America's 
economy. Conversely, Congress has not identified ``conservation'' as a 
``use.'' It is important to note that in explicitly defining ``multiple 
use'' and ``sustained yield,'' FLPMA did not define conservation or 
include it in the Section 102(a) land use management directives though 
Congress clearly could have done so if it intended conservation to be a 
``use.'' FLPMA uses the word ``conservation'' in a very limited way. It 
is never used to establish land management objectives. Rather, it is 
only used in a restricted way to reference previously Congressionally 
designated conservation areas. In fact, there are only six sections in 
FLPMA that use the word ``conservation'':

     California Desert Conservation Area: Section 206(c), 
            Section 303(e), Title VI, Section 601(c)(1), (c)(2), (d), 
            (e), (f), (g)(1), (h);

     Conservation system unit or the Steese National 
            Conservation Area: Section 302(d)(1);

     Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act: Section 
            302(d)(4) and (d)(6);

     Land and Water Conservation Fund: Section 318(d)

     Kings Range National Conservation Area: Section 602; and

     Conservation of the Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area: 
            Section 603(c).

    The limited ways in which FLPMA mentions conservation to describe 
lands that in 1976 were already designated for special management is 
additional proof that Congress never intended to authorize making 
conservation a ``use'' or a tool for BLM to use to restrict or prohibit 
multiple-use.
    Where Congress intended conservation to be a ``principal or major 
use'' of federal land, it has enacted laws for that specific use. See, 
e.g., 16 U.S. Code Sec. 7202 (establishing the National Landscape 
Conservation System); 54 USCS Sec. 100101 (establishing that the 
National Park System's purpose is to ``conserve the scenery, natural 
and historic objects, and wild life''). Congress was further explicit 
in identifying an entirely different agency from BLM to focus on 
conservation--the National Park System. Sierra Club v. United States 
DOI, 899 F.3d 260, 292 (4th Cir. 2018) (``Thus, unlike other Federal 
lands, such as the national forests, the National Park System's sole 
mission is conservation.'')). If Congress intended FLPMA to include 
conservation as a ``use'' or priority as BLM now suddenly suggests, 
Congress would have done so explicitly. See, e.g., West Virginia v. 
EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2608 (``Congress could not have intended to 
delegate' such a sweeping and consequential authority `in so cryptic a 
fashion.' ''); Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 485 (1996) 
(``Congress . . . demonstrated in CERCLA that it knew how to provide 
for the recovery of cleanup costs, and . . . the language used to 
define the remedies under RCRA does not provide that remedy.''); FCC v. 
NextWave Personal Communications, Inc., 537 U.S. 293, 302 (2003) (when 
Congress has intended to create exceptions to bankruptcy law 
requirements, ``it has done so clearly and expressly'').
    The Bureau of Land Management should focus on actual land 
management, rather than proposing to lock public lands away from any 
public use but ``protection'' and ``ecosystem resilience.'' Make no 
mistake, our members are strong supporters of promoting conservation 
objectives not only for public lands but all of the country's resources 
and are ready to continue to work with BLM to further advance these 
goals. However, this will not be accomplished by the flawed and illegal 
provisions of the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule must be withdrawn by 
BLM or repealed by Congress.

    AEMA has numerous, extensive concerns with the rule. The list below 
is not exhaustive and provides a brief summary:

     The proposed rule violates the law. Despite BLM's claims 
            to the contrary, the ``plain language'' of FLPMA includes a 
            list of ``principal or major uses,'' including mineral 
            exploration or development, domestic livestock grazing, 
            timber production, fish and wildlife development and 
            utilization, rights-of-way and recreation. The law 
            specifies that its mandate ``includes and is limited to'' 
            these uses. Notably, conservation or ``nonuse'' was not 
            listed.

          +  If Congress intended for conservation to be a use ``on 
        equal footing,'' they would have included it in the statutory 
        list. BLM cannot change that. FLPMA Section 102(b) explicitly 
        states: ``The policies of this Act shall become effective only 
        as specific statutory authority for their implementation is 
        enacted by this Act or by subsequent legislation.'' Creating 
        conservation leases and elevating conservation to a major or 
        principal use is a substantial change, not a ``clarification,'' 
        as BLM asserts.

          +  BLM acknowledges the novelty of the conservation lease 
        concept when it says ``FLPMA's declaration of policy and 
        definitions of `multiple use' and `sustained yield' reveal 
        [emphasis added] that conservation is a use on par with other 
        uses under FLPMA.'' The idea that this concept is just now 
        being ``revealed'' 50 years after the passage of FLPMA is 
        absurd and unlawful.

          +  The rule bears many similarities to the Planning Rule 2.0 
        for landscape-scale planning, which Congress repealed in 2017 
        through the Congressional Review Act. This proposal tries to 
        repackage landscape-level planning as a tool to address climate 
        change. This new justification for landscape-scale planning 
        cannot be used to resurrect a concept that Congress has already 
        rejected.

     Conservation leases, ACECs, and preserving intact 
            landscapes are de facto land withdrawals that undermine 
            ``multiple-use'' standards outlined in FLPMA.

          +  The proposal would allow leases for conservation or 
        compensatory mitigation. As worded, BLM could extend mitigation 
        leases indefinitely, precluding the balance required under 
        FLPMA.

          +  Future uses under the proposed rule must be consistent 
        with the purpose of the conservation lease. In testimony before 
        the House Natural Resources Committee on May 16, 2023, BLM 
        Director Tracy Stone-Manning acknowledged that ``energy 
        development and mining would likely not be deemed compatible 
        with a conservation lease . . .''

          +  As such, conservation would not just be ``on equal 
        footing,'' it would be elevated above other uses.

     Use of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 
            would be greatly expanded.

          +  Frequently abused to prevent development, the rule would 
        allow ACECs to be larger and easier to designate. Areas 
        nominated must be managed as an ACEC immediately, even before 
        process is concluded.

          +  No consideration of impacts to multiple use or mineral 
        resources within the nominated area is required.

     The rule will exacerbate permitting delays.

          +  Under the proposal, all lands will require a 
        ``Fundamentals of Land Health'' review prior to authorization 
        for use, a process currently applied only to grazing lands. BLM 
        already struggles with large backlogs in grazing permit 
        renewals because of this review requirement. Applying it to all 
        uses would only serve to increase permitting backlogs for all 
        productive uses.

     Creates a New Zero-Impact Standard that Ignores How 
            FLPMA's Unnecessary and Undue Degradation Mandate 
            Effectively Protects the Environment While Allowing 
            Multiple Use.

          +  The rule's unnecessary or undue degradation definition 
        restates what BLM has implemented for nearly five decades to 
        prevent excessive or disproportionate impacts.

          +  However, the new conservation measures demand zero impact 
        in ACECs, conservation leases, and intact landscapes, which is 
        contrary to FLPMA's acknowledgement that some degradation is 
        necessary for multiple use to occur and the requirement to 
        minimize that degradation.

     BLM's rule is incomplete, deficient, flawed and rushed.

          +  The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires BLM to 
        prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis, subject to notice 
        and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act, if the rule 
        would have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
        number of small businesses and governments. BLM did not conduct 
        a regulatory flexibility analysis before its arbitrary 
        declaration that the rule ``will not have a significant 
        economic effect on a substantial number of small entities . . 
        .''

          +  BLM asserts the proposal will have an annual effect on the 
        economy of $100 million or less, so they did not conduct an 
        economic analysis. However, the agency's own ``Sound Investment 
        2022'' report shows multiple-use on BLM lands generated $201 
        billion in economic output last year.\15\ If conservation 
        leasing decreases activity by just 1%, that's an impact of $2 
        billion annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Bureau of Land Management, Socioeconomic Impact Report 2022, 
https://www.blm.gov/about/data/socioeconomic-impact-report-2022

          +  The report mentioned above notes BLM redistributed $2 
        billion to States for revenue-sharing programs, yet BLM 
        arbitrarily determined the proposed rule has no federalism 
        implications, so it did not prepare a federalism summary 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        statement of the effects on the States.

          +  Using BLM's own data from the Sound Investment report 
        strongly suggests BLM's claims regarding economic impact are 
        false and that it is merely seeking to circumvent an Economic 
        Threshold Analysis and the CRA.

          +  The proposal violates NEPA. BLM plans to use a 
        Departmental Categorical Exclusion under NEPA, because the rule 
        is ``too broad, speculative or conjectural'' to lend itself to 
        ``meaningful analysis.'' The rule is a ``major federal action'' 
        subject to an EIS containing an analysis of the significant 
        socio-economic impacts, and the environmental effects of 
        foregoing critical and strategic mineral development.
Conclusion

    BLM's Proposed Rule is illegal--it directly violates FLPMA in the 
many ways addressed above. It also violates numerous other federal 
laws. Moreover, BLM's attempts to circumvent procedural rulemaking 
requirements violate the federal laws designed to ensure transparency, 
accountability, and Congressional oversight.
    Since 1970, Congress has consistently and repeatedly recognized 
that minerals and mining are essential to all facets of our economy, 
society, and national defense. It bears repeating that the Mineral and 
Mining Policy Act (1970), FLPMA (1976), the National Minerals, 
Materials Policy Research and Development Act (1980), the Energy Act 
(2020), the IIJA (2021), and most recently the IRA (2022) all direct 
the executive branch agencies to respond to the Nation's need for 
domestic minerals. Yet, the Proposed Rule brazenly ignores more than 50 
years of Congressional intent and direction.
    More lands continue to be withdrawn from mineral entry, and 
permitting timelines, costs, and risks have become intolerable. Our 
risky reliance on imported minerals is a direct result of five decades 
of ignoring Congress' clear directives that minerals should be mined 
from public lands to help satisfy the Nation's need for minerals. 
Despite the urgent need to increase domestic mining and reduce our 
dependency on foreign minerals, today it can take 10 years or more to 
permit a mine.
    The findings in the IIJA that ``critical minerals are fundamental 
to the economy, competitiveness, and security of the United States'' 
and that ``the Federal permitting process has been identified as an 
impediment to mineral production and the mineral security of the United 
States'' must result in constructive action to streamline permitting 
and eliminate permitting impediments. Instead, the Proposed Rule will 
exacerbate America's dependence on foreign sources of minerals at a 
time when mineral demand is skyrocketing. The Biden administration's 
own goals of fighting climate change and reducing carbon emissions 
require more domestic mining--not less. The Proposed Rule fails to 
acknowledge any potential effects on our ability to develop minerals in 
the United States.
    BLM simply cannot make the substantial land use policy and 
regulatory changes embodied in the Proposed Rule without Congressional 
action to amend FLPMA to authorize the agency's proposed change. 
Congress' power over federal lands is without limitations. Nuclear 
Energy Inst., Inc. v. EPA, 362 U.S. App. D.C. 204, 209, 373 F.3d 1251, 
1256 (2004) (quotations omitted). And, while FLPMA Section 107 grants 
BLM discretion to manage public lands, it also requires BLM to manage 
lands ``on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield[.]'' 43 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1701(a)(7); see also Utah v. Norton, No. 2:96-CV-0870, 2006 U.S. 
Dist. LEXIS 73480, at *5 (D. Utah Sep. 20, 2006). Unless and until 
Congress says otherwise, BLM must manage the public lands pursuant to 
FLPMA's multiple use mandates, notwithstanding the difficulties in 
achieving the balanced land management approach that FLPMA demands.
    Under FLPMA, BLM must balance all multiple uses; it cannot pick and 
choose which land use directives to emphasize and which ones to 
subordinate or even deny. Given our Nation's need for a strong domestic 
mineral supply, and the proven benefits that modern mining provides to 
local communities, the federal government should not consider adding 
restrictions that would discourage or disincentivize mineral 
development. Now is the time for BLM to stop subverting Congressional 
mandates and, instead, work to facilitate the development of the 
critical resources that are needed now and available on America's 
public lands, for national security and the economic well-being of all 
Americans. Because BLM lacks the authority to reduce the scope of 
allowable multiple uses on public lands, BLM cannot proceed with the 
Proposed Rule and should withdraw it immediately. Failing that, 
Congress should repeal it through H.R. 3397.
    We look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure America 
has a secure and affordable supply of the minerals and metals needed 
for our modern society.

            Sincerely,

                                              Mark Compton,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 
                                                  June 14, 2023    

Hon. John Curtis, Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives
2323 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Representative Curtis:

    The American Farm Bureau Federation and state Farm Bureaus in the 
West appreciate the introduction of H.R. 3397, and we support your 
legislation. AFBF is the nation's largest general farm organization, 
with almost six million farm and ranch members in all fifty states and 
Puerto Rico. Our collective Farm Bureaus are farm and ranch families 
working together to build a sustainable future of safe and abundant 
food, fiber and renewable fuel for our nation and the world.
    As you know, the American West is truly unique--not only in the 
landscape but in how ranchers serve as caretakers of our shared public 
lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is now proposing significant 
changes to how public lands are managed, including creating a new 
``use'' under the definition of ``multiple use,'' establishing a new 
kind of land lease for conservation, and elevating and promoting 
additional and likely restrictive land use designations, in addition to 
codifying mitigation requirements. We agree with the goal of your 
legislation, which would require BLM to withdraw the proposal.
    Ranchers are delivering a return on the trust placed in them to 
care for public lands. They are clearing debris, spotting wildfire 
risks, and reporting other potential dangers to local law enforcement. 
Livestock grazing also brings overall health benefits to the land, from 
reducing wildfire risk and slowing the spread of invasive weeds to 
building robust root systems and spurring forage growth for native 
species. The University of Wyoming Extension analyzed the most recent 
USDA census numbers and found that for each pound of beef raised on 
public lands, Americans get $0.44 in ecosystem-related returns.
    In addition to policy concerns over the proposal, we are 
disappointed in the way the proposed rule was developed. Our public 
lands ranchers partner with the BLM to fulfill the mission of landscape 
management. However, this proposal was released without stakeholder 
discussion or advance notice. Recently held public information meetings 
left our attendees with more questions than answers. We have encouraged 
BLM to withdraw the proposal, or at least extend the comment period for 
this extensive new land management plan.
    Thank you for your support of America's public lands ranchers and 
the rural communities they live in.

            Sincerely,

        American Farm Bureau 
        Federation                    Nevada Farm Bureau

        Arizona Farm Bureau           New Mexico Farm & Livestock 
                                      Bureau

        California Farm Bureau        North Dakota Farm Bureau

        Colorado Farm Bureau          Oregon Farm Bureau

        Idaho Farm Bureau             South Dakota Farm Bureau

        Kansas Farm Bureau            Utah Farm Bureau Federation

        Montana Farm Bureau 
        Federation                    Washington Farm Bureau

        Nebraska Farm Bureau          Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

                                 ______
                                 

                    American Forest Resource Council

                            Portland, Oregon

                                                  June 13, 2023    

        Senator John Barrasso         Rep. John Curtis
        307 Dirksen Senate Office 
        Building                      2323 Rayburn House Office 
                                      Building
        Washington, DC. 20510         Washington, DC. 20515

    Dear Senator Barrasso and Representative Curtis:

    We are writing in support of S. 1435/H.R. 3397, legislation that 
would require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw 
a proposed rule entitled ``Conservation and Landscape Health'' (88 Fed. 
Reg. 19,583).
    AFRC is a regional trade association whose purpose is to advocate 
for sustained yield timber harvests on public timberlands throughout 
the West to enhance forest health and resistance to fire, insects, and 
disease. We do this by promoting active management to attain productive 
public forests, protect adjoining private forests, and assure community 
stability. We work to improve federal and state laws, regulations, 
policies and decisions regarding access to and management of public 
forest lands and protection of all forest lands. AFRC represents over 
70 forest product businesses and forest landowners throughout the West. 
Many of our members have their operations in communities adjacent to 
BLM managed land that this new rule will impact, and the management on 
these lands ultimately dictates not only the viability of their 
businesses, but also the economic health of the communities themselves. 
Rural communities, such as those affected by this rule, are 
particularly sensitive to the forest products sector in that more than 
50% of all manufacturing jobs are in wood manufacturing.
    We and our members share the goal of sustaining healthy, working 
lands through science-based management under the Federal Lands Policy 
and Management Act (FLPMA). However, the proposed rule would 
substantially rewrite the goals and implementation of FLPMA without 
Congressional authorization, limit public input and transparency in 
land management decisions, restrict multi-use management and public 
access of federal lands, and create new confusing, arbitrary standards 
and regulations that impede efficient and effective implementation of 
land management plans.
    Conservation and landscape health are laudable goals that are 
consistent with modern, science-based forest management and other 
resource management objectives. These goals are also embodied and 
codified in existing multi-use federal statutes such as FLPMA. We have 
serious concerns about the lack of public involvement and engagement in 
determining the proposed rule's purpose and need; legal and 
congressional authorization; local and state government coordination; 
and environmental, economic, and social impacts.
    We support S. 1435/H.R. 3397 and believe the proposed rule should 
be withdrawn. At a minimum, and absent legislation, the BLM should 
engage in a more inclusive and transparent process that would start 
with an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that clearly outlines 
what ``problem'' the BLM is seeking to solve, what outcome the BLM is 
hoping to achieve, and what information the government is lacking and 
seeking to obtain from the public, issue experts, and interested 
stakeholder groups.
    Thank you for your leadership and attention to this issue.

            Sincerely,

                                             Travis Joseph,
                                                          President

                                 ______
                                 

               American Exploration & Production Council

                                                  June 15, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

    On behalf of the American Exploration & Production Council, I am 
writing in strong support of Congressman John Curtis' legislation, H.R. 
3397, to require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to 
withdraw a rule of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) relating to 
conservation and landscape health, and to urge you to consider the 
significant implications of BLM's Proposed Conservation and Landscape 
Health Rule (``Proposed Public Lands Rule''). Thank you for holding 
today's hearing and for the opportunity to share our support for this 
legislation.
    AXPC, representing 34 leading independent oil and natural gas 
exploration and production companies in the United States, is dedicated 
to promoting safety, responsible stewardship, and technological 
advancement in the production of oil and natural gas. Our members not 
only provide millions of Americans with high-paying jobs but also 
invest resources into local communities. We recognize the importance of 
ensuring positive environmental and public welfare outcomes and 
responsible stewardship of our nation's natural resources.
    While we share BLM's interest in protecting and conserving public 
lands, we believe that the framework outlined in the Proposed Public 
Lands Rule contravenes BLM's statutory authority and raises concerns 
about its potential impact on the effective and legally defensible 
management of public lands and mineral resources. BLM's proposed rule 
ignores Congress' multiple use mandate, established under the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act, which states that federal lands, 
resources, and uses must be utilized in a balanced combination that 
will best meet the needs of the people. If finalized, BLM's rule would 
disregard Congress' mandate and enact restrictive access to federal 
lands for a multitude of purposes.
    Another primary concern with the Proposed Public Lands Rule is its 
lack of clarity. The proposal and the materials provided by BLM do not 
adequately explain how the rule will be implemented or its relationship 
to the current land management objectives and other recent agency 
rules, guidelines, and proposals relevant to public land management. 
Stakeholders require fundamental details, such as how the Proposed 
Public Lands Rule will protect large intact landscapes, to provide 
informed comments and engage in a meaningful dialogue.
    Additionally, we have concerns regarding the conservation leasing 
framework proposed by BLM. While we recognize and support voluntary 
conservation actions, including those undertaken on public lands, we 
find the framework insufficiently explained and potentially 
impermissible under BLM's statutory authority. It is crucial to ensure 
that any regulations in this area align with legal requirements and 
strike a balance between conservation and responsible resource 
development.
    Furthermore, it is worth noting that key aspects of the Proposed 
Public Lands Rule appear to exceed BLM's statutory authority. Should 
BLM finalize the rule in its current or substantially similar form, we 
believe that a reviewing court would likely find it ``in excess of 
statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations'' under the 
Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''). This potential conflict 
underscores the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the rule's 
implications before proceeding.
    Thank you for holding today's hearing on this important 
legislation. AXPC urges members of this committee to vote in favor of 
H.R. 3397 as it allows for a more balanced approach to energy 
development and land management and the continued production of 
American-made energy on public lands. By passing this bill, we can 
ensure Americans continue to have access to affordable, reliable 
energy.

