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



 
                    H.R. 5015, H.R. 5499, H.R. 6085,
                  H.R. 6209, H.R. 6547, AND H.R. 7006

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

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                       Wednesday, March 20, 2024
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-105
                               __________

       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
                    
55-272 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
                                 ------                                

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                       TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
                     JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
                     JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Pete Stauber, MN                         CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU                       Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                 ------                                

                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, March 20, 2024........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     2
    Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................     4
    Panel I:

    Leger Fernandez, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................     8
    Boebert, Hon. Lauren, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Colorado..........................................     9
    Hageman, Hon. Harriet M., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Wyoming.......................................    11

    Titus, Hon. Dina, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Nevada..................................................    13
        Prepared statement of....................................    16

    Miller-Meeks, Hon. Mariannette, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of Iowa.....................................    17

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Wolff, Culver Nada, Principal Deputy Director, Bureau of Land 
      Management, Washington, DC.................................    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    19
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    25
    French, Chris, Deputy Chief for the National Forest System, 
      U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC........................    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    29
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    31

    Panel III:

    Poschman, Hon. Greg, Commissioner, Board of County 
      Commissioners, Pitkin County, Aspen, Colorado..............    41
        Prepared statement of....................................    43
    Sgamma, Kathleen, President, Western Energy Alliance, Denver, 
      Colorado...................................................    46
        Prepared statement of....................................    48
    McConkie, Michelle, Director, State of Utah School and 
      Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City, 
      Utah.......................................................    51
        Prepared statement of....................................    52
    Bingham, Eric, Land Use Director, Sweetwater County, Green 
      River, Wyoming.............................................    54
        Prepared statement of....................................    56
    Lillywhite, Jay M., Assistant Dean for Economic and Rural 
      Development, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New 
      Mexico.....................................................    58
        Prepared statement of....................................    59
    Garrett, Wade, Vice President for Advocacy and Strategic 
      Relations, Utah Farm Bureau Federation, Sandy, Utah........    63
        Prepared statement of....................................    64

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Tiffany

        Recreational vehicle associations, Letter to the 
          Committee in support of H.R. 5499......................    34
        Recreational vehicle associations, Letter to the 
          Committee in support of H.R. 6085......................    71
        Hayden Ballard, Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating 
          Office, Statement in support of H.R. 7006..............    36
        National Parks Conservation Association, Letter to the 
          Committee in opposition of H.R. 5499...................    79

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Neguse

        Various organizations, Letter to the Committee in 
          opposition of H.R. 6547................................     6
        Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Letter to the Committee in 
          opposition of H.R. 5499................................    80
        Conservation Lands Foundation, Letter to the Committee in 
          support of H.R. 6209...................................    82
        Environment America, Letter to the Committee in 
          opposition of H.R. 5499, H.R. 6085 and H.R. 6547.......    84
        Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Letter to the Committee in 
          support of H.R. 6209...................................    85
        Muley Fanatic Foundation, Letter to the Committee in 
          opposition of H.R. 6085................................    86
        The Wilderness Society, Letter to the Committee in 
          opposition of H.R. 5499, H.R. 6085, H.R. 6547 and H.R. 
          7006...................................................    87
        Various conservation organizations, Letter to the 
          Committee in opposition of H.R. 5499...................    90
        Multiple Letters in support of Alternative F Draft SEIS..    92

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Titus

        Clark County, Nevada, Letter to the Committee in support 
          of H.R. 6209...........................................    14
        Southern Nevada Water Authority, Letter to the Committee 
          in support of H.R. 6209................................    15
                                     

 LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 5015, TO AMEND THE INFASTRUCTURE 
     INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF 
AGRICULTURE, ACTING THROUGH THE CHIEF OF THE FOREST SERVICE, TO 
   ENTER INTO CONTRACTS, GRANTS, AND AGREEMENTS TO CARRY OUT 
    CERTAIN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ACTIVITIES, AND FOR OTHER 
 PURPOSES, ``SEEDLINGS FOR SUSTAINABLE HABITAT RESTORATION ACT 
OF 2023''; H.R. 5499, TO AMEND THE ANTIQUITIES ACT TO INCREASE 
  CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT WITH RESPECT TO THE DESIGNATION OF 
  NATIONAL MONUMENTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``CONGRESSIONAL 
OVERSIGHT OF THE ANTIQUITIES ACT''; H.R. 6085, TO PROHIBIT THE 
   IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND 
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ROCK SPRINGS RMP 
 REVISION, WYOMING, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 6209,TO AMEND 
 THE SLOAN CANYON NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA ACT TO ADJUST THE 
 BOUNDARY OF THE SLOAN CANYON NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, AND 
  FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``SLOAN CANYON CONSERVATION AND LATERAL 
  PIPELINE ACT''; H.R. 6547, TO PROHIBIT THE SECRETARY OF THE 
 INTERIOR FROM IMPLEMENTING THE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 
 AND DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 
  COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE AND GRAND JUNCTION FIELD 
OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS, ``COLORADO ENERGY PROSPERITY 
ACT''; AND H.R. 7006, TO PROHIBIT NATURAL ASSET COMPANIES FROM 
 ENTERING INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO LAND IN THE STATE 
          OF UTAH OR NATURAL ASSETS ON OR IN SUCH LAND