            Sincerely,

                                             Anne Bradbury,
                                                    President & CEO

                                 ______
                                 
                                                  June 15, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

    We write today in support of H.R. 3397, a bill directing the Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) to withdraw a proposed rule titled 
Conservation and Landscape Health (88 Fed. Reg. 19,583 (April 3, 
2023)), that is being considered before the committee today. The 
undersigned organizations have members that conduct mining operations 
that are frequently located on federal lands that are subject to the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 
jurisdiction under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 
As such, our members have extensive experience operating on federal 
lands managed according to the multiple use principles under FLPMA and 
have a long-standing commitment to environmental stewardship on these 
lands.
    Access to federal lands for mineral exploration and development is 
critical to maintaining a strong domestic mining industry. These lands 
historically have provided and will continue to provide a large share 
of the metals and minerals produced in this country. That said, half of 
these lands are either already off-limits to or under restrictions for 
mineral development, rendering unknown amounts of resources on adjacent 
state and private lands inaccessible because of existing federal land 
restrictions. Further, despite our nation's abundant resources, the 
U.S. continues to be increasingly reliant on foreign sources of metals 
and minerals, including from geopolitical adversaries that do not share 
our values when it comes to environmental, labor and safety standards.
    Recently, the BLM issued a proposed rule on Conservation and 
Landscape Health, contending that it would advance the Bureau's mission 
to manage public lands for multiple-use and sustained-yield by 
prioritizing the health and climate resilience of ecosystems across 
those lands. Alarmingly, if finalized, the proposed rule would be a 
dramatic shift in how public lands will be managed and unlawfully 
signal that conservation is a use on par with other uses of public 
lands under FLPMA's multiple-use and sustained-yield framework. The 
proposed rule also prioritizes designating Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern (ACECs) and the avoidance of impacts to federal 
lands.
    Based on recent testimony of BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning, who 
described the rule as ``procedural in nature,'' \1\ the BLM believes 
that FLPMA provides for this reinterpretation of authority, overriding 
more than 50 years of congressional intent and direction. Regrettably, 
the proposed rule is likely to open the door to increased conflicts for 
even noncontroversial development activities due to the requirement 
that BLM plan for and consider conservation on equal footing with other 
multiple uses, while also identifying practices that ensure 
conservation actions are effective and emphasizing restoration across 
the public lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ House Natural Resources Committee Hearing, BLM FY24 Budget 
Request--May 16, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another concerning provision of the proposed rule requires 
avoidance and mitigation, to the maximum extent possible, to address 
impacts to important, scarce or sensitive resources, and sets rules for 
approving third-party mitigation fund holders. This would result in the 
BLM applying a mitigation hierarchy to avoid, minimize and compensate 
for impacts to all public land resources, which the BLM has 
acknowledged would be difficult or even impossible to avoid.
    The proposed rule would also require the BLM to consider a 
precautionary approach for resource use when the impact on ecosystem 
resilience is unknown or cannot be quantified and provide justification 
for decisions that may impair ecosystem resilience. In most cases, this 
would lead to the preemptive denial of many mining projects, further 
increasing our reliance on foreign sources of minerals vital to our 
economic and national security.
    Additionally, the creation of conservation leases allowed by the 
proposed rule--with the opportunity for limitless renewals of 
essentially unlimited acreage--would illegally allow the preclusion of 
other multiple uses, such as grazing, mining and certain types of 
recreation. Conservation leases would effectively serve as de facto 
mineral withdrawals under the dubious guise of allowing environmental 
groups to support the conservation and the landscape health of highly 
mineralized public lands.
    It is also important to note that the BLM failed to fully account 
for impacts of the proposed rule by choosing not to complete an 
assessment of how it would affect a wide variety of small businesses 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA). It is also unconscionable that 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which 
typically reviews all significant rulemakings, allowed the proposed 
rule to proceed as ``not significant,'' and therefore not subject to 
OIRA's review.
    The Biden administration's self-sabotage of domestic mineral supply 
chains through a consistent barrage of withdrawals and land-use 
restrictions, including the proposed rule, is completely out of step 
with the dramatic increase in minerals production that is needed to 
keep up with new technologies, infrastructure, manufacturing and 
national security needs, let alone the administration's energy 
transition goals. Instead of putting more of America's vast mineral 
endowment off limits and ceding our nation's mineral supply chain 
security to other countries, the U.S. must prioritize policies that 
incentivize domestic mineral production that utilizes our world-class 
environmental standards to ensure we need not choose between mining and 
environmental protection.
    Continued access to our public lands for responsible mineral 
development must be allowed if the U.S. is to supply the essential 
materials necessary for nearly every sector of our economy. For these 
reasons, we urge your support for H.R. 3397.

            Sincerely,

        Alaska Miners Association     National Mining Association

        American Coal Council         Nevada Mining Association

        American Exploration & 
        Mining Association            New Mexico Mining Association

        Arizona Mining Association    Rocky Mountain Mining Institute

        Colorado Mining Association   Utah Mining Association

        Idaho Mining Association      Women's Mining Coalition

        Mining Minnesota              Wyoming Mining Association

        Montana Mining Association

                                 ______
                                 

                      Council of Alaska Producers

                                                  June 14, 2023    

House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Comments supporting H.R. 3397 BLM Public Lands Rule

    Dear Members of the House Committee on Natural Resources:

    The Council of Alaska Producers (CAP) is writing to support H.R. 
3397--To require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 
withdraw a rule of the Bureau of Land Management relating to 
conservation and landscape health.
    Formed in 1992, CAP is a non-profit trade association that works to 
inspire Alaskans to realize a shared goal of sustainable mineral 
production, providing economic and social benefits to our communities 
and the people of Alaska. CAP represents the interests of Alaska's five 
large metal mines and several advanced projects, informing members on 
legislative and regulatory issues, supporting and advancing the mining 
industry, and educating members, the media, and the general public on 
mining related issues.
    CAP has grave concerns about the rule and appreciates the House 
Resolution requiring it be withdrawn. The legality of the rule in 
general is very questionable as it is contrary to the explicit 
provisions of a number of Federal statutes, including the Federal Land 
Management and Policy Act.
    It would place onerous requirements on the BLM Field Office to re-
do and re-write their resource management plans (RMPs) to accommodate 
the rule's regulatory and scientific analysis requirements. As we have 
seen on the Bering Sea-Western Interior (BSWI) and Central Yukon RMPs, 
such updates take many years. The rule implies development projects, 
like mines and related infrastructure on BLM lands, should not move 
forward until the updates are completed.
    The rule ignores the fact that much of Alaska is already closed off 
to mining (wilderness areas, parks, etc.). It will inevitably close off 
(or very strictly restrict) mining and related infrastructure on very 
large additional areas in the name of conservation objectives that are 
not justified by science or in the rule.
    As we have seen with the BSWI and Central Yukon RMPs, the use of 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) has been abused in 
Alaska. Instead of protecting ``special'' areas, some alternatives in 
these two RMPs include numerous ACECs that would close off tens of 
thousands of acres and hundreds of stream miles. The rule promotes 
ACECs as the primary tool to achieve its conservation objectives.
    The rule also advocates for preserving ecologically ``intact'' 
landscapes like they are unique and suggests avoiding any development 
in these areas. This may be true in other places, but in Alaska 
virtually everything is intact, so the implication is that virtually 
all BLM lands in Alaska should be closed off.
    We believe the Donlin gas pipeline would be very difficult to move 
forward under the proposed rule since it passes through areas that the 
rule implies should not be developed. More broadly, we are not sure any 
mine in Alaska could advance that involves BLM lands. The rule 
completely ignores impacts to developing Alaska's mineral potential--of 
which many are critical minerals essential to the clean energy 
transition and could help meet the President's objectives to expand 
domestic critical minerals supply chain.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Executive Order 14017 (E.O.), America's Supply Chains of 
February 24, 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you for your consideration of this important resolution. We 
encourage the House Committee on Natural Resources to pass it from 
committee quickly.

            Sincerely,

                                            Karen Matthias,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

              Independent Petroleum Association of America

                             Washington, DC

                                                  June 15, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman:

    The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) writes in 
support of H.R. 3397 (Rep. Curtis), a bill to require the Director of 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to withdraw a rule of the BLM 
relating to conservation and landscape health. IPAA is a national 
upstream trade association representing thousands of independent oil 
and natural gas producers and service companies across the United 
States. Independent producers develop 91 percent of the nation's oil 
and natural gas wells. These companies account for 83 percent of 
America's oil production, 90 percent of its natural gas and natural gas 
liquids (NGL) production, and support over 4.5 million American jobs.
    IPAA is pleased to support H.R. 3397 as it aims to withdraw the 
misguided rule that is currently being proposed by BLM. IPAA believes 
the proposed rule is a gross overreach of BLM's directive and violates 
the statutory authority given to BLM under the Federal Lands Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 as well as misaligning with the Congressional 
intent in creating and delegating powers to the BLM. H.R. 3397 goes far 
in reiterating the intent of Congress to clear any ambiguity for 
further regulations.
    Aside for Congressional intent and agency overreach, the content of 
the proposed rule will have devastating impacts on the U.S. economy and 
hinder U.S. energy security by curtailing energy production on federal 
lands. In 2019, the United States produced record levels of crude oil 
(12.2 million barrels per day) and natural gas (40.7 trillion cubic 
feet)--increases of 11.3% and 10.6% from 2018 levels, respectively. The 
United States, as a result, enjoyed its best energy security since 1970 
and became a net energy exporter for the first time since 1952. Oil 
production in federal areas, both onshore and offshore, routinely 
exceeds 20% of total U.S. production. For gas, federal onshore 
production constitutes approximately 10% or more of total U.S. 
production, or between 3 and 4 trillion cubic feet.
    Furthermore, FLPMA mandates the productive use of federal land. 
FLPMA directs the agency to manage all public lands ``in a manner which 
recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, food, 
timber, and fiber from the public lands . . ..'' This policy 
determination was not delegated to the Agency. Instead, Congress 
delegated the responsibility to manage the public lands in a way that 
provides these specific raw materials for productive use. The current 
proposed rule is elevating a non-use function to have equal footing 
with all other active uses.
    IPAA commends the Natural Resources Committee for bringing these 
issues to light during the legislative hearing for H.R. 3397. We look 
forward to partnering with you on other multiple-use initiatives for 
our nation's public lands.

            Respectfully,

                                           Daniel T. Naatz,
                 Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

                                 ______
                                 

               National Sand, Stone & Gravel Association

                             Alexandria, VA

                                                   May 24, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

    On behalf of the 450 members of the National Sand, Stone & Gravel 
Association (NSSGA), we write to share our support for H.R. 3397, a 
bill to require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to withdraw their 
newly proposed rule entitled ``Conservation and Landscape Health'' (88 
Fed. Reg. 19583 (April 3, 2023)). This legislation provides certainty 
to aggregate producers, as BLM's proposed rule would dramatically shift 
how public lands will be managed.
    NSSGA represents the aggregates and industrial sand industry of our 
country, with over 9,000 facilities and more than 100,000 employees in 
high-paying jobs. This industry procures 2.5 billion tons of aggregates 
annually, which are crucial in sustaining our lifestyle and 
constructing our nation's infrastructure and communities. The products 
sourced by this industry are fundamental components required for 
building roads, airports, transit, rail, ports, clean water and energy 
networks.
    If the proposed rule is adopted, access to public lands for all 
purposes, including energy, material development, grazing, forest 
management and recreation would become more difficult, bringing 
substantial and adverse modifications to the Bureau's management 
approach for the 245 million acres of land under its supervision. For 
the aggregates industry, the process of sourcing and supplying 
materials used to create building blocks for our nation does not need 
to be more stringent, and this rule will significantly impact our 
ability to access needed construction materials for infrastructure 
projects. As America begins to rebuild our aging infrastructure, the 
aggregates industry needs continual support rather than forced 
limitations.
    NSSGA supports policies that properly outline ways to best maintain 
our country's ecosystems and wildlife habitats. However, the proposed 
rule limits local land managers' capacity to conserve areas in need. It 
is crucial that local farmers, ranchers, hunters, miners and community 
stakeholders have their voices heard when implementing broad regulatory 
changes, as they know their land and local ecosystems best and will 
provide the most efficient ideas for finding a path to long-term 
conservation. The adoption of this rule severely cuts out any local 
voices and grants too much decision-making power to BLM. We urge 
Congress to work with BLM to ensure that cooperation with local patrons 
is at the top of the priority list when altering any laws to deal with 
conservation efforts.
    We hope Congress will vote to remove this burdensome overreach of 
BLM and work alongside community stakeholders to reach lasting 
sustainability goals without limiting the future potential of multiple 
industries that rely heavily on public land use.
    Please reach out to my office should you have any questions.

            Sincerely,

                                        Michael W. Johnson,
                                                    President & CEO

                                 ______
                                 

                      RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

                           Anchorage, Alaska

                                                  June 15, 2023    

House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support H.R. 3397

    Dear Chair Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the 
House Committee on Natural Resources:

    The Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (RDC) writes in 
support of H.R. 3397, legislation to require the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) to withdraw its recently proposed Conservation and 
Landscape Rule (88 Fed. Reg. 19583 (proposed April 3, 2023)) (hereafter 
the ``proposed rule'').
    RDC is a non-profit, statewide trade association within the state 
of Alaska. RDC is a unique organization comprised of individuals and 
companies from Alaska's key and historically significant industries: 
fishing, forestry (timber), mining, oil and gas, and tourism (including 
recreation). RDC's membership also includes all landowning Alaska 
Native corporations (ANCs) created pursuant to the Federal Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA), local communities, 
organized labor, as well as industry support firms. RDC's purpose is to 
encourage a strong, diversified private sector in Alaska and expand the 
state's economy based on our mission of growing Alaska through the 
responsible development of our natural resources.
    RDC is concerned the proposed rule violates the constitutional 
separation of powers by unlawfully expanding BLM's land management 
authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 
``Conservation'' is not a ``use'' in the statutory list of land uses 
identified in FLPMA. BLM simply cannot add new type of land use by 
regulation without first having legislative authority to do so. This is 
inconsistent with the authority granted by and the intent of FLPMA when 
Congress passed it in 1976.
    RDC is also concerned that by elevating ``conservation'' as a 
``use'' under FLPMA and creating so-called conservation leases under 
FLPMA, unresolvable conflicts will occur and result in de facto land 
withdrawals never intended or authorized by FLPMA. It is difficult to 
see how such leases would not create incompatibilities with the limited 
land uses already identified in FLPMA or how BLM could properly balance 
such a ``use'' against FLPMA's multiple use and sustained yield 
mandates that BLM is required to uphold.
    RDC is still analyzing the full impacts the proposed rule would 
have on the unique attributes of Alaska with the intent to submit 
comments on the proposed rulemaking. However, it was important we raise 
the important constitutional issues with the Committee. As RDC 
continues its assessment, there may be additional concerns that should 
be shared with the Committee. RDC will supplement this letter as 
needed.
    Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

            Yours resourcefully,

                                            Leila Kimbrell,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                        Women's Mining Coalition

                              Reno, Nevada

                                                  June 16, 2023    

Tracy Stone-Manning, Director
Bureau of Land Management
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

Re: Comments on the Conservation and Landscape Health Proposed Rule RIN 
        1004-AE92, Federal Register Vol. 88, No. 63

    Dear Director Stone Manning:

I. Introduction

    The Women's Mining Coalition (WMC) has numerous serious concerns 
about the Department of the Interior's/Bureau of Land Management's 
(DOI's/BLM's) Conservation and Landscape Health Proposed Rule 
(``Proposed Rule'') that was published on April 3, 2023, in the Federal 
Register, Vol. 88, No. 63. As discussed in detail below, the Proposed 
Rule exceeds BLM's legal authority and conflicts with BLM's legal 
obligations under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
(FLPMA). Numerous elements of the Proposed Rule conflict with FLPMA's 
multiple use directives, including: the creation of conservation 
leases; the designation of more lands as Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concerns (ACECs) where multiple use will be restricted, 
and the preservation of intact landscapes where multiple uses will be 
prohibited. The Proposed Rule also conflicts with the U.S. Mining Law.
About WMC
    WMC is a grassroots organization with over 200 members nationwide. 
Our mission is to advocate for today's modern domestic mining industry, 
which is essential to our Nation. WMC members work in all sectors of 
the mining industry including hardrock and industrial minerals, coal, 
energy generation, manufacturing, transportation, and service 
industries. We convene Washington, D.C. Fly-Ins to give our members an 
opportunity to meet with Members of Congress and their staffs, and with 
federal land management and regulatory agencies to discuss issues of 
importance to both the hardrock and coal mining sectors.
    WMC members have extensive experience with FLPMA, the U.S. Mining 
Law, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and BLM's 43 CFR 
Subpart 3809 surface management regulations (3809 regulations) 
governing locatable minerals and mining activities pursuant to the U.S. 
Mining Law.
    We have provided comments on numerous NEPA documents for proposed 
locatable mineral projects on BLM-administered public lands. Some WMC 
members also have expertise in preparing third-party NEPA documents.
    Lastly, our Advisory Council is made up of industry experts from 
all facets of the mining industry. Based on this experience, WMC is 
well qualified to review BLM's Proposed Rule and provide these 
comments.
    WMC members are keenly aware of the nation's dangerous and 
unsustainable reliance on mineral imports, having been involved with 
this issue for a number of years. Our overarching concern about BLM's 
Proposed Rule is that it will reduce domestic mining and thereby 
exacerbate our dependency on foreign countries for critical and other 
minerals. As such, BLM's Proposed Rule is diametrically opposed to 
other policies espoused by this administration which seek to increase 
domestic production of critical minerals in order to strengthen 
domestic critical minerals supply chains.
II. The Proposed Rule Should be Withdrawn as Requested by the May 11, 
        2023 Letter from Sixteen Western Senators

    WMC concurs with the May 11, 2023 letter to you from 16 western 
U.S. Senators outlining the reasons why BLM should immediately withdraw 
this Proposed Rule. As the senators state, the Proposed Rule 
``threatens the long-standing approach governing multiple use on our 
nation's public lands . . . [and] includes a number of problematic 
initiatives that will result in limited access to energy production, 
grazing, recreation, and other statutory uses as mandated under 
FLPMA.''
    The senators' letter questions whether protection and restoration 
activities, which define conservation, could ``override a mandated use 
enshrined in statute'' and asserts that limiting uses is ``contrary to 
the congressional intent to prioritize multiple use of our taxpayer-
owned resources.'' The senators also warn BLM that it lacks the 
authority to create conservation leases:

        This new leasing regime opens the door for a new, 
        noncompetitive process designed to lock away parcels of land, 
        with no limits to size, for a period of 10 or more years. It's 
        clear that anti-grazing and anti-development organizations 
        would abuse this tool to attempt to halt ranching and block 
        access to our nation's abundant energy reserves located on 
        public lands.

    We agree with the senators' characterization of the Proposed Rule 
as responding to special interests that seek to put public lands off-
limits to development, contrary to Congress' clear directive in FLPMA 
that BLM must manage the public lands for multiple use:

        . . . BLM's proposed Public Lands Rule is an effort to empower 
        special interests that have long opposed BLM's statutory 
        mandate by prioritizing non-development over the principles of 
        multiple use and sustained yield. Taking large parcels of land 
        out of BLM's well-established multiple use mandate would cause 
        significant harm to many western states and negatively impact 
        the livelihoods of ranchers, energy producers, and many others 
        that depend on access to federal lands. As such, the proposal 
        should be withdrawn immediately.

    There is no legal authority for BLM to establish this rule, which 
is inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of FLPMA's mandate that 
the agency manage the publicly-owned lands for multiple-use.
III. The Proposed Rule will Increase U.S. Reliance on Foreign Minerals

    The USGS tracks the country's reliance on imported minerals in its 
annual Mineral Commodity Summaries reports. Figure 2 in the 2023 report 
\1\ shows U.S. dependency during 2022 on foreign countries for 
minerals. Some of the key findings in the 2023 USGS report include the 
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2023/mcs2023.pdf

     In 2022, imports made up more than one-half of the U.S. 
            apparent consumption for 51 nonfuel mineral commodities, 
            and the United States was 100% net import reliant for 15 of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            those.

     Of the 50 mineral commodities identified in the ``2022 
            Final List of Critical Minerals,'' the U.S. was 100% net 
            import reliant for 12, and an additional 31 critical 
            mineral commodities had a net import reliance greater than 
            50% of apparent consumption.

     For most critical minerals, the U.S. is heavily reliant on 
            foreign sources for its consumption requirements; 
            exceptions include beryllium, magnesium, and zirconium.

    Comparing the 2022 report with the 2021 report shows that the U.S. 
is becoming increasingly dependent on imported minerals. In 2021, the 
U.S. was 50 percent reliant on 47 minerals. In 2022, that reliance 
increased to 51 minerals. So rather than reducing our reliance on 
foreign minerals, the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction.
    At a time when demand for the minerals essential to the energy 
transition is projected to skyrocket, it makes no sense to propose a 
draconian rule that would create de facto new land withdrawal 
mechanisms resulting in substantially reduced mining of these minerals 
from public lands.
    This is the wrong time to implement a Proposed Rule that has the 
potential to dramatically reduce production of critical minerals.
    The Proposed Rule is at counter purposes to the critical minerals 
directive in President Biden's February 2021 Executive Order 14017 ``On 
America's Supply Chains,'' which directs cabinet officials to develop 
policies to increase domestic production of critical minerals to reduce 
the risks associated with the county's dependency on mineral imports. 
The definition of minerals supply chain in Executive Order 14017 
includes ``the exploration, mining, concentration, separation, 
alloying, recycling, and reprocessing of minerals.''
    The BLM's Proposed Rule is inconsistent with Executive Order 14017 
because it will put lands off-limits to mineral exploration and 
development and consequently thwart President Biden's stated goals to 
strengthen domestic critical minerals supply chains in order to lessen 
the Nation's dependency on foreign minerals.

    The Proposed Rule is also completely at odds with the June 2021 
White House report entitled ``Building Resilient Supply Chains, 
Revitalizing American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-Based Growth'' 
\2\ (``2021 White House Report'') that was prepared in response to 
Executive Order 14017. This report includes an entire chapter devoted 
to critical minerals: ``Review of Critical Minerals,'' prepared by the 
Department of Defense (DOD). The Proposed Rule is incompatible with the 
following DOD findings in the 2021 White House Report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/100-day-
supply-chain-review-report.pdf

     Strategic and critical materials are the building blocks 
            of a thriving economy and a strong national defense. They 
            can be found in nearly every electronic device, from 
            personal computers to home appliances, and they support 
            high value-added manufacturing and high-wage jobs, in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            sectors such as automotive and aerospace.

     The global supply chain[s for] strategic and critical 
            materials . . . are at serious risk of disruption--from 
            natural disasters or force majeure events . . . and are 
            rife with political intervention and distortionary trade 
            practices, including the use of forced labor.

     Contrary to a common belief, this risk is more than a 
            military vulnerability; it impacts the entire U.S. economy 
            and our values.

     [T]he need for strategic and critical materials is likely 
            to intensify . . . [to] enhance or enable . . . many 
            environmentally friendly ``green'' technologies, such as 
            electric vehicles, wind turbines, and advanced batteries. A 
            recent report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) 
            notes: ``A typical electric car requires six times the 
            mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind 
            plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a 
            gas-fired plant. Since 2010, the average amount of minerals 
            needed for a new unit of power generation has increased by 
            50 percent as the share of renewables in new investment has 
            risen.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ International Energy Agency, The Role of Critical Minerals in 
Clean Energy Transitions (May 2021), https://iea.org/reports/the-role-
of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions

     Economic efficiency took priority over diversity and 
            sustainability of supply . . . [and] U.S. manufacturers 
            increasingly lost visibility into the risk accumulating in 
            their supply chains. Their suppliers of strategic and 
            critical materials, and even the workforce skills necessary 
            to produce and process those materials into value-added 
            goods, became increasingly concentrated offshore . . . 
            [where] disregard for environmental emissions and workforce 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            health and safety could thrive.

     The U.S. Government, collectively, has examined the risk 
            in strategic and critical materials supply chains for 
            decades. Now is the time for decisive, comprehensive action 
            by the Biden-Harris Administration, by the Congress, and by 
            stakeholders from industry and non-governmental 
            organizations to support sustainable production and 
            conservation of strategic and critical materials.

    The incongruity between the country's needs for domestic supplies 
of critical minerals, as stated in Executive Order 14017 and in the 
DOD's points listed above, and the Proposed Rule is inexplicable. On 
the one hand, the Biden administration strongly embraces the need to 
increase production of domestic critical minerals, and on the other 
hand its DOI is proposing a rule that will impede and even prohibit 
mineral exploration and development on public lands.
IV. After Nearly 50 Years of Adhering to FLPMA's Multiple Use 
        Directives, BLM is Unlawfully Seeking to Redefine this Multiple 
        Use Law into a Non-Use Law
A. BLM Cannot Change the Definition of Multiple Use to Mean 
        Conservation
    Congress' purpose in enacting FLPMA was to direct BLM to manage 
public lands for multiple use. As defined under FLPMA Section 103, 
``multiple use'' includes, but is not limited to: recreation, range, 
timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, 
scientific, and historical values.
    FLPMA directs the BLM to (1) inventory public lands and create 
management plans that implement the multiple-use and sustained-yield 
mandate, and (2) promulgate regulations necessary to carry out the 
purposes of the Act. BLM is exceeding the scope of this regulatory 
authority to promulgate the current Proposed Rule.
    In order to justify the draconian changes being proposed in this 
rule, BLM is asserting a new and profoundly different interpretation of 
FLPMA that significantly deviates from more than four decades of 
managing the public lands for multiple use pursuant to FLPMA:

        FLPMA's declaration of policy and definitions of `multiple use' 
        and `sustained yield' reveal that conservation is a use on par 
        with other uses under FLPMA. The procedural, action-forcing 
        mechanisms in this Proposed Rule grow out of that understanding 
        of multiple use and sustained yield.

    (FR at 19585, emphasis added). The revelation that multiple use and 
sustained yield now mean conservation is indeed curious because BLM has 
implemented FLPMA's multiple use policy directives for managing public 
lands since 1976 under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

    In the Proposed Rule, BLM is now claiming it has experienced a 
revelation and finally understands the real meaning of FLPMA. Based on 
this revelation and BLM's assertion that public lands are 
``increasingly degraded and fragmented due to adverse impacts from 
climate change and a significant increase in authorized use,'' BLM is 
redefining the FLPMA terms ``undue and unnecessary degradation,'' 
transforming ``conservation'' to a ``use,'' and then prioritizing that 
purpose by actually prohibiting any use of the lands in contravention 
of ``multiple-use.'' This is a radical departure from the way BLM has 
interpreted and implemented these land use management principles for 
the past 47 years and constitutes a sweeping change that only Congress 
could make. BLM's proposed makeover of multiple use and sustained yield 
to now mean conservation is totally contrary to FLPMA's directives and 
definitions.

    The multiple use and sustained yield directive in FLPMA Section 
102(a)(7) states: ``. . . it is the policy of the United States that--

        goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for 
        public land use planning, and that management be on the basis 
        of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified 
        by law;

    It is clear from Section 102(a)(7) that BLM must manage the public 
lands according to the principles of multiple use and sustained yield 
as defined in Section 103(c) and Section 103(h). BLM cannot lawfully 
deviate from the Section 102(a)(7) directive or modify the Section 103 
definitions.

    In FLPMA Section 102(a)(8), Congress establishes that certain lands 
must be managed to protect numerous resources, stating: ``. . . it is 
the policy of the United States that--

        the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the 
        quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, 
        environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and 
        archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve 
        and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; 
        that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and 
        domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation 
        and human occupancy and use; (Emphasis added).

    This directive to ``preserve and protect certain public lands in 
their natural condition'' requires that these lands remain available 
for ``human occupancy and use'' which includes mineral development. 
Aside from a mineral withdrawal, there is no authority for BLM to set 
aside lands and make them inaccessible to mineral exploration and 
development in conservation leases.
B. BLM Must Adhere to Congress' Definition of Multiple Use and 
        Sustained Yield

    Congress defined ``multiple use'' and ``sustained yield'' in FLPMA 
Section 103(c) and 103(h) as follows:

        (c) The term `multiple use' means the management of the public 
        lands and their various resource values so that they are 
        utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and 
        future needs of the American people; making the most judicious 
        use of the land for some or all of these resources or related 
        services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude 
        for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs 
        and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the 
        resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses 
        that takes into account the long-term needs of future 
        generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, 
        including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, 
        minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, 
        scientific and historical values; and harmonious and 
        coordinated management of the various resources without 
        permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the 
        quality of the environment with consideration being given to 
        the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the 
        combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return 
        or the greatest unit output.

        (h) The term `sustained yield' means the achievement and 
        maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular 
        periodic output of the various renewable resources of the 
        public lands consistent with multiple use.

    Both statutory definitions provide BLM with discretionary authority 
to modify the way in which some lands are managed to respond to 
changing ``needs and conditions'' but they do not authorize BLM to 
prohibit or extensively limit use at all by creating a new ``use'' of 
conservation to effectively prohibit any actual multiple-use 
activities. The Proposed Rule asserts the dramatic changes to restrict 
use (e.g., the increased use of the ACEC designation, the creation of 
conservation leases, and the preservation of intact landscapes) are 
necessary to respond to climate change by creating ``ecosystem 
resilience.'' However, BLM has not defined or explained ecosystem 
resilience or demonstrated how ecosystem resilience, restricting land 
uses, or putting lands off-limits to development will mitigate climate 
change impacts.
    Moreover, BLM cannot ignore elements of the multiple use definition 
that require BLM to ``best meet the present and future needs of the 
American people . . . to conform to changing needs and conditions . . . 
[and achieve] a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that 
takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for 
renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, 
recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and 
natural scenic, scientific and historical values.''
C. BLM Cannot Eliminate the Balance that FLPMA Demands Between Multiple 
        Uses and Environmental Protection

    The land use restrictions and prohibitions in the Proposed Rule 
eliminate the balance that FLPMA demands. They also completely overlook 
a change in the country's ``needs and conditions,'' which includes the 
United States policy objective to develop domestic sources of the 
minerals needed to build the technologies and infrastructure essential 
to transition away from fossil fuels and towards increased use of 
renewable energy. Therefore, the Proposed Rule directly conflicts with 
both FLPMA and the Biden administration's stated goals to reach net-
zero carbon emissions by 2050. That goal is unachievable without 
domestic minerals, many of which need to be mined on the Nation's 
public lands. The rule would thus exacerbate our dangerous dependence 
on foreign sources of minerals by putting lands functionally off limits 
to mineral exploration and development, thereby reducing domestic 
mineral production.

    The Proposed Rule also ignores FLPMA's Section 103(l) unambiguous 
definition of ``principal or major uses'':

        (l) The term ``principal or major uses'' includes, and is 
        limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife 
        development and utilization, mineral exploration and 
        production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber 
        production. (emphasis added)

    The Proposed Rule does not discuss ``principal or major uses'' or 
attempt to reconcile the proposed non-uses (e.g., expansion of the ACEC 
designation, creation of conservation leases, and preservation of 
intact landscapes) with the FLPMA Section 103(l) list of principal or 
major uses. The proposed non-uses are irreconcilable with FLPMA's 
principal or major uses.
    BLM's Proposed Rule seeks to add the non-uses listed above and 
functionally make them future principal or major uses of public lands. 
There is nothing in the Proposed Rule that suggests these non-use 
designations would be used sparingly. To the contrary, the Proposed 
Rule implies that BLM would implement the non-use designations broadly 
in order to respond to climate change.
    FLPMA does not allow conservation to become a principal or major 
use of public lands. BLM cannot categorically dismiss the Congressional 
directive that other land uses, including conservation, are not 
principal or major uses of public lands, write the principal or major 
multiple uses out of FLPMA, or add conservation to the definition. The 
Proposed Rule is therefore unlawfully proposing to transform this 
multiple use statute into a non-use, conservation law.
D. FLPMA Does Not Focus on Conservation

    Finally, it is important to note that in contrast to explicitly 
defining ``multiple use'' and ``sustained yield,'' FLPMA does not 
define conservation or include it in the Section 102(a) land use 
management directives. In fact, FLPMA uses the word ``conservation'' in 
a very limited way. It is never used to establish land management 
objectives. Rather, it is only used in a restricted way to reference 
previously designated conservation areas. In fact, there are only six 
sections in FLPMA that use the word ``conservation'':

     California Desert Conservation Area: Section 206(c), 
            Section 303(e), Title VI, Section 601(c)(1), (c)(2), (d), 
            (e), (f), (g)(1), (h);

     Conservation system unit or the Steese National 
            Conservation Area: Section 302(d)(1);

     Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act: Section 
            302(d)(4) and (d)(6);

     Land and Water Conservation Fund: Section 318(d)

     Kings Range National Conservation Area: Section 602; and

     Conservation of the Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area: 
            Section 603(c).

    The limited ways in which FLPMA mentions conservation to describe 
lands that in 1976 were already designated for special management is 
additional proof that the law was never intended to authorize making 
conservation a ``principal or major use.'' Concluding otherwise would 
require us to assume that Congress enacted a useless or superfluous 
law.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See United States v. Premises Known as Lots 50 & 51, 2050 
Brickell Ave., 681 F. Supp. 309, 313 (E.D.N.C. 1988); see also Dept. of 
Defense, Army Air Force Exchange Service v. Federal Labor Relations 
Authority, 212 U.S. App. D.C. 256, 659 F.2d 1140, 1160 (D.C.Cir. 1981), 
cert. denied, 455 U.S. 945, 102 S. Ct. 1443, 71 L. Ed. 2d 658 (1982) (A 
statute should be read in a ``manner which effectuates rather than 
frustrates the major purpose of the legislative draftsmen.''); South 
Corp. v. United States, 690 F.2d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (A 
statutory construction which would impermissibly impute a useless act 
to Congress must be viewed as unsound and rejected.); United States v. 
Ferry Cty., 511 F. Supp. 546, 550 (E.D. Wash. 1981)(``It is a basic 
tenet of statutory construction that Congress is not presumed to 
perform useless acts.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forty-seven years after FLPMA's enactment, BLM cannot lawfully 
establish a novel ``interpretation'' that creates a sweeping change 
inconsistent with decades of its implementation of FLPMA and the 
definitions and directives in the statute itself. Nor can it insert a 
definition of ``conservation'' into the Section 103 definitions. Only 
Congress can add conservation to the Section 102(a) Declaration of 
Policy or amend the definitions in FLPMA Section 103 to include 
conservation.
V. FLPMA Does Not Authorize Conservation Leases

    At the May 16, 2023, hearing before the House Subcommittee on 
Energy and Mineral Resources/Committee on Natural Resources,\5\ 
(referenced herein as the May 16th hearing), you stated that FLPMA 
Section 302(b) gives the Secretary of the Interior many tools, 
including leases, for managing public lands. Unfortunately, this 
explanation of leasing as an allowable public land management tool is 
incomplete and therefore misleading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Examining the President's FY 2024 Budget for the Bureau of Land 
Management and the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and 
Enforcement, https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=413205
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A complete reading of FLPMA Section 302 reveals that leases are 
authorized to promote use and development--not to put lands off-limits 
to development. FLPMA Section 302(b) is clear that the FLPMA's intended 
purpose in authorizing leases is to promote development of the public 
lands:

        (b) In managing the public lands, the Secretary shall, subject 
        to this Act and other applicable law and under such terms and 
        conditions as are consistent with such law, regulate, through 
        easements, permits, leases, licenses, published rules, or other 
        instruments as the Secretary deems appropriate, the use, 
        occupancy, and development of the public lands, including, but 
        not limited to, long-term leases to permit individuals to 
        utilize public lands for habitation, cultivation, and the 
        development of small trade or manufacturing concerns. (Emphasis 
        added).

    As used in Section 302(b), the words ``use, occupancy, and 
development,'' and the authorization for ``long-term leases to permit 
individuals to utilize public lands for habitation, cultivation, and 
the development of small trade or manufacturing concerns'' clearly 
define the scope of Congress' intent for leases. A court ``must give 
effect to this plain language unless there is good reason to believe 
Congress intended the language to have some more restrictive meaning.'' 
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 97, 103 S. Ct. 2890, 2900 (1983).
    Under FLPMA, leases are supposed to authorize use and occupancy of 
public lands for multiple use development and commercial purposes that 
are consistent with other laws, like the U.S. Mining Law. Here, 
Congress' omission of conservation from these purposes for which the 
Secretary can issue easements, permits, leases, licenses, published 
rules or other instruments is controlling. Conservation leasing is not 
within these authorized purposes and is inconsistent with the uses 
Congress did specify for leases.
    It is clear that FLPMA Section 302 does not authorize leases for 
the purpose of non-use or non-occupancy as the Proposed Rule 
contemplates. During the May 16th hearing, you stated that mining, 
logging, and other uses that involve surface disturbance would be 
incompatible with a conservation lease. This is a clear acknowledgment 
of the purpose of the rule--to put public lands off limits to the 
multiple-uses Congress clearly directed the Secretary to authorize.
    Such an effort by the BLM to close or withdraw lands from mineral 
entry and mining use is clearly inconsistent with FLPMA, which provides 
for mineral withdrawals by Congress or by the Secretary through a 
detailed and lengthy process, not a cursory issuance of a conservation 
lease.
    Thus, the proposed conservation leases are intended to create de 
facto withdrawal areas where some multiple uses would be disallowed. 
FLPMA prohibits BLM from using leases to withdraw land in order to 
preclude multiple uses. Because there is no statutory authority for 
conservation leases, BLM must modify the Proposed Rule to eliminate the 
conservation lease concept.
VI. FLPMA Does Not Authorize Establishing a Policy Preference for 
        Preserving Intact Landscapes

    Just as FLPMA does not authorize conservation leases, it also does 
not authorize BLM to propose a policy to identify intact landscapes or 
to use the restrictive ACEC designation to prevent multiple uses on 
such lands to preserve their intactness. The intact landscape concept 
is inconsistent with the multiple use and sustained yield directive in 
FLPMA Section 102(a)(7). It is also inconsistent with the scope of the 
protection and preservation directive in Section 102(a)(8), which 
directs BLM to protect and preserve certain lands but also requires 
that these lands remain available for human occupancy and use:

        The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United 
        States that--

        (8) the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect 
        the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, 
        environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and 
        archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve 
        and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; 
        that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and 
        domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation 
        and human occupancy and use; (emphasis added)

    None of the FLPMA Section 102(a) declarations of policy authorize 
BLM to manage public lands solely for preservation purposes and to 
exclude multiple uses, (i.e., human occupancy and use) to achieve land 
preservation.

    In the Proposed Rule, BLM offers the following definition of 
conservation:

        ``The Proposed Rule uses the term ``conservation'' in a broader 
        sense, however, to encompass both protection and restoration 
        actions. Thus, it is not limited to lands allocated to 
        preservation, but applies to all BLM managed public lands and 
        programs.'' (FR at 19585)

    FLPMA does not authorize the broad application of conservation, 
preservation, and restoration land use management objectives ``to all 
BLM managed public lands.'' BLM cannot change FLPMA from a multiple use 
and sustained yield statute to a conservation, preservation, and 
restoration law. Only Congress could make such a substantial change to 
FLPMA by enacting an amendment that would essentially upend the 
original multiple use purpose of this law and transform it into a 
conservation, preservation, and restoration law.
VII. FLPMA Does Not Authorize BLM to Replace UUD with a Zero-Impact 
        Mandate
    The unnecessary or undue (UUD) mandate in FLPMA Section 302(b) is 
exceptionally effective at protecting the environment because it is a 
dynamic, activity-specific, and site-specific regulatory mechanism 
applicable wherever multiple use activities occur on public lands. In 
implementing the UUD directive, BLM has the necessary authority to 
custom tailor the interpretation and application of UUD for all types 
of multiple uses to fit the activities involved and the site-specific 
environmental and resource conditions at each particular multiple use 
project.
    FLPMA is not a zero-impact, no-use statute. However, the Proposed 
Rule is seeking to unseat UUD as FLPMA's universal and overarching 
environmental protection mandate and substitute a new zero-impact 
standard that would be enforced at many newly designated ACECs, on 
conservation leases, and on intact landscapes. FLPMA does not authorize 
BLM to manage public lands with a zero-impact mandate, which differs 
substantially from UUD.
    In contrast to a zero-impact standard, the UUD policy in FLPMA 
Section 302(b) authorizes necessary degradation of the public lands 
resulting from multiple uses. A plain language reading of UUD is that 
it authorizes degradation that is unavoidable in order for the multiple 
use to occur. In other words, the degradation is necessary or due.
    In managing the public lands, BLM must respond to the entirety of 
Congress' intent in FLPMA and carefully balance both the FLPMA Section 
102(a) multiple uses directives and UUD. These statutory directives, 
which must be read together, compel BLM to authorize multiple uses that 
comply with the UUD mandate to protect the environment. BLM cannot use 
the Proposed Rule to administratively insert a zero-impact conservation 
objective or a land preservation mechanism to prohibit development on 
ACECs, conservation leases, or on intact landscapes.

    BLM's statements during the May 15, 2023, stakeholder meetings and 
in the Federal Register notice that the Proposed Rule is not intended 
to reduce or curtail mining or other public land uses are internally 
contradictory and provide substantial evidence that BLM is struggling 
to make the Proposed Rule appear to be consistent with FLPMA. Compare, 
for example, the following statements:

        This provision [conservation leasing] is not intended to 
        provide a mechanism for precluding other uses, such as grazing, 
        mining, and recreation. (FR at 19591) \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Similar statements were made during the May 15, 2023, virtual 
public meeting and the May 16, 2023, hearing.

        Permanent impairment of ecosystem resilience would be difficult 
        or impossible to avoid, for example, on lands on which the BLM 
        has authorized intensive uses, including infrastructure and 
        energy projects or mining, or where BLM has limited discretion 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        to condition or deny the use. (FR at 19592)

        The Proposed Rule recognizes, however that in determining which 
        actions are required to achieve the land health standards and 
        guidelines, the BLM must take into account current land uses, 
        such as mining, energy production and transmission, and 
        transportation, as well as other applicable law. The BLM 
        welcomes comments on how applying the fundamentals of land 
        health beyond lands allocated to grazing will interact with 
        BLM's management of non-renewable resources. (FR at 19586)

    In the first statement, BLM says the Proposed Rule is not designed 
to upset existing land uses. However, the second and third statements 
admit the Proposed Rule creates conflicts between its conservation 
objectives and multiple uses. These admissions that the Proposed Rule 
would create conflicts with authorized multiple uses clearly shows that 
the Proposed Rule is fatally flawed, unworkable, and inconsistent with 
Congress' directives in FLPMA dictating how BLM must manage public 
lands for multiple use.
    There is no justification for creating this conflict by proposing 
this new rule. Rather, BLM should focus on consistently managing public 
lands for multiple uses that comply with the UUD mandate. Given the 
effectiveness of UUD as a universally applicable regulatory mechanism, 
there is no reason to modify it or seek to functionally replace it as 
BLM is proposing to do in this rule.
VIII. There is No Gap in FLPMA that Needs to be Filled with the 
        Proposed Rule

    During the May 15, 2023 virtual public meeting on the Proposed 
Rule, BLM officials asserted the rule is necessary to fill a gap in 
FLPMA, stating that BLM needs additional regulatory tools to manage the 
public lands in a manner that fully protects the environment. This 
assertion mischaracterizes the authority BLM already has to use the UUD 
mandate to effectively regulate public land uses to allow for 
responsible development of public lands and at the same time require 
environmental protection.
    There is no environmental protection or regulatory gap in FLPMA. 
The 3809 regulations already define UUD and the mechanisms by which BLM 
prevents UUD. The 3809 regulations implement FLPMA's UUD mandate in a 
dynamic and effective way. One aspect of preventing UUD demands 
compliance with all applicable federal and state environmental and 
cultural resources protection laws. (See 43 CFR 3809.415(a)).
    What is being portrayed as a gap is in reality this 
administration's apparent dissatisfaction with having to respond to the 
balancing act that FLPMA demands between authorizing simultaneous 
multiple uses and mandating environmental protection. There is no 
question that this balancing act is difficult and creates tension 
between responsibly using public lands and protecting public lands. But 
that is precisely FLPMA's purpose and is the foundational premise of 
this law.
    Seeking to upset this balance by creating new anti-use tools that 
prevent development such as preserving intact landscapes and creating 
conservation leases cannot be used to modify FLPMA's underlying purpose 
and dual Congressional directives to responsibly use public lands and 
to protect them. See Carden v. Kelly, 175 F. Supp. 2d 1318, 1325 (D. 
Wyo. 2001) (FLPMA's purpose was to ``aid in the management, disposal, 
and maintenance of federal public land in the nation[`]s best 
interest.'').

    FLPMA does not authorize BLM to tip the scales in favor of 
conservation. However, the Proposed Rule is designed to do just that--
to create out of whole cloth new restrictive land management tools and 
designations to limit multiple use. This is flagrantly at odds with 
Congress' intent in enacting FLPMA, and the plain text of the statute 
in Section 102(a)(7) which provides that: it is the policy of the 
United States that--

        . . . management of [public lands] be on the basis of multiple 
        use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law

    In enacting FLPMA, Congress did not give BLM the power it is 
asserting in the Proposed Rule to establish conservation as a ``use'' 
to prohibit other uses and to prioritize that ``use'' above all others. 
Conservation is not included in the list of multiple-uses Congress set 
forth in FLPMA Section 102(a). BLM cannot now assert a new sweeping 
authority to ``manage'' use of the public lands by creating conflicting 
authorizations prohibiting use through the proposed ``Conservation'' 
rule. See West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2608 (`` `Congress 
could not have intended to delegate' such a sweeping and consequential 
authority `in so cryptic a fashion.' '') (quoting FDA v. Brown & 
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 160, 120 S. Ct. 1291, 146 L. 
Ed. 2d 121 (2000)).
    Changing FLPMA's balance to favor conservation over multiple use--
or even to put conservation and multiple use on the same plateau--would 
require Congressional action to amend FLPMA. BLM cannot achieve this 
result through rulemaking.
IX. BLM Does Not Need Additional Regulatory Tools to Protect Public 
        Lands

    FLPMA Section 302(b) requires BLM to manage the public lands to 
prevent land uses from creating UUD: ``In managing the public lands the 
Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary 
to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.''

    Since the enactment of FLPMA, BLM has effectively implemented the 
UUD mandate through regulatory programs that govern various public land 
uses. For example, the overarching purpose of BLM's 3809 regulations is 
to:

        Prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands by 
        operations authorized by the mining laws. Anyone intending to 
        develop mineral resources on the public lands must prevent 
        unnecessary or undue degradation of the land and reclaim 
        disturbed areas. This subpart establishes procedures and 
        standards to ensure that operators and mining claimants meet 
        this responsibility; (43 CFR Sec. 3809.1(a))

    The 3809 regulations include a definition of UUD that is specific 
and pertinent to mineral exploration and mining. (See 43 CFR 
Sec. 3809.5 and Sec. 3809.415).
    BLM has not identified a problem with implementing the UUD mandate 
or specified the need for additional tools to impose the UUD mandate. 
In the context of UUD, the Proposed Rule is seeking to fix a problem 
where none exists.
    BLM is proposing to redefine UUD as ``harm to land resources or 
values that is not needed to accomplish a use's goal or is excessive or 
disproportionate.'' This proposed definition is essentially a broad 
restatement of how BLM has interpreted and implemented the UUD mandate 
for nearly five decades and administered multiple uses on public lands 
to ensure compliance with the UUD standard.
    It is indeed telling that after nearly 50 years of managing public 
lands in response to FLPMA's overarching mandate to prevent UUD, that 
BLM is now seeking to redefine UUD, resulting in a `fundamental 
revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of . . . 
regulation' into an entirely different kind.'' West Virginia v. EPA, 
142 S. Ct. 2587, 2596 (quoting MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American 
Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U.S. 218, 231, 114 S. Ct. 2223, 129 L. 
Ed. 2d 182).
    The agency's own actions over the course of nearly five decades are 
compelling evidence of the proper and successful interpretation and 
implementation of FLPMA. Efforts with the Proposed Rule to now make 
radical changes to how UUD is interpreted and implemented are in 
conflict with BLM's obligations under FLPMA.
X. The Proposed Rule Conflicts with the U.S. Mining Law

    The Proposed Rule conflicts with the right to use all lands open to 
location under the U.S. Mining Law (30 U.S.C. 21a et seq.). Although 
FLPMA amends the Mining Law, it does so in a very limited way as 
enumerated in Section 302(b):

        Except as provided in section 314, section 603, and subsection 
        (f) of section 601 of this Act and in the last sentence of this 
        paragraph, no provision of this section or any other section of 
        this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or 
        impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, 
        including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress. In 
        managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or 
        otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or 
        undue degradation of the lands.

    FLPMA Section 302(b) clearly establishes Congress' intent that 
FLPMA would not change the Mining Law except in the following ways, the 
first three of which are quite limited in their scope:

     FLPMA Section 314 requires claim owners to record their 
            claims;

     FLPMA Section 603 establishes the provisions for mining 
            claims in Wilderness Study Areas;

     FLPMA Section 601(f) requires mining activities to comply 
            with an ``undue impairment'' standard to protect scenic, 
            scientific, and environmental values of the public lands in 
            the California Desert Conservation Area; and

     All mineral activities must prevent unnecessary or undue 
            degradation (UUD).

    FLPMA's UUD mandate was a major change to the Mining Law that 
inserted a new environmental protection and reclamation requirement for 
mineral exploration and mining projects. As discussed in Section VII, 
UUD effectively safeguards the environment at mineral projects. For 
mineral projects, UUD is defined at 43 CFR Sec. 3809.5 and requires 
mineral operators to reclaim their exploration and mine sites when the 
work is completed and to provide BLM with financial assurance to 
guarantee reclamation.

    Section 22 of the Mining Law says:

        Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in 
        lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and 
        unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, 
        and the lands in which they are found to occupation and 
        purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have 
        declared their intention to become such, under regulations 
        prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules 
        of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same 
        are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United 
        States.
    The land use restrictions and prohibitions in the proposed 
regulation directly conflict with the Section 22 Mining Law directive 
that lands ``shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and 
the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase'' because 
the Proposed Rule would sequester lands away in conservation leases 
that would no longer be open to this free exploration and purchase.
    The Proposed Rule cannot ignore or override Section 22 of the 
Mining Law, FLPMA's multiple use and sustained yield mandate, or 
FLPMA's explicit policy to maintain all aspects of the Mining Law 
except for the four changes specified in FLPMA Section 302(b). FLPMA 
does not authorize BLM to put lands off-limits to mining by creating 
widespread ACECs, issuing conservation leases, or preserving intact 
areas.

    BLM can withdraw lands from operation of the Mining Law, but 
withdrawals must adhere to the FLPMA Section 204 withdrawal procedures:

        (a) On and after the effective date of this Act the Secretary 
        is authorized to make, modify, extend, or revoke withdrawals 
        but only in accordance with the provisions and limitations of 
        this section.

    During BLM's May 15, 2023, virtual meeting on the Proposed Rule BLM 
officials explained that mining would likely be deemed an incompatible 
use in these areas. At the May 16th hearing, you said the same thing in 
response to questions asking whether BLM would manage these lands for 
multiple uses including mining.
    The Proposed Rule explains that conservation leases could be used 
as compensatory mitigation to off-set unavoidable impacts associated 
with multiple use projects on public lands. In order to proceed with 
such projects, project proponents could be required to enter into 
conservation leases or purchase conservation credits associated with 
previously established conservation leases designed to function as 
mitigation banks. Neither the Mining Law nor FLPMA authorize 
compensatory mitigation for hardrock mineral projects. Therefore, this 
aspect of the Proposed Rule cannot be applied to mineral exploration 
and development projects.
    The word ``mitigation'' appears only once in FLPMA at 43 U.S.C. 
1785 (e)(2)(D), which Congress added to FLPMA in 1996 for the Fossil 
Forest Research Natural Area. This suggests that there is no authority 
for compensatory mitigation in FLPMA for any type of multiple use 
activity. Project proponents may wish to offer compensatory mitigation 
to off-set the unavoidable impacts (e.g., impacts that comply with 
FLPMA's Section 302(b) mandate to prevent unnecessary or undue 
degradation are necessary and due) but cannot be compelled to offer 
compensatory mitigation.
XI. BLM Must Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

    In the Federal Register notice for this rule, BLM states that it 
intends to apply the Department's Categorical Exclusion (CX) provisions 
and that BLM is not required to prepare a NEPA document, either an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS), to assess the impacts of this Proposed Rule. At the May 16th 
hearing, you asserted that BLM is not obligated to prepare an EA or an 
EIS because the rule is ``largely procedural.''
    This assertion strains credulity for a Proposed Rule that will 
impact 245 million acres of public lands, which are ``an economic 
driver across the West'' according to BLM's press release unveiling the 
Proposed Rule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.blm.gov/press-release/interior-department-releases-
proposed-plan-guide-balanced-management-public-lands.

    The media has appropriately characterized the Proposed Rule as 
making significant changes to land use management as is readily evident 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
from the following headlines;

  BLM Proposes Sweeping Rule That Could Change Priorities for Public 
                                 Lands

https://northernag.net/blm-proposes-sweeping-rule-that-could-change-
priorities-for-public-lands/

            BLM defends sweeping revamp of public lands rule

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2023/05/16/blm-
defends-sweeping-revamp-of-public-lands-rule-00097116

 Sweeping Biden Rule Could Change The Game For Protecting Public Lands

https://news.yahoo.com/sweeping-biden-rule-could-change-225322163.html

             BLM proposes seismic shift in lands management

https://www.eenews.net/articles/blm-proposes-seismic-shift-in-lands-
management/

    BLM needs to take a cue from these headlines and concede that this 
far-reaching rule will create ``sweeping changes'' and a ``seismic 
shift'' that will cause significant impacts across the western U.S. A 
rule that will precipitate sweeping changes, alter priorities for 
public lands, and cause a seismic shift in land management 
unquestionably qualifies as a major federal action that requires BLM to 
prepare an EIS. See Austin v. Ala. DOT, No. 2:15-cv-01777-JEO, 2016 
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159113, at *4 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2016) (``An EIS is 
required before a federal agency undertakes any `major' federal action 
`significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.' '') 
(quoting 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(2)(C)).

    The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) 40 CFR Part 1500 
regulations that implement NEPA define a major federal action in 
Section 1508.1 as follows:

        Major Federal action includes actions with effects that may be 
        major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and 
        responsibility . . .

           (a) Actions include new and continuing activities; . . . new 
        or revised agency rules, regulations, plans, policies, or 
        procedures;

           (b) Federal actions tend to fall within one of the following 
        categories:

             i. Adoption of official policy, such as rules, 
        regulations, and interpretations adopted pursuant to the 
        Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. that 
        are formal documents establishing an agency's policies which 
        will result in or substantially alter agency programs.

             ii. Adoption of formal plans, such as official documents 
        prepared or approved by federal agencies which guide or 
        prescribe alternative uses of Federal resources, upon which 
        future agency actions will be based. (emphasis added).

    Because BLM's acknowledged purpose of the rule is to change how 
public lands are managed and how federal resources are used to 
prioritize non-use or conservation, it is clear that BLM's Proposed 
Rule would ``guide or prescribe alternative uses of Federal resources, 
upon which future agency actions will be based.'' Consequently, BLM 
must prepare an EIS for what is obviously a ``major federal action.''
    Because the land use restrictions and prohibitions would thwart 
solar and wind farms and critical minerals mining projects that are 
necessary for transitioning to renewable energy, the EIS must take a 
hard look at the No Action alternative and quantify the CO2 
emission reduction that could be achieved without the rule. The EIS 
alternatives analysis must disclose how the Proposed Rule would 
interfere with renewable energy projects and potentially increase 
CO2 emissions by not being able to develop some critical 
minerals and renewable energy projects.
XII. The Proposed Rule is Economically Significant and Must be 
        Evaluated Under NEPA, the OMB, the SBREFA, and the CRA

A. Multiple Uses Generated $201 Billion in Economic Output in 2022

    BLM's website ``Economic Contributions From BLM-Managed Lands'' \8\ 
and BLM's report entitled ``BLM: A Sound Investment for America 2022,'' 
\9\ (included herein as Exhibit 1) show that multiple use activities on 
BLM-administered lands generated $201 billion in economic output in 
2022 and generated 783,000 jobs. Because the Proposed Rule would 
significantly interfere with multiple uses such as logging, ranching, 
oil and gas production, mineral exploration and mining, and renewable 
energy production, BLM must prepare an EIS that analyzes and quantifies 
the impacts resulting from the reduced economic output from these 
multiple uses on western public lands states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.blm.gov/about/data/socioeconomic-impact-report-2022
    \9\ https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2022-12/2022-
SoundInvestment.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM has already developed the baseline data for this analysis in 
its ``Economic Contributions from BLM-Managed Lands'' and its Sound 
Investment for America 2022 report. BLM must complete the job by 
assessing the socioeconomic consequences of the Proposed Rule, 
recognizing that BLM's own data show that the multiple uses listed 
below are significant revenue generators, constituting ``an economic 
driver across the West.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ BLM press release, op cit.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Recreation--$11.4 billion

     Renewable Energy--$4.4 billion

     Nonenergy Minerals \11\--$48.8 billion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Nonenergy minerals refers to locatable, ``hardrock'' minerals 
like copper, gold, silver, lithium, rare earths, zinc, molybdenum, 
lead, vanadium, tungsten, tellurium, etc. Some of these minerals are on 
the USGS' critical minerals list.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Oil and Gas--$113.8 billion

     Grazing--$2.6 billion

     Coal--$8.3 billion

     Timber--$1.1 billion

     BLM Expenditures \12\--$5.2 billion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ BLM expenditures refers to goods, services, and contract labor 
purchased by BLM and BLM employees' purchase of goods and services in 
the local communities where they live

     Payments to States and Counties \13\--$5.2 billion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ BLM payments refers mainly to Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) 
to states and counties.

    BLM must comply with the NEPA requirement to prepare an EIS that 
takes a hard look at the economic and socioeconomic impacts resulting 
from the reduction in jobs and local and state tax revenues due to the 
Proposed Rule. See Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d 1209, 1251 (10th Cir. 
2011) (explaining that under NEPA, an EIS must ``analyze not only the 
direct impacts of a proposed action, but also the indirect and 
cumulative impacts . . . [t]he types of impacts that must be considered 
include `ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on 
the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), 
aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health [effects].') 
(quoting 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.8). The EIS must also evaluate 
alternatives to the rule and ways to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
these impacts. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.14(a).

B. BLM's Economic Threshold Analysis is Faulty

    BLM's Economic Threshold Analysis for this Proposed Rule asserts 
that the rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a 
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities. There is a glaring discrepancy between the 
Economic Threshold Analysis and the data BLM collected to demonstrate 
the economic importance of BLM's multiple use programs on western 
public lands. The enormous difference between $100 million and $201 
billion must be explained and resolved before BLM proceeds further with 
this Proposed Rule.

    Assuming the Proposed Rule adversely impacts just one percent of 
the $201 billion currently realized from multiple uses, that would be a 
$2 billion impact, which would clearly exceed the $100 million 
threshold that triggers the requirement to prepare the following 
federal economic evaluations:

     A cost-benefit analysis by the Office of Management and 
            Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866;

     An assessment of how the Proposed Rule would impact small 
            businesses and governments as required by the Regulatory 
            Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), and the Small Business 
            Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA); and

     Congressional review pursuant to the Congressional Review 
            Act.
    Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to assess the benefits and 
costs of regulatory actions, and for significant regulatory actions, 
submit a detailed report of their assessment to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review. A rule may be significant under 
Executive Order 12866 if it meets any of the following criteria:

     Has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
            more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a 
            sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
            environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
            tribal governments or communities;

     Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere 
            with an action taken or planned by another agency;

     Materially alters the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
            grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
            obligations of recipients thereof; or

     Raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
            mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set 
            forth in the Executive Order.

    Because the Proposed Rule will result in substantially more than 
$100 million in economic impacts, BLM should be precluded from 
proceeding any further with this Proposed Rule until it prepares a 
detailed cost benefits analysis and provides the results of this 
analysis to the OMB.
C. BLM Must Comply with the RFA and SBREFA and Analyze Impacts to Small 
        Businesses

    The RFA applies to any rule proposal by a federal agency that is 
subject to notice and comment under the APA. The RFA requires federal 
agencies to conduct a full regulatory flexibility analysis or to 
certify that the Proposed Rule will not ``have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' If an agency 
determines that a proposed or draft rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, it must 
provide a factual basis for this determination, which must be published 
in the Federal Register at the time the proposed or final rule is 
published for public comment.
    In the Federal Register notice for the Proposed Rule, BLM certifies 
that the rule will not have ``a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities'' and consequently does not 
require an analysis pursuant to the RFA (FR 19594). However, BLM has 
not provided the necessary factual basis as required by the RFA to 
support this certification. This mirrors what BLM did in 1997 when it 
improperly issued its bonding rule for locatable minerals without 
providing the factual basis required to support their certification 
that the Proposed Rule would not have a significant impact on small 
entities.
    When small businesses believe a rule or regulation will adversely 
affect them, and that the agency failed to meet its analysis and 
disclosure obligations under the RFA, SBREFA provides those small 
businesses with the opportunity to seek judicial review of the agency's 
action. The SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy can become directly 
involved in such appeals by filing amicus (friend of the court) briefs 
in the court proceedings brought by the small business appealing the 
rule and claiming a violation of the RFA.
    BLM has first-hand experience with judicial review under SBREFA. In 
1998, the District Court for the District of Columbia (DC District 
Court) ruled in favor of the Northwest Mining Association (now known as 
the American Exploration & Mining Association), citing BLM's failure to 
assess the impact of its 1997 proposed bonding rule on small entities 
as required under the RFA and SBREFA. In Northwest Mining Association v 
Babbitt, 5 F.Supp2d 9 (D.D.C. 1998), the District Court remanded BLM's 
bonding rule back to the agency for failure to comply with requirements 
under the RFA and SBREFA to evaluate the impact of its proposed bonding 
rule on small miners.
    In Northwest Mining Association v Babbitt, BLM did not use the 
SBA's definition of a small miner, which the DC District Court noted 
was 500 or fewer employees. Just as in 1998, many mining and mineral 
exploration companies who currently own mining claims on BLM-
administered lands and who explore and develop these lands pursuant to 
the right to do so under Section 22 of the U.S. Mining Law have fewer 
than 500 employees and qualify as small entities as defined by the SBA. 
Additionally many ranching, logging, outfitting, renewable energy, and 
oil and gas companies also meet the SBA's definition of a small entity 
for their industry sectors.
    For the same reasons as the DC District Court found that BLM failed 
to comply with its obligations under the RFA when it finalized its 
proposed 1997 bonding rule and remanded the rule to BLM for 
consideration of the rule's impact on small entities, BLM must now 
comply with the RFA and assess the impact of the proposed Conservation 
and Land Health rule on small entities or provide the required factual 
basis to support a certification the Proposed Rule will not ``have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' Proceeding without the proper RFA analysis or the factual 
basis to support a no significant impact determination, as BLM is 
currently proposing to do, is unlawful and will render the Proposed 
Rule void.

    BLM must not ignore the SBA's Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) June 13 
2023 comment letter on the Proposed Rule to DOI Secretary Deb Haaland 
(included herein as Exhibit 2). Some of the key points in Advocacy's 
letter are summarized below:

     BLM's Proposed Rule may be contrary to FLPMA's statutory 
            land management principles;

     BLM's Proposed Rule does not adequately consider the 
            impacts to small businesses as required by the RFA;

     The Proposed Rule has unintended consequences that are 
            contrary to BLM's goals and FLPMA's land management 
            requirements;

     The certification in the Federal Register asserting the 
            Proposed Rule will not significantly impact small entities 
            does not describe the factual basis to support this 
            analysis, as required under the Section 605(b) of the RFA; 
            and

     BLM should consider alternatives to the Proposed Rule that 
            better align with FLPMA's statutory provisions.

D. The Congressional Review Act Precludes BLM from Re-Proposing 
        Landscape-Scale Planning

    The Congressional Review Act (``CRA'') assists Congress in 
discharging its responsibilities for overseeing federal regulatory 
agencies. It provides that ``[b]efore a rule can take effect, the 
Federal agency promulgating such rule shall submit'' a report that 
includes ``a concise general statement relating to the rule'' and a 
``proposed effective date.'' Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 
Bernhardt, 946 F.3d 553, 556 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting 5 U.S.C.S. 
Sec. 801).
    The Proposed Rule bears many similarities to the Planning Rule 2.0 
for landscape-scale planning, which Congress repealed in 2017 through 
the CRA. In fact, references to ``landscape-scale planning'' are 
infused throughout the Proposed Rule and attempts to repackage 
landscape-level planning as a tool to address climate change. This new 
justification for landscape-scale planning cannot be used to resurrect 
a concept that Congress has already rejected. Congress' rejection of 
BLM's Planning Rule 2.0 pursuant to the CRA means BLM is prohibited 
from reproposing a substantially similar rule.
XIII. Conclusions

    For the numerous reasons explained above, the Proposed Rule will be 
harmful to our country. It will lead to greater dependency on foreign 
minerals at a time when the President and Congress have established 
policies to increase domestic mineral production in order to reduce our 
reliance on mineral imports--especially from China. As discussed in 
Section III, the U.S. continues to become more and more dependent on 
other countries for the minerals we need for the energy transition, 
national defense, and every aspect of modern society. The country's 
mineral reliance grew in 2022 to 51 minerals compared to the 47 
minerals on which we were 50 percent or more import reliant in 2021. As 
the DOD recently noted, ``Contrary to a common belief, this risk 
[relying on foreign minerals] is more than a military vulnerability; it 
impacts the entire U.S. economy and our values.''
    The Proposed Rule is unlawful because Congress has not authorized 
BLM to subordinate the multiple use directives in FLPMA by putting 
conservation on the same level as all other multiple uses, and 
establishing policy preferences that functionally make conservation the 
highest and best use of the land. BLM cannot make this substantial 
change without Congressional action to amend FLPMA to authorize the 
agency's proposed change. Unless and until Congress says otherwise, BLM 
must manage the public lands pursuant to FLPMA's multiple use mandates.
    BLM cannot proceed with the Proposed Rule because it is an unlawful 
attempt to use the rulemaking process to change FLPMA. WMC concurs with 
the 16 western senators who sent a letter to you on May 11, 2023, 
requesting that the Proposed Rule be immediately withdrawn. Similarly, 
WMC supports the provision in Section 4005 of Senator Barrasso's Spur 
Permitting of Underdeveloped Resources (SPUR) Act, S. 1456, which 
directs the Secretary to withdraw the Proposed Rule and prohibits 
finalizing and implementing this rule. Additionally, WMC notes the many 
reasons in the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of 
Advocacy's June 13, 2023, letter (Exhibit 2) to Secretary Haaland 
outlining why BLM needs to jettison the Proposed Rule and consider an 
alternative that complies with the land management statutory directives 
in FLPMA.
    The UUD mandate in FLPMA already gives BLM the authority it needs 
to manage public lands to achieve the appropriate balance between 
multiple use and environmental protection. After nearly fifty years of 
implementing this mandate, there is no justification for BLM's proposed 
``seismic shift'' in its land management principles. With roughly two-
thirds of the nation's lands already off limits to mineral exploration 
and development,\14\ the Secretary does not need the new tools in the 
Proposed Rule (e.g., the increased use of ACECs, creating conservation 
leases, and preserving intact landscapes) to limit or prohibit mineral 
activities and other multiple uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ John D. Leshy, America's Public Lands--A Look Back and Ahead, 
67th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, July 19, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, the Proposed Rule will inevitably lead to permitting 
delays for all types of multiple use projects on public lands. Although 
WMC is primarily concerned about permitting delays affecting mineral 
exploration and development projects, we note that permitting delays 
will also affect the infrastructure projects needed for the energy 
transition, including but not limited to high-voltage transmission 
lines, and solar, wind, and geothermal renewable energy projects. This 
is yet another important reason why this is the wrong rule at the wrong 
time.

    Although WMC appreciates this opportunity to provide these 
comments, we respectfully request that BLM withdraw this Proposed Rule.

            Sincerely yours,

        Emily Hendrickson,            Debra W. Struhsacker,
        WMC President                 WMC Co-Founder and Board Member

Attachments:

Exhibit 1--The BLM: A Sound Investment for America 2022

Exhibit 2--SBA Office of Advocacy June 13, 2023, comment letter on the 
Proposed Rule to DOI Secretary Deb Haaland

The attachments are available for viewing along with the letter at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II00/20230615/116036/HHRG-118-II00-
20230615-SD022.pdf

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                  Solar Energy Industries Association
                             June 22, 2023

    The Solar Energy Industries Association (``SEIA'') is the national 
trade association of the U.S. solar and storage industry. Our members 
promote the environmentally responsible development of distributed and 
utility-scale solar energy and storage. We are committed to working 
with federal agencies, environmental and conservation organizations, 
Tribal governments, state agencies, and other stakeholders to achieve 
this goal.

    SEIA and our members strongly support leasing for compensatory 
mitigation- and restoration-related conservation projects on Bureau of 
Land Management (``BLM'')-managed lands. However, we have concerns with 
some aspects of the proposed rule, which contains provisions that could 
potentially impede the rapid deployment of renewable energy needed to 
decarbonize the grid and address the climate crisis. While BLM granted 
a 15-day extension of the comment period, we remain concerned that some 
of these provisions, while unintentional, may not be revised in a final 
rule. Our industry intends to work constructively with BLM to ensure 
that a final rule is workable for both conservation interests and the 
renewables industries.

                                 ______
                                 

                     Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

                              Missoula, MT

                                                  June 15, 2023    

U.S. Department of the Interior, Director
Bureau of Land Management
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

Re: Bureau of Land Management Proposed Rule: Conservation and Landscape 
        Health, 43 CFR Parts 1600 and 6100

    Dear Director:

    The mission of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) is to 
ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting 
heritage. We represent more than 225,000 members nationwide, many of 
whom live and/or recreate in western states. Since its inception in 
1984, RMEF has conserved or enhanced more than 8.6 million acres of 
North America's most vital habitat for elk and other wildlife. In 
partnership with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), RMEF has 
conserved or enhanced more than 2.3 million acres across BLM-
administered lands and opened or improved public access to over 370,000 
acres since 1987. Together, the combined value of RMEF-BLM cooperative 
efforts totals more than $210 million.
    The BLM proposes new regulations that aim to `advance the BLM's 
mission to manage the public lands for multiple use and sustained yield 
by prioritizing the health and resilience of ecosystems across those 
lands.' The BLM proposes to implement this through protecting intact 
landscapes, restoring degraded habitat, and by making wise management 
decisions based on science and data.

    RMEF's comments below represent a focus on actions in the proposed 
rule that may benefit or hinder our mission and/or represent our broad 
stakeholders. The following key topics in our comments resonate with 
our mission and membership:

     Incorporating appropriate public engagement opportunities

     Ensuring public access to public lands for hunting and 
            other recreation

     Enhancing habitat for elk, mule deer, turkeys, and other 
            wildlife

     Conserving critical migration routes (connectivity)

     Bringing a stronger focus to much needed active land 
            management

     Using sound science in all conservation and management 
            activities

    RMEF expresses concern about several processes averted during the 
proposed rulemaking:

     Given the significant implications of the rule, there is 
            concern about the lack of stakeholder input or advanced 
            notification. An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or 
            a Request for Information would have provided a meaningful 
            public engagement opportunity.

     Several components of the proposed rule should be required 
            to go through a full NEPA process; the proposed overarching 
            categorical exclusion is not sufficient. As is, multiple 
            decisions (including conservation leases) would not go 
            through any NEPA assessment (environmental assessment, 
            environmental impact statement, or otherwise) and would 
            provide no opportunity for public engagement. The proposed 
            rule provides unlimited authority to make impactful 
            conservation decisions through review and approval by an 
            authorized officer.

     BLM Resource Management Plans (RMP) serve as the backbone 
            to guide management of BLM-administered lands, yet few of 
            the proposed rule components would flow through the RMP 
            process. To maintain transparency and ensure quality public 
            engagement, each action in the proposed rule should be 
            incorporated, formally, into RMPs.
    Specific to the rule content, RMEF generally supports the six broad 
objectives (Sec. 6101.2) of the proposed rule but has concerns with the 
lack of detail in the proposed rule. RMEF offers the following 
comments:

General Comments

     The proposed rule would fundamentally change the BLM's 
            multiple use mandate under the Federal Land Policy and 
            Management Act (FLPMA) by adding `conservation' as a 
            recognized use and newly defined, specifically for this 
            rule. RMEF asks for clarification on how this definition 
            conflicts with previous versions of the definition of 
            `conservation' used in BLM manuals or handbooks.

     In adding `conservation' as one of the multiple uses in 
            FLPMA, RMEF requests additional administrative review to 
            clarify whether additions/changes can be made to FLPMA 
            without the necessary input from Congress, state and county 
            governments, private industry, recreationists, and other 
            impacted stakeholders.

     RMEF requests clarity on who within BLM constitutes an 
            `authorized officer' who, through this rule, is granted 
            authority to make impactful decisions. For example, these 
            individuals would have authority to prioritize protection 
            of intact landscapes (Sec. 6102.19b), identify priority 
            landscapes for restoration (Sec 6102.3-1), or approve terms 
            and conditions of conservation leases (Sec. 6102.4).

     The section on protection of intact landscapes (6102.1) 
            also lacks clarity. As with most practices outlined in the 
            proposed rule, protection of intact landscapes should 
            follow priorities set in RMPs and utilize existing tools 
            through the National Conservation System.

Landscape Health

     RMEF recognizes the need to assess land health conditions 
            across all BLM-managed lands and supports the direction for 
            land restoration activities to improve wildlife habitat and 
            to help public lands recover from wildfire, invasive 
            species. and other threats.

     RMEF supports the proposed adaptive management strategy 
            (Sec. 6101.2) to guide BLM land management through 
            evaluation, treatment, and monitoring.

     RMEF supports continued recognition of important big game 
            migration corridors and encourages BLM to use existing 
            progress and programs (through SO3362) to implement 
            objectives in this rule concerning habitat connectivity.

     Managed livestock grazing can improve the health of 
            rangelands and forest meadows if the system is designed 
            with habitat values for elk and other wildlife in mind. An 
            effective range management program between the agency and 
            permittees is essential to maintaining the economic base 
            and lifestyle that have helped keep private lands across 
            elk country as working ranches. RMEF encourages continued 
            use of grazing management systems and techniques compatible 
            with maintaining desired levels of elk and other wildlife.

     Throughout the proposed rule, BLM recognizes the need for 
            various `conservation' practices, including land 
            protection. As an avid supporter of active land management, 
            RMEF has concerns that land protection (preservation), as 
            defined in the proposed rule, would treat lands as a 
            functional wilderness, impeding critical land management 
            and restoration activities needed across BLM-administered 
            land.

     The use of conservation throughout the proposed rule 
            includes a focus on `restoration.' As defined, this action 
            means `assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been 
            degraded, damaged or destroyed.' What is lacking is any 
            focus on active land management to maintain lands that are 
            currently meeting land health standards. The proposed rule 
            defines `land enhancement,' with reference to its potential 
            use in conservation leases. However, the proposed rule 
            lacks specific guidance on the importance of `land 
            enhancement' in preventing degradation and supporting 
            ecosystem resilience and should be a key component of 
            ACECs, conservation leases, and other tools.

     BLM proposes to use the fundamentals of land health (in 
            Sec. 6103.1-6103.2) from the existing fundamentals of 
            rangeland health (at 43 CFR 4180.1 (2005)) for all resource 
            management. This was previously applied to public-lands 
            grazing programs. RMEF requests development of updated and 
            expanded landscape health fundamentals that are based on 
            more recent science and are applicable across more diverse 
            landscapes (not just rangelands). Applying outdated land 
            health fundamentals developed for a single landscape type 
            and program (grazing), is not appropriate. As part of the 
            2005 land health update, fundamentals of rangeland health 
            should be expanded to include species beyond those 
            federally listed, including species of state biological and 
            social importance.

Conservation Leases

    BLM proposes to use conservation leases as a new tool to ensure 
`ecosystem resilience through protecting, managing, or restoring 
natural environments, cultural or historic resources, and ecological 
communities, including species and their habitats.'

     RMEF has significant concerns about the lack of detail on 
            how conservation leases would be prioritized and 
            implemented through this rule. BLM is requesting public 
            comment on several critical components of the conservation 
            lease proposal, highlighting the need to answer many 
            unknowns prior to any final rule being signed. Key details 
            should be fleshed out by the BLM and reopened for public 
            comment, including:

          +  the appropriate default lease duration

          +  acreage limits for conservation leases

          +  constraints on which lands are available for conservation 
        leasing

          +  clarification on what actions conservation leases may 
        allow

          +  eligibility of a lease holder

          +  requirement for conservation lease priorities to be set 
        within RMPs with public engagement

     The authorities granted under conservation leases (and 
            associated definition of `conservation') creates confusion 
            among other tools available for `protection and 
            restoration' including the National Conservation System, 
            ACECs, leases authorized for mitigation, and other tools. 
            As written, conservation leases appear to encompass 
            authorities under several existing tools. Protection (and 
            preservation) and restoration are authorities already 
            established through the National Conservation System, 
            ACECs, etc. Given this redundancy, `conservation leases' 
            should be focused on land enhancement or restoration with a 
            primary goal of maintaining or restoring prioritized 
            landscapes.

     A key concern in this proposed rule is the lack of clarity 
            in whether/how public access to BLM-managed land could be 
            limited under conservation leases. The proposed rule states 
            that a conservation lease, alone, is not intended to 
            preclude access to public lands; `although the purposes of 
            a lease may require that limitations to public access be 
            put in place in a given instance (Sec. 6102.4(a)(4) and 
            6102.4(a)(5)).' This ambiguous language opens up 
            significant uncertainty about public land access, 
            particularly given that conservation leases would be 
            approved solely through an authorized officer. Public use 
            for hunting, fishing, and other recreation should clearly 
            be defined as a `casual use' and not subject to 
            authorization on lands covered by a conservation lease 
            (6102.4(a)(5). Again, this highlights the need to integrate 
            this proposed program into a local public engagement 
            process. The preferred route would be to identify areas 
            eligible for conservation leases through the RMP process 
            and assess the potential effects of each lease through 
            NEPA, as is completed with other BLM leases/permits. This 
            would allow for proper analysis of the effects the proposed 
            actions may have on the environment, and the related social 
            and economic effects.

    RMEF appreciates this opportunity to comment on the BLM Proposed 
Rule: Conservation and Landscape Health, 43 CFR Parts 1600 and 6100, 
and looks forward to seeing future clarifications and details.

            Sincerely,

                                          Blake L. Henning,
                                         Chief Conservation Officer

                                 ______
                                 

                    American Forest Resource Council

                            Portland, Oregon

                                                  June 23, 2023    

U.S. Department of the Interior, Director
Bureau of Land Management
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

Re: Conservation and Landscape Health; RIN 1004-AE92; OMB Control 
        Number 1004-0NEW

    Dear Director Tracy Stone-Manning:

    The American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) submits the following 
comments on the Department of the Interior's proposal to create new 
regulations entitled, ``Conservation and Landscape Health,'' which 
seeks to prioritize the health and resilience of ecosystems on Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) lands. 88 Fed. Reg. 19,583 (Apr. 3, 2023).
    AFRC is a regional trade association whose purpose is to advocate 
for sustained yield timber harvests on public timberlands throughout 
the West to enhance forest health and resistance to fire, insects, and 
disease. We represent over 70 forest product businesses and forest 
landowners throughout the West. Many of our members have their 
operations in communities adjacent to BLM managed land that this new 
rule will impact, and the management of these lands ultimately dictates 
not only the viability of their businesses, but also the economic 
health of the communities themselves. Rural communities, such as those 
affected by this rule, are particularly sensitive to the forest 
products sector because more than 50% of all manufacturing jobs within 
these communities are in wood manufacturing.
    AFRC and its members strongly believe in--and practice--
conservation and the responsible use of natural resources that benefit 
current and future generations. Conservation is a principal of modern, 
science-based forest and natural resources management and a 
foundational value of our members--which include the very people who 
help steward America's public lands and forests throughout the West.
    AFRC believes that a sustainable supply of timber is important to, 
and an outcome of, healthy and resilient forest land. Further, working 
lands and conservation are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, we 
believe that misguided management paradigms, based on flawed and 
outdated concepts such as ``forest protection'' (but protection from 
what and from whom?), inadvertently inhibit the attainment of forest 
health and resilience. This flawed paradigm is most obvious in western 
states where high-intensity wildfire, insect infestations, and disease 
are responsible for more damage and destruction of federal lands than 
any other agent. This is partly evidenced by the ``25-Monitoring Report 
on Monitoring Consultation under the Northwest Forest Plan,'' which 
concluded that wildfire remains the leading cause for older forest 
losses on federal lands, accounting for about 70 percent of all losses 
since 1993.\1\ This report was published based on data collected prior 
to the disastrous 2020 Labor Day wildfires that impacted over 110,000 
acres of BLM managed land in western Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Davis, Raymond J. et al. 2022. Northwest Forest Plan--the first 
25 years (1994-2018): status and trends of late-successional and old-
growth forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-1004. Portland, OR: U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 
Station. 82 p., available at, https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/pubs/
pnw_gtr1004.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are fortunate to have a bedrock law in the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) that requires management based on 
the principles of multiple use and sustained yield ``in a manner that 
will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, 
environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological 
values.'' \2\ We are also fortunate to have existing regulations that 
require the BLM to solicit public input on potential uses of public 
land during the land management planning process. Based on these 
preexisting, clear guiding directions for a multitude of resources, we 
are confused by the intent of this proposed rule. We also believe that 
much of the substance of the rule is misguided or flawed. As explained 
below, we believe that this proposed rule was inappropriately developed 
with no stakeholder input or advanced notice and that the effects of 
this rule warrant preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) due to the significant effects on the human environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701(a)(8).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Below is a summary of the AFRC's comments:

     The proposed rule needs to clarify that multiple use does 
            not apply to the management of O&C Act timberlands.

     The proposed rule was inappropriately developed without 
            stakeholder input or advanced notification.

     The proposed rule undermines public participation in the 
            planning process.

     The proposed rule violates FLPMA's multiple use mandate 
            and misuses the term conservation.

     The BLM does not have statutory authority to create a 
            conservation leasing program.

     The proposed rule does not clarify how the government will 
            receive fair market value for conservation use.

     The concept of ``carbon offset credits'' is misguided and 
            should not be permitted through ``conservation leases.''

     The proposed rule's changes to the designation and 
            protection of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 
            violate FLPMA.

     The Economic and Threshold Analysis is flawed; the 
            proposed rule will likely have a significant material 
            effect on several facets of the economy.

     The effects of this rule warrant the preparation of an 
            EIS.

     The proposed rule was pushed forward in a manner 
            inconsistent with FLPMA's state and local government 
            coordination requirements.

                                COMMENTS

I. The proposed rule needs to clarify that multiple use does not apply 
        to the management of O&C Act timberlands.

    The proposed rule does not discuss the interplay between FLPMA's 
multiple use sustained yield obligations and the Oregon and California 
Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of 1937 (O&C Act), 43 
U.S.C. Sec. 2601, et seq. O&C lands are former railroad grant lands 
revested in the United States in 1916.\3\ In 1937, Congress enacted the 
O&C Act, which requires the subject lands to be devoted to ``permanent 
forest production,'' specifically mandating ``the timber thereon shall 
be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the princip[le] of 
sustained yield . . ..'' \4\,\5\ Under the O&C Act, 50 
percent of timber sale receipts are provided to the 18 counties in 
which the O&C lands are located, providing a substantial source of 
government revenues for these localities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Oregon & Cal. R.R. Co. v. United States, 238 U.S. 393 
(1915); Chamberlain-Ferris Act of June 9, 1916, 39 Stat. 218; February 
26, 1919 (40 Stat. 1179).
    \4\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 2601.
    \5\ 43 C.F.R. Sec. 5040.1 (BLM regulations recognizing its 
authority to divide O&C lands into sustained-yield forest units).
    \6\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 2605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress recognized that sustained-yield forestry would result in 
``providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, 
regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of 
local communities and industries, and providing recreational 
facil[i]ties.'' It also recognized the mandatory nature of sustained-
yield forestry on the lands when enacting legislation in 1948 to reopen 
the O&C lands to exploration location, entry, and disposition under the 
general mining laws.\7\ U.S. District Court Judge Leon recently 
provided that the ``BLM must ensure that the timber produced on O&C 
land is sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principle of 
sustained yield. These are mandatory directives from Congress.'' \8\ 
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has recognized the O&C Act ``as 
establishing timber production as the dominant use.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Act of Apr. 8, 1948, 80th Cong., 2d sess., ch. 179, Pub. L. No. 
80-477, 62 Stat. 162.
    \8\ Am. Forest Res. Council v. Nedd, No. 15-cv-01419 (RJL), 2021 WL 
6692032, (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 20-5008 
(consolidated with Nos. 20-5009, 20-5010, 20-5011, 22-5019, 22-5020, 
22-5021) (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2020).
    \9\ Headwaters, Inc. v. BLM, Medford Dist., 914 F.2d 1174, 1183 
(9th Cir. 1990); but see Murphy Co. v. Biden, 65 F.4th 1122 (9th Cir. 
2023) (petition for rehearing en banc filed on June 7, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although FLPMA generally governs BLM's management of federal lands 
under a multiple-use sustained-yield model, its savings clause provides 
that in the event of any conflict between its requirements and the O&C 
Act, the latter takes precedence.\10\ Because the O&C Act mandates 
dominant use management of O&C timberlands for sustained-yield timber 
harvest, other uses are allowed only when subordinated to sustained-
yield timber production.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 Savings Provisions Note (West 2010).
    \11\ Am. Forest Res. Council v. Nedd, No. 15-cv-01419 (RJL), 2021 
WL 6692032, (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 20-5008 
(consolidated with Nos. 20-5009, 20-5010, 20-5011, 22-5019, 22-5020, 
22-5021) (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the reasons stated above, the proposed rule, and its inclusion 
of conservation use, cannot be applied to O&C timberlands. Therefore, 
the final rule must clarify that it will not apply to the BLM's 
management of O&C timberlands.
II. The proposed rule was inappropriately developed without stakeholder 
        input or advanced notification.

    As an initial matter, AFRC is disappointed with the lack of 
stakeholder involvement before issuing the proposed rule, as well as 
the agency's engagement during the comment period. Despite the 
significant implications of the proposed rule to all multiple use and 
conservation communities, including the proposed rule's new 
conservation leasing program, the BLM did not appropriately engage 
stakeholders through an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) 
or Request for Information, which is a critical stage of participation 
to help shape the proposed rule. The BLM has also used a Notice of 
Intent to accompany the development of its analysis under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to help gather public input prior to 
proposing regulatory reform.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ See, e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Interior, Notice of 
Intent To Conduct a Review of the Federal Coal Leasing Program and To 
Seek Public Comment, 86 Fed. Reg. 46,873 (Aug. 20, 2021).

    Moreover, the BLM's truncated comment period of merely 75-days and 
perfunctory virtual public meetings is insufficient to meaningfully 
engage the public regarding the agency's rulemaking. With respect to 
the proposed rule's conservation leasing program, it is apparent that 
the BLM has more outstanding questions than answers on how the rule 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
should be finalized:

        Is the term ``conservation lease'' the best term for this 
        tool?; What is the appropriate default duration for 
        conservation leases?; Should the rule constrain which lands are 
        available for conservation leasing? For example, should 
        conservation leases be issued only in areas identified as 
        eligible for conservation leasing in an RMP or areas the BLM 
        has identified (either in an RMP or otherwise) as priority 
        areas for ecosystem restoration or wildlife habitat?; Should 
        the rule clarify what actions conservation leases may allow?; 
        Should the rule expressly authorize the use of conservation 
        leases to generate carbon offset credits?; Should conservation 
        leases be limited to protecting or restoring specific 
        resources, such as wildlife habitat, public water supply 
        watersheds, or cultural resources?

    Clearly, the agency would benefit from continued stakeholder 
engagement before finalizing a rule that will have major impacts on 
public land management into the future.
    For that reason, AFRC, along with a coalition, submitted a request 
that the BLM withdraw the proposed rule to reset the conversation and 
ensure that appropriate stakeholders are at the table to find durable 
solutions to some of the agency's challenges around multiple-use 
management.
III. The proposed rule undermines public participation in the planning 
        process.

    Section 202(f) of FLPMA states that the Secretary ``shall allow an 
opportunity for public involvement and by regulation shall establish 
procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to give 
Federal, State, and local governments and the public, adequate notice 
and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the formulation of 
plans and programs relating to the management of the public lands.'' 
\13\ Accordingly, the BLM's existing regulations pertinent to land use 
planning require an opportunity for meaningful public participation in 
the preparation of resource management plans and other planning 
activities.\14\ Additional regulations provide guidance and management 
direction regarding Resource Management Planning specific to issue 
identification. The ``identification of issues'' regulation states that 
``at the outset of the planning process, the public, other Federal 
agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes shall be given 
an opportunity to suggest concerns, needs, and resource use, 
development and protection opportunities for consideration in the 
preparation of the resource management plan.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1712(f).
    \14\ 43 C.F.R. Sec. 1610.2.
    \15\ 43 C.F.R. Sec. 1610.4-1 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, FLPMA does not specify or list potential uses on public 
lands; rather it directs the BLM to manage for multiple uses, with 
special consideration for the Nation's need for domestic sources of 
minerals, food, timber, and fiber.\16\ As the U.S. Supreme Court 
recognized, multiple use management ``is a deceptively simple term that 
describes the enormously complicated task of striking a balance among 
the many competing uses to which land can be put[.]'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ 43 U.S.C. 1701(12).
    \17\ Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 58 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prior to this proposed rule, the BLM had not identified any 
specific uses in its regulations. Instead, the BLM's regulations were 
developed to direct agency managers to solicit input from members of 
the public and local stakeholders when developing and prioritizing 
potential uses during the planning process.\18\ The proposed rule would 
largely take the public out of the resource use identification process 
by, for the first time since the passage of FLPMA in 1976, 
predetermining what the single priority use would be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ 43 C.F.R. Sec. 1610.4-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The existing regulations support and encourage an inclusive, 
citizen-based approach to public land management. Whereas the proposed 
rule presents a top-down, authoritative approach to public land 
management. It is unclear what ``problem'' the BLM is trying to solve 
by attempting to cut the public out of important components of the 
planning process by adopting this approach. Surely if the BLM believed 
that the public supports a single use for public land management guided 
exclusively by conservation principles, then development of this 
proposed rule would be unnecessary as the current practice of 
soliciting public input during the planning process would yield the 
same results. The fact that the BLM is inclined to codify a single use 
indicates a fear that open public participation may not yield the 
results that the current Administration desires. We believe this shift 
away from active public participation will ultimately result in flawed 
land management decisions and a public that is detached from its public 
lands.
IV. The proposed rule violates FLPMA's multiple use mandate and misuses 
        the term conservation.

    As outlined above, neither FLPMA nor existing regulations identify 
specific uses for BLM land. The proposed rule constructs a narrative 
based on the notion that 1) FLPMA does identify specific uses, 2) those 
uses are prioritized in FLPMA, and 3) conservation is among those 
existing uses. The Executive Summary asserts that the proposed rule 
``clarifies that conservation is a use on par with other uses of the 
public lands under FLPMA's multiple-use and sustained-yield 
framework.'' This Summary also asserts that ``the proposed rule does 
not prioritize conservation above other uses; it puts conservation on 
an equal footing with other uses, consistent with the plain language of 
FLPMA.'' However, such ``plain language'' simply does not exist in 
FLPMA.
    Section 103(c) of FLPMA defines ``multiple use'' as ``a combination 
of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-
term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable 
resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, 
minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific 
and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the 
various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of 
the land and the quality of the environment.'' \19\ Neither this 
section nor any other section in FLPMA identifies or prioritizes 
specific uses. Instead, uses are developed through public engagement 
during the planning process, as noted previously. Furthermore, there 
are no existing BLM regulations that emphasize any single use--the 
proposed rule, if adopted, would represent the first and only time that 
the BLM adopts a single use through the regulatory process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, the proposed rule does not propose to clarify any 
component of FLPMA, since those components do not exist. Nor is it 
proposing to put conservation on ``equal footing'' with other uses, 
since no other uses are codified into law or adopted in regulation. The 
proposed rule's clarification that ``conservation'' qualifies as a 
``use'' under FLPMA is a significant change to the current management 
scheme. The BLM can only manage lands for the multiple uses defined in 
FLPMA, unless the land has been specifically dedicated for certain 
management. The proposed rule's inclusion of conservation as a use 
permits the BLM to manage land for conservation purposes, without a 
special land use designation. The proposed rule constrains the 
multiple-use mandate in FLPMA by defining and listing a single, 
priority use: conservation. Therefore, the adoption of the proposed 
rule would violate the requirement to manage public lands under the 
principles of multiple use under Section 302(a) of FLPMA.
    Throughout the proposed rule, the BLM makes additional 
proclamations that are simply unsupported by existing law or 
regulation. In one instance, the BLM claims that the proposed rule 
``identifies and requires practices to ensure that the BLM manages the 
public lands to allow multiple uses while retaining and building 
resilience to achieve sustained yield of renewable resources.'' Nowhere 
in the proposed rule does the BLM even reference uses other than 
``conservation,'' let alone identify and require practices that would 
ensure their inclusion in future BLM management plans. In fact, Section 
III.B. of the proposed rule acknowledges that the BLM has only three 
ways to manage for conservation use: (1) protection of intact, native 
habitats, (2) restoration of degraded habitats, and (3) informed 
decision making, primarily in plans, programs, and permits.\20\ If the 
proposed rule were adopted, the BLM managers would not only be shackled 
to adhering to a single use, but also to parsing their land base into 
distinct categories and applying narrowly defined treatments to each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ 88 Fed. Reg. at 19,585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is questionable whether the BLM even has the legal and statutory 
authority to designate ``conservation'' as a use. It is Congress who 
has provided the BLM with its multiple use and sustained yield 
authority, and any new authorities or new uses would require an Act of 
Congress. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated: ``Agencies have 
only those powers given to them by Congress, and `enabling legislation' 
is generally not an `open book to which the agency [may] add pages and 
change the plot line.' '' W. Virginia v. Env't Prot. Agency, 142 S. Ct. 
2587, 2609 (2022). Before FLPMA was enacted, each use was authorized 
under other laws like the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Mining Law 
of 1872, and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. And after FLPMA was 
enacted, each time a ``use'' was added to the multiple-use management 
scheme under FLPMA, Congress authorized parameters and directed the BLM 
to address that use.
    Furthermore, conservation itself cannot be appropriately 
characterized as a ``use.'' According to the plain reading of the term, 
``conservation'' is a purpose or an objective for how another use is 
applied. For example, the Cambridge English Dictionary defines the term 
``conservation'' as ``carefully using valuable natural substances that 
exist in limited amounts in order to make certain that they will be 
available for as long a time as possible.'' The Cambridge Dictionary 
provides the following sentence as an example of how the term 
``conservation'' should be used: ``the main objectives are the 
conservation of materials and energy in support of the sustainable 
development program.'' \21\ In this example, the use is some type of 
development and conservation is the objective that informs the manner 
in which that development will be conducted. Other dictionaries 
similarly define conservation. The Oxford Languages Dictionary \22\ 
defines conservation as ``prevention of wasteful use of a resource,'' 
and the Webster's Third New International Dictionary \23\ defines it as 
``the planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, 
destruction, or neglect.'' Based on its plain language, conservation is 
applied to describe another resource ``use,'' but the term conservation 
is not defined as a use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Cambridge English Dictionary, available at https://
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conservation.
    \22\ Oxford Languages Dictionary, available at https://www.oed.com/
view/Entry/39564? redirectedFrom=conservation#eid.
    \23\ Webster's Third New International Dictionary, p. 483 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Technical dictionaries are also helpful when interpreting the term 
``conservation.'' The Society of American Foresters Dictionary of 
Forestry defines conservation as ``the management of a renewable 
natural resource with the objective of sustaining its productivity in 
perpetuity while providing for human use compatible with sustainability 
of the resource.'' \24\ The ``use'' in this definition is the natural 
resource being managed for, and the term ``conservation'' refers to the 
objective of using that natural resource in a particular way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Deal, Robert, Society of American Foresters Dictionary of 
Forestry, p. 36 (2nd ed. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the BLM's position to the contrary, conservation in the 
context of land management cannot be applied by itself. For example, 
conservation of any given acre of land can only be achieved if there is 
a specific use being applied to that acre. If that acre is being used 
for cattle grazing, conservation could be achieved by limiting the 
intensity of that grazing to ensure productivity. If that acre is being 
used for timber harvesting, conservation could be achieved by 
moderation of the intensity of the harvest and replanting to ensure 
long-term forest health and productivity. Land conservation is 
attainable under each of these scenarios because that land was being 
used; however, the ``use'' could not be defined as ``conservation.'' 
Conservation absent any other use is not conservation at all, it is 
preservation. If BLM's intent in the proposed rule is non-use of public 
land, then the word ``conservation'' should be replaced by the word 
``preservation'' and defined accordingly.
V. The BLM does not have the authority to create a conservation leasing 
        program.

    Section 6102.4 creates a Conservation Leasing Program, which will 
allow conservation leases for either ``restoration or land 
enhancement'' or ``mitigation.'' \25\ The proposed rule claims that its 
authority to create a conservation leasing program arises under section 
302(b) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732(b). According to the proposed 
rule, the Tenth Circuit in Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Tidwell, 572 
F.3d 1115, 1127 (10th Cir. 2009) (Greater Yellowstone), has recognized 
that section 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732(b) is considerably broader than the 
authority granted in subject-specific provisions. As stated above, it 
is questionable whether the BLM has authority to create a leasing 
program for conservation as a use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ 88 Fed. Reg. at 19,591.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BLM's reliance on Greater Yellowstone is misguided and 
misleading. In that case, the court primarily discussed the interplay 
between special use permits granted under 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1737(b) and 
BLM permitting in general under 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732(b). At issue was a 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the BLM and the State of 
Wyoming. The court held that the BLM did not violate the agency's 
permitting regulations under 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732(b) by authorizing the 
State to use BLM lands through a cooperative agreement, the MOU, under 
43 U.S.C. Sec. 1737(b). The court merely stated that the applicability 
of 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732(b) is broader than that of 43 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1737(b), which is logical because 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1737(b) is only 
meant to apply to special uses. See Greater Yellowstone, 572 F.3d 1115, 
1127-28. The decision in Greater Yellowstone simply cannot be validly 
interpreted as a case that supports the position that the BLM has broad 
authority under 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732(b) to promulgate an entirely new 
public land use and leasing program through rulemaking without an Act 
of Congress.
    More pertinent and illustrative is another Tenth Circuit decision 
in Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, holding that a 1995 regulation--
that allowed a permit for a 10-year duration to use public lands for 
conservation use to the exclusion of livestock grazing--was not 
authorized by any statute and, therefore, was invalid. The court found 
that the conservation use was not authorized under the Taylor Grazing 
Act, FLPMA, or the Public Rangelands Improvement Act, and that the 
primary purpose of the permits had to be a use: livestock grazing. 
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287, 1308 (10th Cir. 1999). 
The court found that the Secretary of the Interior lacked the statutory 
authority to issue grazing permits intended exclusively for 
conservation use. Further, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the 
Secretary did not seek review of that portion of the Tenth Circuit's 
decision. See Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728, 747 
(2000). And while the proposed rule, here, claims that the conservation 
leases are ``not intended to provide a mechanism for precluding other 
uses, such as grazing, mining, and recreation,'' it is hard to imagine 
how that will not be the end result.
    Even if a conservation leasing program is somehow lawful, the BLM's 
proposed rule has several issues. The proposed rule states conservation 
leases ``would not override valid existing rights or preclude other, 
subsequent authorizations so long as those subsequent authorizations 
are compatible with conservation use.'' First, the BLM has failed to 
define what is a ``compatible'' use under the conservation leasing 
program. There is no assurance that forest management, like treatments 
to improve forest health and resiliency, can be considered a 
conservation tool and, ultimately, a ``compatible use'' within the 
meaning of the proposed rule. Second, the use of the term ``so long 
as'' indicates the BLM's clear intent to negate all other uses, in 
conflict with FLPMA's multiple-use, sustained yield mandate.
    Overall, the proposed rule's conservation leasing program could put 
legally valid and ecologically necessary forest management projects at 
risk. This would be a perverse outcome that directly conflicts with the 
Biden Administration's focus and prioritization of the nation's forest 
health and wildfire crisis. Further, the use of a conservation lease 
for ``restoration'' or ``mitigation'' will remove operable lands from 
BLM's timber sale program. The BLM needs to carefully consider how the 
conservation leasing program can be done ``without permanent impairment 
of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with 
consideration being given to the relative values of the resources . . . 
.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. The proposed rule does not clarify how the government will receive 
        fair market value for conservation use.

    Section 102(a)(9) of FLPMA requires that the United States receives 
fair market value of the use of the public lands and their resources 
unless otherwise provided for by statute. The proposed rule seeks input 
on fair market value assessment, but only in the context of 
conservation leases. The proposed rule lacks direction on how such 
values would be assessed for actions or inactions associated with 
conservation use outside of leases; nor does it direct how, if 
assessed, such value would be received by the government.
    Fair market value for tangible uses such as timber or grazing 
rights can be determined using a competitive open market system. How 
the BLM is to assess the value of the ``protection'' of 100 ``intact'' 
acres of BLM land through inaction is unclear. Moreover, if the BLM was 
able to assess fair market value for those 100 acres set aside from any 
other uses, from whom would they receive that value? The proposed 
rule's discussion of fair market value generates more questions than 
answers, and the BLM must provide greater clarity before finalizing the 
rule. The lack of information raises questions about government 
accountability, transparency, and proper oversight of any leasing 
program and the determination of fair market value for public assets 
that are collectively owned by the American people.
VII. The concept of carbon offset credits is misguided and should not 
        be permitted through conservation leases.

    The proposed rule's section 6102.4 discusses FLPMA authorizations 
to regulate the use, occupancy, or development of public lands through 
leases, and outlines the concept of conservation leases under these 
authorizations. Specifically, the proposed rule asks for public comment 
on whether the rule should expressly authorize the use of conservation 
leases to generate carbon offset credits.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ 88 Fed. Reg. at 19,591.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BLM is asking the wrong question in the proposed rule. The 
question should not be whether to authorize the use of conservation 
leases to generate carbon offset credits. The question should be 
whether the concept of carbon offset credits is an effective strategy 
to slow the effects of climate change through increased net carbon 
sequestration and decreased net carbon emissions. The effectiveness of 
delaying or halting the potential harvest of timber, or the use of 
other renewable resources, to enable polluters the ability to continue 
to emit greenhouse gases through carbon offset credits is highly 
controversial and uncertain--scientifically, economically, 
environmentally, and socially--and we urge the BLM to take a hard look 
at the many facets of this practice to determine if its expansion to 
BLM land is in the public's best interest.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2022 6th 
Assessment reaffirmed the carbon mitigation benefits of sustainable 
forest management, the benefits of substituting wood for more carbon 
intensive building products, and the potential negative consequences of 
policies that reduce sustainable timber harvests as the demand for wood 
products shifts to other countries (known as ``leakage'') with less 
stringent environmental protections:

        carbon storage in wood products and the potential for 
        substitution effects can be increased by additional harvest, 
        but with the risk of decreasing carbon storage in forest 
        biomass when not done sustainably (Smith et al. 2019b). 
        Conversely, reduced harvest may lead to gains in carbon storage 
        in forest ecosystems locally, but these gains may be offset 
        through international trade of forest products causing 
        increased harvesting pressure or even degradation elsewhere 
        (Pendrill et al. 2019b; Kastner et al. 2011; Kallio and Solberg 
        2018).\28\ (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ IPCC, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and 
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056 pp. (2022).

    We urge the BLM to follow the guidance of the IPCC and consider the 
effects of sustainable forest management, substitution, and leakage 
when determining the effectiveness of carbon offset credits.
A. Sustainable forest management is a more effective tool to sequester 
        carbon.

    Active forest management is more effective in capturing and storing 
atmospheric carbon in forest and wood product carbon pools than a 
policy of hands-off management that precludes periodic harvests and the 
use of wood products. This notion is supported by analysis of the most 
recent U.S. Forest Service Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program's 
report that summarize differences in growth (and hence sequestration) 
between owner types reflecting these different management 
strategies.\29\,\30\ This is also consistent with the 
findings and recommendations of international scientific bodies, 
including the IPCC. In fact, the IPCC's 4th Assessment recognized the 
carbon mitigation benefits of forests and wood products:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Oswalt, Sonja N., et al., Forest Resources of the United 
States, 2017: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2020 
RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-97. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, p. 223 (2019), 
available at https://doi.org/10.2737/WO-GTR-97.
    \30\ Palmer, Marine et al., Washington's forest resources, 2007-
2016: 10-year Forest Inventory and Analysis report, Gen. Tech. Rep. 
PNWGTR-976. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, p.79 (2019).

        ``Mitigation options by the forestry sector include extending 
        carbon retention in harvested wood products, product 
        substitution, and producing biomass for bio-energy. This carbon 
        is removed from the atmosphere and is available to meet 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        society's needs for timber, fiber, and energy.''

        ``In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy 
        aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while 
        producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fiber or energy 
        from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation 
        benefit.''

    Other research supports the notion that, if the role of forests in 
combatting climate change is to reduce global greenhouse gasses through 
maximizing the sequestration of carbon from atmospheric CO2, 
then increasing the acreage of young, fast growing small trees is the 
most prudent management approach. A 2016 study in the Pacific Northwest 
concluded that, although large trees accumulated carbon at a faster 
rate than small trees on an individual basis, their contribution to 
carbon accumulation rates was smaller on an area basis, and their 
importance relative to small trees declined in older stands compared to 
younger stands. It also noted that although large trees are important 
carbon stocks, they play a minor role in additional carbon 
accumulation.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Gray, A. N., et al., Carbon stocks and accumulation rates in 
Pacific Northwest forests: role of stand age, plant community, and 
productivity, Ecosphere 7(1):e01224. 10.1002/ecs2.1224 (2016).

    These conclusions support the practice of regular harvests at an 
age where tree growth begins to slow, storage of that tree carbon in 
long-lasting wood products, and proactive reforestation. A failure to 
do so would hamper that acre's ability to maximize carbon sequestration 
through the replacement of slow growing large trees with fast growing 
small trees and the storage of those large trees in long-lasting wood 
products. Not storing that carbon in wood products also poses the risk 
of losing the carbon in standing trees from high intensity wildfire, 
which is becoming increasingly prevalent on public lands in western 
states. A 2022 study estimated that wildfires in California in 2020 
emitted 127 million metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere, making 
the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from wildfires the second most 
important source in the state, after transportation.\32\ For context, 
the U.S. Forest Service recently disclosed that the agency only 
``commercially harvests one tenth of one percent of acres within the 
National Forest System each year. Harvests designed to improve stand 
health and resilience by reducing forest density or removing trees 
damaged by insect or disease make up 86 percent of those acres. The 
remainder are final regeneration harvests that are designed to be 
followed by reforestation.'' \33\ There is extraordinary opportunity to 
increase the practice of sustainable forest management on federal lands 
as an effective tool to sequester carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Jerrett, Michael, et al., Up in smoke: California's greenhouse 
gas reductions could be wiped out by 2020 wildfires. Environmental 
Pollution, Volume 310, 2022, 119888,ISSN 0269-7491, available at, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119888.
    \33\ 88 Fed. Reg. 24,497 (April 21, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Harvesting trees and transferring the stored carbon to wood 
products allows a land manager to ``stack'' the sequestration potential 
of that land. For example, assume an objective to maximize carbon 
sequestration on 100 acres over a 150-year period starting at year 
zero. Without active management and timber harvest, those trees would 
grow to 150 years and represent the only carbon sequestered on those 
100 acres at the end of the 150-year cycle (assuming they don't burn in 
a wildfire). Alternatively, the trees could be harvested on a 50-year 
rotation and stored in wood products. After 150 years, there would be 
carbon stored in an existing 50-year-old stand, plus carbon stored in 
wood products from an additional two 50-year-old stands previously 
harvested. The figure below illustrates the concept of stacking.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ McKinley, Duncan C., et al., A synthesis of current knowledge 
on forests and carbon storage in the United States, Ecological 
Applications, 21(6), pp. 1902-1924 (2011).

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    A 2013 study from the Journal of Sustainable Forestry 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summarized these concepts well:

        More CO2 can be sequestered synergistically in the 
        products or wood energy and landscape together than in the 
        unharvested landscape. Harvesting sustainably at an optimum 
        stand age will sequester more carbon in the combined products, 
        wood energy, and forest than harvesting sustainably at other 
        ages.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Oliver, Chadwick Dearing, et al., Carbon, Fossil Fuel, and 
Biodiversity Mitigation With Wood and Forests, Journal of Sustainable 
Forestry, 33:3, 248-275 (2014), DOI: 10.1080/10549811.2013.839386.

    To further illustrate, Figure 5 shows the volume growth of a 
Douglas-fir forest across five different ``site'' growing ground 
scenarios.\36\ Basal area is a measurement of the ``volume'' of tree 
stems across a given acre. Basal area correlates to carbon 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sequestration as it describes how much tree volume exists.

    \36\ McArdle, R. E., et al., The yield of Douglas-fir in the 
Pacific Northwest, Technical Bulletin No. 201, Department of 
Agriculture, Forest Service (1961).

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Consider the curve for ``Site III.'' At 50 years, that acre has 
accumulated about 205 square feet (sq. ft) of basal area. At 150 years, 
that acre has accumulated about 325 sq. ft of basal area. If the trees 
on that acre were left to grow for 150 years, 325 sq. ft of basal area 
and associated carbon would be sequestered by the end of the cycle. If 
those trees were cut and replanted every 50 years in a 150-year period, 
615 sq. ft worth of basal area and associated carbon would be 
sequestered (205 sq. ft x 3=615 sq. ft) by year 150. With this 
scenario, a land manager could capture nearly twice as much tree 
growth, and sequester nearly twice as much carbon, on a 50-year harvest 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cycle than by leaving those trees to grow for 150 years.

    Since basal area is only a measure of tree volume above ground, it 
does not account for tree volume below ground in the form of roots. 
Root growth is also a form of carbon sequestration. The concept we 
applied to above-ground growth could be replicated to below-ground 
growth. Consider the scenario where an acre of Douglas-fir is left to 
grow for 150 years. At the end of the cycle, there would be one network 
of roots below the ground. When trees are harvested the roots are left 
underground. So, in the scenario where trees are harvested every 50 
years over the 150-year cycle, there will be three root networks 
underground at the end of the cycle instead of one. That additional 
below-ground growth further contributes to the overall sequestration 
capacity of any given acre of land.
B. Leakage.

    Leakage occurs when emissions that are prevented in one locale are 
simply transferred to another region. Deferred harvests on BLM lands 
through the leasing of carbon offset credits will result in reduced 
timber supply in the region where those leases are sold. If certain 
mills must reduce lumber production due to a lack of available timber, 
this lumber production and the related emissions will merely shift to 
another state or country to meet domestic demand with additional 
transportation-related emissions.
    A 2019 study calculated that there is nearly 82 percent leakage in 
California from the implementation of its carbon cap-and-trade 
program.\37\ That means that 82 percent of the projects do not confer 
global greenhouse gas benefits because the emissions occur elsewhere. 
Productivity per acre in the Pacific Northwest, where the BLM manages 
over 2.5 million acres of forest land, is about 74 percent higher than 
the U.S. average and therefore for every acre removed from harvest in 
the Pacific Northwest, an average of 3.85 acres with average U.S. 
productivity are required elsewhere to fill the void.\38\ If the wood 
supply comes from more boreal regions (e.g., Russia and Canada), we can 
expect the impact to be even larger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Haya, Barbara and William Stewart, POLICY BRIEF: The 
California Air Resources Board's U.S. Forest offset protocol 
underestimates leakage (July 12, 2019).
    \38\ Oswalt, Sonja N. et al., Forest Resources of the United 
States, 2017: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2020 
RPA Assessment, Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-97. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, p. 223 (2019), 
available at, https://doi.org/10.2737/WO-GTR-97.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Substitution.

    Substitution occurs when a different product is used in place of 
the wood product that is withheld from the market by harvest deferral. 
In the case of softwood lumber, this substitution may occur with 
concrete, steel, or other composite materials that have much higher 
emissions associated with their production--leading to a net increase 
in carbon emissions due to the harvest deferral. A 2018 study yielded 
results that showed a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions 
for structures using wood as a building material as opposed to concrete 
or steel.\39\ A 2021 study clearly showed the potential of carbon 
emission reductions that could be achieved in mass timber construction 
compared to the construction of traditional concrete mid- to high-rise 
buildings.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Laurent, A. B., et al., Comparative Lifecycle Carbon Footprint 
of a Non-Residential Steel and Wooden Building Structures. Curr Trends 
Forest Res, CTFR-128 (2018).
    \40\ Puettmann, M. et al., Comparative LCAs of Conventional and 
Mass Timber Buildings in Regions with Potential for Mass Timber 
Penetration. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13987 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Published displacement and substitution factors are available to 
quantify the efficiency of using a wood-based product to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere compared to a non-wood 
alternative product. A 2020 meta-analysis quantified the range of 
greenhouse gas benefits of wood substitution and provided a clear 
climate rationale for increasing wood substitution in place of other 
products, provided that forests are sustainably managed and that wood 
residues are used responsibly.\41\ A 2021 study published in The 
Journal of Sustainable Forestry used recently published life cycle 
assessment data for analysis that compares the carbon consequences of a 
`no-harvest' alternative for Pacific Northwest forests to a range of 
alternative uses.\42\ They found that accounting for only the harvested 
wood products (e.g., no substitution or solid waste disposal site 
storage) generates 1.2 times greater benefits than no harvest 
alternatives. When substitution is considered, the carbon benefit 
increases 1.6 to 5.9 times better than no harvest alternatives, 
depending on end uses. These climate mitigation benefits are real, 
measurable, and predictable. The BLM must consider and analyze these 
factors when assessing the effectiveness of carbon offset credit 
leases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Sathre, R. and J. O'Connor, Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas 
displacement factors of wood product substitution, Environmental 
Science & Policy 13(2): 104-114 (2010).
    \42\ Lippke, B., et al., The Plant a Trillion Trees Campaign to 
Reduce Global Warming--Fleshing Out the Concept, Journal of Sustainable 
Forestry 40(1): 1-31 (2021).

    The National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) 
recently conducted an analysis of the effect of deferred harvests on 
carbon storage, carbon sequestration rates, carbon emissions, and costs 
in a review document entitled ``NCASI Review of Carbon Implications of 
Proforestation.'' \43\ Below is a summary of its findings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ NCASI, Review of Carbon Implications of Proforestation (2020), 
available at, https://www.ncasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/
Review_Carbon_Implications_Proforestation_Dec 2020.pdf.

        The analysis was based on recent forest inventory data on 
        private, planted Douglas-fir forests in Oregon and Washington. 
        One of the scenarios included a 10% reduction in overall 
        harvest volumes compared to a current baseline, resulting in 
        extending the average harvest age by 12 years. Emissions from 
        substitute products were estimated using published displacement 
        factors, which express the emissions from a non-wood product 
        per unit of emissions from the use of a comparable wood 
        product. Positive values indicate that using a non-wood 
        substitute causes more GHG emissions than using a wood product. 
        Reported average factors for construction lumber substitutes 
        range from 0.54 (Smyth et al. 2017) to 1.2 (Leskinen et al. 
        2018) to 2.1 (Sathre and O'Connor 2010). The deferred harvest 
        scenario resulted in about a 4.5% reduction in annual net 
        sequestration rates after considering substitution effects 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        (using the most conservative displacement factor).

    The NCASI analysis compared net carbon sequestration over 100 years 
for four forest management alternatives: proforestation (continuous 
forest growth, no timber harvest--essentially what a BLM carbon offset 
credit lease would resemble), a 10% reduction in harvest through 
extended rotations, the current baseline of forest management practices 
on private, planted forests, and a 10% increase in harvest levels 
through more active forest management. Table 2 and Figure 8 from the 
NCASI review clearly show that alternatives that reduce timber harvests 
result in a net reduction in the carbon sequestered in private, planted 
Douglas-fir forests in the Northwest.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    We urge the BLM to strongly consider this compendium of 
scientific literature and empirical data before concluding that 
generating carbon offset credits is an effective way to reduce net GHG 
emissions.
VIII. The proposed rule's changes to the designation and protection of 
        Areas of Critical Environmental Concern violate FLPMA.

    Section 202 (c)(3) of FLPMA directs the BLM to give priority to the 
designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern 
(ACEC). Section 1610.7-2 of the proposed rule codifies this 
prioritization, specifically during the land use planning process, but 
also outside of the land use planning process. Subsection (c)(3) 
requires managers to actively solicit ACEC ``nominations'' from the 
public when developing new plans or revising existing plans. This 
subsection also acknowledges that nominations can be submitted and 
considered outside of the land use planning process, effectively 
creating an open solicitation period for ACEC nominations. Upon 
receiving such nominations, the proposed rule allows for ``interim 
management'' to be applied until the BLM assesses whether those 
nominations are consistent with current RMPs. There is no language in 
the proposed rule that requires this ``interim management'' to be 
consistent with current RMPs; in fact, it suggests that it may not be 
because the BLM would impose it while they ``assess whether the 
nomination is consistent with current Plans.'' This open nomination 
period and interim management option has the potential to significantly 
disrupt ongoing management activities, particularly by those 
stakeholders who oppose such activities.
    Furthermore, we believe that the authorization to permit ACEC 
nominations and establish ``interim management'' that may be 
inconsistent with existing Plans violates Section 202 of FLPMA. FLPMA 
does not grant the authority to establish ACECs outside of land use 
planning. Section 202(a) states that ``[t]he Secretary shall, with 
public involvement and consistent with the terms and conditions of this 
Act, develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans 
which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands.'' 
\44\ Section 202(c) permits the prioritization of ACECs ``[i]n the 
development and revision of land use plans.'' \45\ However, there is no 
authorization that allows the BLM to accept ``nominations'' for ACECs 
at any time and to establish ``interim management'' that may disrupt 
ongoing activities that are consistent with existing RMPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1712(a).
    \45\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1712(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The proposed rule also seeks to eliminate public notification of 
nominated ACECs by removing the existing requirement in current 
regulation 1610.7-2(b) that the BLM publish a Federal Register notice 
relating to proposed ACECs and allow for 60 days of public comment. The 
proposed rule indicates that the 60-day notification process is 
redundant with ``other Federal Register publication requirements that 
apply to land use planning.'' What the proposed rule fails to 
acknowledge is that ACEC nominations that occur outside of the land use 
planning process would not be publicly vetted through other Federal 
Register publication requirements that apply to land use planning. The 
removal of the 60-day public notification period would enable a back 
door for ACEC nominations to be adopted free of public review and 
participation.
    The combination of 1) permitting ACEC nominations outside of the 
land use planning process; 2) elimination of the 60-day public comment 
period; and 3) the establishment of ``interim management'' that may be 
inconsistent with existing RMP direction, would effectively provide an 
avenue for any person to disrupt ongoing management activities 
consistent with current Plan direction without public participation. 
Such actions go far beyond FLPMA's direction to prioritize the 
designation of ACECs and violate Section 202 of the Act.
IX. The Economic and Threshold Analysis is flawed; the proposed rule 
        will likely have a significant material effect on several 
        facets of the economy.

    The BLM determined that the proposed rule did not meet a threshold 
established by Executive Order 12866, which requires the Office of 
Management and Budget review if a proposed regulation would ``have an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely 
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.'' We 
believe that the single use nature of the proposed rule and the 
uncertainty surrounding the management directives associated with that 
single use will adversely affect certain sectors of the economy, the 
productivity of those economies, competition, and jobs in a material 
way. The Threshold Analysis does not consider these effects and, 
therefore, concludes incorrectly that the proposed rule is not 
economically significant.
    The Threshold Analysis asserts that the proposed rule requirements 
are consistent with the BLM's mandate to manage the public lands for 
multiple use and sustained yield, avoid unnecessary and undue 
degradation, and do not appreciably restrict the decision-space 
compared to a baseline without the proposed rule. As already discussed, 
the proposed rule would establish a new approach of single use 
management on BLM land, potentially on millions of acres of public 
land. Public input on uses for local management units would be confined 
to the conservation framework, and BLM land managers' decision space 
would be significantly restricted. The BLM's assertion to the contrary 
in its Threshold Analysis reflects a flawed understanding of the 
proposed rule, FLPMA, and existing regulations; and its conclusion that 
the proposed rule is not economically significant reflects a flawed 
understanding of the natural resource economy.
    The forest products industry represents the economic and social 
fabric of many rural communities in western states. The BLM's timber 
programs in Montana, Idaho, and Oregon generate over $800 million in 
total economic output and support 3,579 jobs.\46\ Montana, where the 
BLM manages 1.3 million acres of forest land, is home to a forest 
products industry that is one of the largest components of 
manufacturing in the state and employs over 7,200 people, earning $320 
million annually.\47\ The economic activity associated with this direct 
employment generated additional economic opportunities by relying on 
other industries for raw and intermediate inputs and services, thus 
indirectly bolstering employment and wages in additional sectors. 
Public lands supplied 57 percent of the harvest in 2018. Between 2014 
and 2018, one large mill, one plywood plant, and numerous small mills 
in Montana closed permanently. Timber processing capacity dropped from 
635 MMBF in 2014 to 489 MMBF in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ BLM, A Sound Investment for America, (2022), available at, 
Socioeconomic Data/Bureau of Land Management (blm.gov).
    \47\ Morgan, Todd A., Montana's Forest Industry Employment and 
Income Trends, Declining Harvest Volumes and Increasing Productivity, 
Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. Forest 
Industry Technical Report No. 8 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BLM manages 770,000 acres of forest land in Idaho. More than 
12,700 workers were directly employed by Idaho's forest industry during 
2019, with 9,350 in primary and secondary wood products and paper 
manufacturing, 2,200 in forestry and logging, and 1,100 in forestry 
support activities. Together, these workers earned about $1.03 billion 
during 2019.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Simmons, Eric A., et al., Timber Basket of the Interior west: 
Idaho's Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, Forest Industry 
Research Program, University of Montana (2019), available at, http://
www.bber.umt.edu/pubs/forest/fidacs/ID2019%20Tables.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Oregon, where the BLM manages over 2.5 million acres of forest 
land, the forestry sector generates over $18 billion in output, over 
71,000 jobs, and over $8 billion in state gross domestic product. For 
every one million board feet of timber harvested on BLM lands in 
western Oregon, 13 local non-federal jobs are created or maintained, 
and an estimated $647,000 of non-federal employment income is 
introduced into local economies.\49\ The total economic contribution 
from the BLM's timber harvest is greater than employment income alone. 
In 2019, BLM timber sales contributed approximately $625 million to 
Oregon's economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ USDI, BLM, PRMP/FEIS for the RMPs for Western Oregon; Volume 
2. Table 3-181, pp. 778 (2016).

    Technical reports from both 2010 \50\,\51\ and 2012 \52\ 
completed for the Forest Service determined, among other things, that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Hayes, Steven W., et al., Montana's forest products industry 
and timber harvest, 2018. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-35. Fort Collins, CO: 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 
Station. 54 p. (2021), available at, https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-RB-
35.
    \51\ Ince, P.J.; et al., U.S. forest products module: a technical 
document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA assessment. Res. Pap. 
FPL-RP-662. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 61 p. (2011).
    \52\ Skog, Kenneth E., et al., Status and Trends for the U.S. 
Forest Products Sector: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest 
Service 2010 RPA Assessment. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-207. 
Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest 
Products Laboratory. 35 p. (2012).

     The forest products sector helps sustain the social, 
            economic, and ecological benefits of forestry in the United 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            States.

     Product revenues sustain economic benefits that include 
            jobs and income.

     Ecological and social benefits can be supported by timber 
            revenue to landowners that help keep land in forests and by 
            forest treatments that can help maintain ecological 
            functions.

     Wood products fulfill fundamental needs per capita and 
            have remained competitive with alternate means of meeting 
            those needs.

     U.S. lumber production and demand are expected to increase 
            through 2040.

    Impacts to the economies in these states caused by reductions to 
federal timber supply are well documented. In March 2019, Swanson 
Group, which has been a family operated company since 1951, was forced 
to permanently close its sawmill in Glendale, Oregon. According to a 
Random Lengths report, Swanson said the closure was necessitated by log 
supply constraints forced on the company by federal timber policy.\53\ 
In 2016, after over 90 years in business, Rough & Ready permanently 
closed its sawmill in Cave Junction, Oregon, representing the last 
sawmill in Josephine County. In 1975, the county boasted 22 sawmills. 
By 2003, that number dropped to six. Today, there are zero. In an 
interview with the newspaper The Oregonian, the family-owned mill's co-
owner cited a lack of federal timber supply for the closure despite the 
fact that 80 percent of the forest land surrounding the mill is 
federally managed. The closure resulted in the loss of 85 jobs in a 
town with a population of less than 2,000.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Timber Industry News, Swanson Group to permanently close its 
Glendale sawmill (March 14, 2019), available at, https://
www.timberindustrynews.com/swanson-group-permanently-close-glendale-
sawmill/.
    \54\ Oregon Live, Closure of Rough & Ready mill in Josephine County 
highlights logging stalemate in Congress (April 19, 2013), available at 
https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2013/04/
closure_of_rough_ready_in_mill.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The management paradigm outlined in the proposed rule would result 
in highly uncertain outputs from BLM managed land. Those outputs 
comprise the raw material that forms the foundation of the rural 
economies in Oregon, Idaho, and Montana that we outline above. This 
uncertainty is a function of the single use nature of the proposed rule 
and the directives to attain this use outlined in the proposed rule.
    Since FLPMA was enacted, the BLM managed its lands based on the 
principle of multiple use with local public input used to identify and 
prioritize those uses. If finalized, this rule would lead the BLM down 
an entirely new path where outputs and benefits from BLM land would be 
entirely a function of how ``conservation'' is interpreted and applied 
by each BLM managing unit. This uncertainty is exacerbated by 
directives for ``protection of intact landscapes'' and ``restoration'' 
described in sections 6102.1, 6102.2, and 6102.3. These sections 
essentially divide BLM lands into two categories: those that are intact 
and those that are not. The management, or lack thereof, of these lands 
would be driven exclusively by either the protection and maintenance of 
intactness or the need to apply restoration to achieve intactness.
    Under this paradigm, an acre of BLM forest land, for example, may 
be identified as ``not intact'' and in need of intermediate timber 
harvest to ``restore'' its intactness or identified as ``intact'' but 
in need of intermediate timber harvest to ``protect'' its state. The 
timber outputs from those treatments would be a function of the level 
of restoration or protection warranted, and therefore unknown. Another 
acre may be identified as ``intact'' and not in need of any active 
management. Timber outputs from that acre would be zero.
    If this proposed rule is finalized, the impact to the level of 
timber outputs from BLM managed forest land would be highly uncertain 
due to the impetus for management being solely based on intactness. 
Only after BLM managers assess whether their managed land is intact or 
not intact could they estimate the level of timber supply available to 
local economies as an output from either restoration or protection 
treatments. And that estimate would be unpredictable as conditions 
change with fluctuating environmental stressors. Notable decreases from 
the current output levels or erratic and unpredictable outputs would 
alter the regional flow of timber supplies, disrupt local milling 
infrastructure, and cause domestic timber supply shortages (some of 
these impacts are further discussed in our section regarding leakage).
    The BLM's conclusion that the proposed rule would not cause 
uncertainty and disruptions to the flow of timber products off BLM 
lands surrounding these rural communities that would amount to material 
adverse effects is baseless. This conclusion ignores the empirical data 
cited above that clearly links economic outputs and employment to 
timber product outputs from local sources. It also ignores the evidence 
that reductions in federal timber supply cause strains on competition 
that force mills to reach far beyond their historic purchasing circle, 
impacting neighboring regions.
X. The effects of the proposed rule warrant the preparation of an 
        Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.

    The proposed rule fails to comply with NEPA. NEPA requires federal 
agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for all 
``major Federal actions'' that may significantly affect the quality of 
the human environment. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(C). NEPA's requirement ``is 
a deliberate command'' that applies to all major federal actions, 
subject to limited exceptions.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Cape Hatteras Access Preservation All. v. U.S. Dep't of 
Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 108, 134 (D.D.C. 2004) (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The proposed rule indicates that the BLM intends to apply the 
Department Categorical Exclusion (CX) at 43 C.F.R. Sec. 46.210(i) to 
comply with NEPA. However, the BLM cannot rely on a CX if 
``extraordinary circumstances in section 46.215 apply.'' \56\ Because 
the proposed rule has ``highly controversial environmental effects,'' 
has ``highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental 
effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks,'' and 
violates FLPMA, the O&C Act, and potentially other federal laws, the 
BLM was required to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or 
EIS.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ 43 C.F.R. Sec. 46.210.
    \57\ See 43 C.F.R. Sec. 46.215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As outlined above, we believe that the outcomes stemming from this 
single use mandate are highly uncertain and present a high likelihood 
of negative repercussions to natural resource-based economies and the 
livelihoods of the rural communities that depend on them.
    CEQ's NEPA implementation regulations indicate that EISs may be 
prepared for programmatic Federal actions, such as the adoption of new 
agency programs.\58\ The sweeping nature of this proposed rule and the 
scope of its implementation across 245 million acres of BLM managed 
land warrant its classification as a new agency program. Shifting the 
agency's current multiple use mandate toward a single use directive of 
``conservation'' across such a large expanse of land and the creation 
of conservation leases signifies a ``new program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under NEPA, the BLM was required to address the proposed rule's 
significant environmental impacts and consider reasonable alternatives 
in an EIS or, at a minimum, an EA.\59\ The BLM, however, has done 
neither. The BLM's failure to take a ``hard look'' at the environmental 
impacts of the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of 
discretion, and contrary to the procedural requirements of NEPA and the 
Administrative Procedures Act.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(2)(C).
    \60\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2); 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, the proposed rule is as a major federal action, as defined 
by existing regulations, and extraordinary circumstances present 
preclude the BLM from relying on a CX and, therefore, warrant the 
preparation of an EA or EIS.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.1(q).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XI. The proposed rule has been pushed forward in a manner inconsistent 
        with FLPMA's state and local government coordination 
        requirements.

    Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA requires the Secretary of the Interior 
to coordinate ``the land use inventory, planning, and management 
activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and 
management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of 
the States and local governments.'' \62\ In coordinating, the BLM must 
consider the ``policies of approved State and tribal land resource 
management programs.'' \63\ The requirement to ``coordinate'' requires 
that the BLM treat the land use planning and management activities of 
State and local governments on par with its own and harmonize the BLM's 
land use inventory, planning, and management activities with the 
activities of State and local governments ``to the extent consistent 
with the laws governing the administration of the public lands.'' This 
coordination requirement is broad and applies to regulations, 
directives, policies and guidance documents that impact land and 
resource planning and management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1712(c)(9).
    \63\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1712(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to properly coordinate with State and local governments, 
the Secretary must: ``to the extent [the Secretary] finds practical, 
keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans,'' ``assure 
that consideration is given to those State, local, and tribal plans 
that are germane in the development of land use plans for public 
lands,'' ``assist in resolving, to the extent practical, 
inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans,'' and 
``provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local 
government officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of 
land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for 
public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions which 
may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands.''
    AFRC has several members that are county governments. It is clear 
that the BLM did not coordinate with these local governments in the 
development of the proposed rule and, therefore, violated FLPMA.
XII. Conclusion.

    In conclusion, AFRC is hopeful that management of all BLM land 
directed by FLPMA will remain guided by active public participation 
based on the principles of multiple use. We are deeply concerned that 
adoption of this proposed rule as it is currently structured will 
undermine both public participation and multiple use, traditions and 
values that the American public expects.
    We urge the BLM to withdraw the proposed rule, or, at a minimum, 
engage in a more inclusive and transparent process that would start 
with an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that clearly outlines 
what ``problem'' the BLM is seeking to solve, what outcome the BLM is 
hoping to achieve, and what information the government is lacking and 
seeking to obtain from the public, issue experts, and interested 
stakeholder groups. In no case should the proposed rule move forward 
without addressing the specific policy and legal concerns and 
objections outlined above.

            Sincerely,

                                             Travis Joseph,
                                                      President/CEO

                                 ______
                                 
    The Chairman. Again, thank you to the witnesses for being 
here today.
    Members of the Committee may have some additional questions 
for our witnesses, and we will ask that they respond to these 
in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee 
must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on 
Wednesday, June 21, 2023. The hearing record will be held open 
for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee on Natural Resources stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 1:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Fulcher

                                                  June 14, 2023    

Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20240

Re: Bureau of Land Management Proposed Rule, Conservation and Landscape 
        Health

    Dear Secretary Haaland:

    On April 3, 2023, the Bureau of Land Management (``BLM'') released 
a proposed rule for ``Conservation and Landscape Health'' (the 
``Proposed Rule''). This Proposed Rule, if adopted, could fundamentally 
alter the future management of BLM lands to the detriment of 
recreation, livestock grazing, mineral extraction, renewable energy 
production, and other common uses on BLM lands. In 1976, Congress 
declared in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (``FLPMA'') that 
the BLM must manage its lands ``on the basis of multiple use and 
sustained yield.''\1\ Yet this Proposed Rule seeks to define 
``conservation'' as a ``use'' within FLPMA's multiple use framework.\2\ 
This reframing of the term ``multiple use'' would contravene FLPMA and 
violate Federal case law in Public Land Council v. Babbitt, where the 
10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the BLM lacks the statutory 
authority to prioritize conservation use to the exclusion of other 
uses.\3\ The Proposed Rule could push BLM lands into a protection-
oriented management regime more akin to the National Park Service than 
an agency statutorily obligated to promote multiple use and sustained 
yield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(7).
    \2\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19583.
    \3\ See Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F. 3d 1287 (10th. Cir. 
1999), where the 10th Circuit held that the BLM could not issue a 
grazing lease for the purpose of conservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We oppose the Proposed Rule and urge the BLM to start over, 
withdraw its proposal, and instead focus its efforts on working closely 
with states, local governments, and stakeholders on rulemaking that 
will truly enhance active management and actual conservation of BLM 
lands within the framework of multiple use and sustained yield.
National Environmental Policy Act

    We anticipate the Proposed Rule would have a significant impact on 
the environment, thus warranting analysis through an environmental 
impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act 
(``NEPA''). However, the BLM has declared that the Proposed Rule's 
``environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to 
lend themselves to meaningful analysis'' \4\ and thus the Proposed Rule 
will be categorically excluded from NEPA analysis. Federal case law 
requires the BLM to ``adequately explain its decision'' ``[w]hen an 
agency decides to proceed with an action in the absence of an EA or 
EIS''.\5\ BLM's rationale for using a categorical exclusion does not 
adequately explain its position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19583, at 19596.
    \5\ Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 510 F.3d 1016, 1026 (9th Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The decision to categorically exclude from NEPA the Proposed Rule, 
which has such far-reaching implications, is a peculiar choice for the 
BLM when other major BLM rulemaking efforts are being analyzed under 
NEPA. For example, the BLM's ongoing rulemaking for its revised grazing 
regulations includes a full environmental impact statement--with states 
and counties able to participate in the cooperating agency process and 
provide input and cooperation. The environmental impact statement for 
the BLM grazing regulations will be subject to the Council on 
Environmental Quality NEPA requirement that an environmental impact 
statement include a discussion of ``[p]ossible conflicts between the 
proposed action and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, Tribal, 
and local land use plans, policies and controls for the area 
concerned.'' \6\ This requirement will give states and counties the 
opportunity to identify conflicts between the BLM's proposed grazing 
rule and their respective state and county resource management plans. 
Unfortunately, no such opportunity will exist for the Proposed Rule 
since the BLM is not preparing an environmental impact statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 40 C.F.R. Section 1502.16(a)(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BLM's Proposed Rule could impact the environment in many ways. 
One salient example is vegetation treatments, which the BLM currently 
uses to improve rangelands for both wildlife and livestock while 
reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires. The Proposed Rule could, 
depending on implementation, seriously inhibit the BLM's ability to 
conduct vegetation treatments on BLM land due to the Proposed Rule's 
focus on protecting ``intact landscapes.'' Thus, the Proposed Rule 
could have a tremendously negative impact on native plant species, 
watersheds, and air quality if adopted. The potential for severe 
environmental consequences of the Proposed Rule clearly warrants 
analysis through an environmental impact statement. States, local 
governments, and stakeholders deserve the opportunity to have their 
voices heard through the cooperating agency process included in the 
development of an environmental impact statement.
Existing Conservation on BLM Lands

    Tens of millions of acres of BLM lands across the western Unites 
States are already protected under strict Federal designations such as 
national monuments, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, areas of 
critical environmental concern, etc. That acreage is in addition to 
millions of acres of other protected, non-BLM public lands such as 
national parks, U.S. Forest Service wilderness areas, and U.S. Forest 
Service inventoried roadless areas. Of the remaining BLM lands still 
open to multiple use, there is still a very high bar set before any 
kind of surface disturbing activities can be authorized, and many 
barriers to development in existing BLM resource management plans. In 
short, the Proposed Rule seems to be a solution in search of a problem 
when so much BLM land in the western United States is already under 
strict Federal protection.
    The Proposed Rule seems to misinterpret the very notion of 
conservation. Conservation is not a hands-off ``use'' that excludes 
more active uses. Conservation is an essential element of the regular 
activities, best management practices, and proper stewardship that 
occur on BLM land every day. Conservation, by its plain meaning, 
encompasses the stabilization of eroding stream banks, predator control 
to protect threatened and endangered species, removing encroaching 
pinyon and juniper trees to restore healthy sagebrush rangelands, 
reclamation work on former mining sites, adaptive grazing systems to 
better conserve native plants, improved fencing to protect riparian 
areas, controlled burns to reduce fuel loads, installation of wells and 
pipelines to provide water to native wildlife, wildfire suppression, 
enhancements to recreational infrastructure that reduce the impacts of 
visitation, and so much more. The way to enhance conservation on BLM 
lands is to promote the multiple use of those lands and encourage the 
principles of conservation in all of those uses. A new BLM rule 
designed to exclude productive and sustainable uses on BLM land will 
only contravene the principles of conservation.
Specific Provisions
1610.7-2--Areas of Critical Environmental Concern \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19596.

    Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (``ACECs'') are special 
land designations created by Congress under FLPMA that allow the BLM to 
determine what special management attention is needed to protect 
important historical, cultural, and scenic values. While the BLM must 
prepare and maintain inventoried lands that may qualify as ACECs, the 
designation of those ACECs can only occur when the BLM adopts or amends 
the relevant resource management plan (``RMP''). Congress specifically 
prohibited the BLM from changing management of lands that may qualify 
for ACEC designation until the official designation of the ACEC in a 
BLM RMP.\8\ FLPMA states that ``[t]he preparation and maintenance of 
such inventory or the identification of such areas shall not, of 
itself, change or prevent change of the management or use of public 
lands.'' \9\ Prior to ACEC designation, states, counties, and the 
public have various opportunities to weigh in on whether the potential 
ACECs should be designated or receive any change in management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ 43 U.S.C. 1711(a).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BLM's Proposed Rule would flip the principle on its head, in 
direct violation of FLPMA. The Proposed Rule states that if ACEC 
nominations are received outside of the land use planning process, 
``interim management may be evaluated, considered, and implemented to 
protect relevant and important values until the BLM completes a 
planning process to determine whether to designate the area as an 
ACEC'' (emphasis added).\10\ In short, the Proposed Rule would allow 
the BLM to start managing potential ACECs in their inventories as ACECs 
without going through the planning process and without any input from 
states, local government, or the public. This ``interim management'' 
would constitute a clear violation of FLPMA if it resulted in a 
``change of the management or use of public lands'' prior to formal 
designation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19596.
    \11\ Supra, note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Historically, ACEC designations have been used judiciously by the 
BLM in western states, with full consideration given to the concerns of 
states, local governments, and stakeholders. Existing ACECs are spread 
throughout western states and are limited to relatively small areas. If 
the Proposed Rule is adopted, we anticipate a tremendous expansion of 
lands managed with ACEC-level protections after being nominated by 
members of the public and placed under ``interim management'' outside 
of the formal ACEC designations process.
6102.1--Protection of Intact Landscapes \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19599.

    The Proposed Rule introduces a new concept to BLM land management--
the protection of ``Intact Landscapes.'' Intact landscapes would be 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
defined as:

        ``. . .an unfragmented ecosystem that is free of local 
        conditions that could permanently or significantly disrupt, 
        impair, or degrade the landscape's structure or ecosystem 
        resilience, and that is large enough to maintain native 
        biological diversity, including viable populations of wide-
        ranging species. Intact landscapes have high conservation 
        value, provide critical ecosystem functions, and support 
        ecosystem resilience.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19598.

    The Proposed Rule would then require the BLM to identify intact 
landscapes on public lands, and manage these lands to protect them 
``from activities that would permanently or significantly disrupt, 
impair, or degrade the structure or functionality of intact 
landscapes.'' \14\ While the specific activities that would harm these 
intact landscapes are not identified in the Proposed Rule, we are 
concerned that different forms of multiple use such as conifer removal 
projects, livestock grazing, renewable energy development, mining, oil 
and gas exploration, road improvements, dispersed camping, and many 
other activities could be deemed to ``disrupt, impair, or degrade'' in 
different situations. Management of intact landscapes under the 
Proposed Rule will likely threaten many of the activities currently 
occurring on BLM lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19599.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, enormous swaths of BLM land in the United States could 
fall under the vague category of ``intact landscapes.'' Approximately 
244 million acres of surface estate in the western United States falls 
under the BLM's domain, with resilient ecosystems that include viable 
populations of wide-ranging species and biological diversity. Western 
BLM lands cover vast, unbroken stretches of ground, contiguous with 
other parcels of public land. The majority of that land could, 
arguably, provide high conservation value, critical ecosystem 
functions, and support ecosystem resilience. In fact, it is conceivable 
that almost all of the West's BLM land could qualify as ``intact 
landscapes'' under the BLM's vague and overly-broad definition. If the 
Proposed Rule is implemented, much of the West's remaining multiple use 
land could be subject to new management restrictions for intact 
landscapes--a significant departure from FLPMA's intent.
    The healthy condition of BLM land in much of the western United 
States gives credit to the ranchers, hunters, recreationists, and 
others who use BLM lands responsibly and sustainably, often working to 
leave the landscape in better condition for future users. In some parts 
of the West, mining, oil, and gas companies have invested significant 
sums to reclaim and restore lands to previous ecosystem functionality 
and biodiversity. Healthy populations of native wildlife on BLM land 
give credit to state wildlife managers and their partners. And it also 
gives credit to the Federal, state, and local partners who have worked 
over the decades to improve watersheds and rangeland health through 
active management. The Proposed Rule's proposed restrictions on 
``intact landscapes'' could ultimately punish westerners for being good 
stewards of the land.
    Fear of this unintended punishment accompanies the Proposed Rule in 
many similar states. The types of active management most needed to 
restore or improve landscape health could be disallowed in the pursuit 
of the BLM's new protections for ``intact landscapes.''
6102.4--Conservation Leases \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19600.

    Under the Proposed Rule, the BLM will be able to grant a 
``conservation lease'' to individuals, environmental advocacy groups, 
businesses, non-governmental organizations, or Tribal governments.\16\ 
States and local governments appear to be excluded. Conservation leases 
will be issued to ensure ``ecosystem resilience'' and to protect, 
manage, and restore natural environments, cultural or historic 
resources, or ecological communities.\17\ There do not appear to be any 
size limitations on lands placed under a conservation lease, which can 
last for up to 10 years.\18\ Other than valid existing rights, the BLM 
will not authorize any other uses on the leased lands that are 
inconsistent with the purpose of the conservation lease.\19\ Only 
``casual use'' by the public of the leased lands will be allowed 
without specific BLM authorization.\20\ Potential costs for 
conservation leases are not included in the Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Allowing environmental organizations, businesses, or members of the 
public to lease public lands for the exclusion of other uses runs 
completely contrary to the principles of multiple use and sustained 
yield. Public lands are intended to be just that--open to the public, 
not available for environmental organizations to rent to the exclusion 
of others. If the BLM ``shall not authorize any other uses of the 
leased lands that are inconsistent with the authorized conservation 
use,'' (emphasis added) \21\ the States are very concerned that 
activities such as vegetation management, livestock grazing, hunting, 
dispersed camping, road improvements, or other activities could be 
considered ``inconsistent'' and disallowed from leased lands. Allowance 
of conservation leases could allow wilderness advocacy organizations to 
lease large swaths of BLM land and essentially impose de facto 
wilderness on public lands without congressional approval. States and 
counties are not only excluded from holding conservation leases, but do 
not appear to have any role in the BLM approval process for a 
conservation lease. Nor is there any indication that the BLM would need 
to analyze the potential impacts of a proposed lease under NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While there could be some value in a program for states or local 
governments to hold conservation leases on BLM lands (for example, it 
could be beneficial if a state agency could hold a conservation lease 
on a BLM site where it was conducting a vegetation project in order to 
meet the objectives of the project) the Proposed Rule does not appear 
to allow for any kind of state or local government involvement in 
conservation leasing.
    The BLM's mandate is to accommodate a variety of uses for the 
public's benefit. This balance, though often difficult to achieve, 
works well across much of the BLM lands in the western United States, 
where activities such as motorized recreation, livestock grazing, 
hunting, and mountain biking, often occur on the same parcel of land 
without conflict, and where energy or mineral development can occur 
with little if any impact on the surrounding landscape. The BLM must 
find ways to work with states, counties, and local partners to better 
achieve this balance rather than allowing outside organizations to 
dictate what occurs on public land.
Subpart 6103--Tools for Achieving Ecosystem Resilience \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ 88 Fed. Reg. 19603.

    The Proposed Rule requires the BLM to use standards and guidelines 
for land health in their land use plans.\23\ While the Proposed Rule 
appears to allow some local flexibility for the development of specific 
standards, the Proposed Rule states that the BLM must manage ``all 
lands and program areas to achieve land health.'' \24\ This provision 
could have negative ramifications for a number of uses, such as solar 
energy, wind farms, geothermal development, mines, oil and gas wells, 
or transmission lines. While the State and BLM share the goal of 
maintaining healthy lands, the BLM's multiple use mandate must allow 
for intensive surface disturbing activities in some locations, 
activities that will likely conflict with a mandate to achieve land 
health on ``all lands.'' Some uses of BLM land, such as transmission 
lines, renewable energy projects, and mining of critical minerals, are 
essential for America to expand emerging technologies and ensure energy 
security. Such uses may become extremely difficult, if not impossible, 
to site on BLM lands under an ``all lands'' approach to land health 
standards. The BLM must consider a more flexible approach to land 
health standards that allows for a broader array of uses, including 
some with surface-disturbing impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

    The continuation of multiple use and sustained yield mandates for 
BLM lands is essential for our states. Western states will struggle to 
grow and thrive without the flexibility and balance Congress requires 
in BLM land management. We urge the BLM to set aside the Proposed Rule 
in favor of a new, collaborative process with states, local 
governments, and stakeholders coming to the table.

            Sincerely,

        Governor Spencer Cox          Governor Brad Little
        State of Utah                 State of Idaho

        Governor Greg Gianforte       Governor Joe Lombardo
        State of Montana              State of Nevada

        Governor Kristi Noem          Governor Mark Gordon
        State of South Dakota         State of Wyoming


                                 ______
                                 
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Curtis

                                                  June 20, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

    On behalf of the Motorcycle Industry Council \1\ (MIC), Specialty 
Vehicle Institute of America \2\ (SVIA), and Recreational Off-Highway 
Vehicle Association \3\ (ROHVA)--together referenced as the 
Associations, I write in support of H.R. 3397, To require the Director 
of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw a rule of the Bureau of 
Land Management relating to conservation and landscape health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) is a not-for-profit, 
national trade association representing several hundred manufacturers, 
distributors, dealers and retailers of motorcycles, scooters, 
motorcycle parts, accessories and related goods, and allied trades.
    \2\ The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA) is the 
national not-for-profit trade association representing manufacturers, 
dealers, and distributors of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) in the United 
States. SVIA's primary goal is to promote safe and responsible use of 
ATVs.
    \3\ The Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) is a 
national, not-for-profit trade association formed to promote the safe 
and responsible use of recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs--
sometimes referred to as side-by-sides or UTVs) manufactured or 
distributed in North America. ROHVA is also accredited by the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI) to serve as the Standards 
Developing Organization for ROVs. More information on the standard can 
be found at https://rohva.org/ansi-standard/.

    As you are aware the BLM's proposed rule titled, ``Conservation and 
Landscape Health,'' proposes changes that are too broad in nature and 
sweeping in scope to realistically be implemented, or even understood 
in totality. It is impossible to understand how a brand-new 
conservation leasing program will work when at the same time, a newly 
defined ``conservation'' is being elevated to a use on equal footing 
with other uses. We also believe that some of the proposed changes to 
the management of BLM lands are foundational changes not envisioned by 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and are convinced that 
the proposals taken in total warrant Congressional action to implement 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
as a whole.

    As a result, we urge the Committee to report H.R. 3397, and for the 
full House of Representatives to quickly take up and pass the 
legislation.

    Please see the attached comments the Associations prepared for 
submission to the BLM which outline our concerns with the proposed rule 
in more detail.

    Thank you for your consideration.

            Sincerely,

                 Senior Vice President Government Relations
                                    Motorcycle Industry Council    
                      Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association 
                             Specialty Vehicle Institute of America

                                          [all]