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, March 20, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Tiffany, Bentz, Curtis; Neguse, 
Porter, and Leger Fernandez.
    Also present: Representatives Boebert, Hageman, Miller-
Meeks; and Titus.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to consider six bills: 
H.R. 5015, by Representative Leger Fernandez, the Seedlings for 
Sustainable Habitat Restoration; H.R. 5499, Representative 
Miller-Meeks' Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities Act; 
H.R. 6085, Representative Hageman, to prohibit the 
implementation of the Draft Resource Management Plan and 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Springs RMP 
Revision in Wyoming; H.R. 6209, Representative Titus, the Sloan 
Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act; H.R. 6547, by 
Representative Boebert, the Colorado Energy Prosperity Act; and 
H.R. 7006, by Representative Curtis, to prohibit Natural Asset 
Companies from entering into any agreement with respect to land 
in the state of Utah or natural assets on or in such land.
    I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the 
gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms. Titus; the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming, Ms. Hageman; the gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. 
Boebert, and the gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Miller-Meeks.
    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 will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Mr. Tiffany. This week, in this Subcommittee and on the 
House Floor, House Republicans will continue our fight against 
the Biden administration's disastrous policies that harm our 
nation's economy, national security, and energy dominance.
    The legislation under consideration today will put an end 
to the egregious and out-of-touch policies coming out of the 
White House that are hurting rural economies and ignoring the 
very people who live, work, and recreate on public land. 
Ultimately, we will hold this Administration accountable and 
stand firm against their attempts to remove the public from 
public lands.
    There is an orchestrated attack on public lands by this 
Administration. We and our constituents see the tools the 
Administration is using or, better put, mis-using to carry out 
a misguided preservationist policy that is hurting Americans in 
forms of higher energy costs, less access to lands, and fewer 
jobs.
    The list of anti-energy policies advanced under this 
Administration is simply staggering. Added to this is an 
attempted ban on oil and gas leasing; 3.5 million acres in new 
national monument designations; proposed conservation leases 
that would allow anyone, including hostile foreign nations, to 
lock up energy and mineral resources; and the recently-proposed 
sage-grouse management plans.
    Of course, these all point back to President Biden's flawed 
and unscientific 30x30 agenda. This is bureaucracy doing what 
bureaucracy does: a small group of people in DC making 
decisions that affect places and people they refuse to visit 
and hear from. Today, we are addressing this mismanagement of 
Federal lands and aiming to restore a balanced, thoughtful 
approach to land management through common-sense legislation 
offered by four of my Republican colleagues.
    The first bill is H.R. 5499, Congressional Oversight of the 
Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act is an outdated and 
obsolete law that allows presidents of both parties to ignore 
local communities and create confusion, uncertainty, and 
frustration around land use planning.
    Look at the case of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
Monument in Utah. Nearly 30 years ago, President Clinton 
designated this national monument during a ceremony he held out 
of state in Arizona, and without consulting anyone in Utah. 
This national monument shut off mineral resources worth an 
estimated $330 billion, including 62 billion tons of coal and 
270 million barrels of oil. Instead of becoming a booming hub 
for energy production, the state lost over 1,100 jobs.
    Decades later, county commissioners declared a state of 
emergency for public schools in the area due to low enrollment. 
The monument itself has fared no better, receiving limited 
Federal funding and being subject to increased vandalism and 
resource destruction.
    Since taking office only 3 years ago, President Biden has 
already designated 3.5 million acres of land as national 
monuments, including enlarging the footprint of Grand 
Staircase. Without further checks and balances such as those 
offered by H.R. 5499, current and future presidents could lock 
up millions of additional acres with a stroke of a pen behind 
closed doors.
    Next, we will consider H.R. 7006, legislation from 
Representative Curtis that would prohibit Natural Asset 
Companies from operating on Utah's public lands. After 
oversight and strong opposition spearheaded by this Committee, 
the SEC withdrew the proposed Natural Asset Companies Rule 
earlier this year. However, given the obvious linkage between 
this rule and the BLM's so-called Landscape Health and 
Conservation Rule, there are still outstanding concerns that 
Natural Asset Companies could re-emerge, perhaps under a 
different name.
    Allowing Natural Asset Companies to operate on public lands 
would prevent the land from being used to produce natural 
resources, including fossil fuels, mining, timber harvesting, 
and grazing. This could also open the door for a company 
controlled by a foreign adversary like China to hold rights to 
U.S. land and resources. This is also incompatible with 
statutory mandates for these lands, which direct them to be 
managed for multiple use and sustained yield for the benefit of 
the American people.
    Finally, we will consider two bills from Representatives 
Hageman and Boebert: H.R. 6085 and H.R. 6547, that would 
nullify preservationists and resource management plans in their 
states that would restrict oil and gas development on a 
collective 3.4 million acres.
    A resource management plan should offer a balanced 
management plan for all multiple uses and interested 
stakeholders. However, these plans have been weaponized as a 
partisan tool to remove industries and uses that the 
Administration does not like, in complete disregard of the 
facts, data, and science. I am deeply concerned that the 
written testimony we received in advance of today's hearing 
also shows the BLM is flagrantly disregarding their statutory 
mandate to coordinate with local government in developing these 
plans.
    For my constituents back home in Wisconsin who may be 
watching this, or any other member of the public who doesn't 
live out West, make no mistake, the legislation we are 
discussing today has a direct effect on you. If we end multiple 
use out West, that will disrupt our energy, food, and mineral 
supplies, which will drive up prices for everybody. One only 
needs to look at our allies in Europe to see what happens when 
we allow ourselves to become dependent on hostile foreign 
nations.
    American energy is inexpensive, reliable, clean, and 
abundant. That is why one year ago, House Republicans passed 
H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, on the House Floor. When we 
go back to the Floor this week for Energy Week, we will once 
again be fighting for policies that lower prices at the pump 
and keep American energy dominant.
    With that, I would like to thank the witnesses for joining 
us today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Neguse for his opening 
statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As always, I am 
pleased to be back in front of the Federal Lands Subcommittee. 
I am certainly looking forward to hearing from my Democratic 
colleagues about their bills on our agenda today.
    I was encouraged by what we heard from my colleagues in the 
last hearing that we held in this Subcommittee, emphasizing the 
importance of local support for public lands and conservation 
legislation. However, I would be remiss to say that I am not 
deeply disappointed that today we are considering legislation 
that would do the opposite, and that would take us backwards in 
our efforts to protect and preserve our nation's public lands, 
efforts that are overwhelmingly supported by local communities.
    And to the Chairman I would just simply say I happen to be 
from the West. I am a Westerner. I represent a congressional 
district that is larger than nine states on the eastern 
seaboard, a district that includes three national forests, 
incredible public lands. And I can tell you firmly that my 
constituents oppose the efforts that, unfortunately, this 
Subcommittee is considering today. My counterparts continue to 
insist on discussing legislative measures that, first and 
foremost, conflict with congressional intent and, in my view, 
contravene public opinion.
    On today's agenda is another bill that attacks the 
Antiquities Act. Now, it is labeled as ``congressional 
oversight,'' but what this bill essentially does is strip the 
President of the executive authority to declare national 
monuments on existing Federal land. Further, it denies any 
chance of the proposed monument being considered under the 
Antiquities Act for the next 25 years.
    Monuments designated through the Antiquities Act prioritize 
the protection of naturally, culturally, and historically 
significant places. H.R. 5499 would roll back over 100 years, 
think about that, a century, of precedent and congressional 
intent, threatening our ability to protect these lands and 
recognize the cultural value that they often hold for 
Indigenous communities, in particular.
    The Antiquities Act was passed in 1906 to permit exactly 
what this bill is trying to undermine, allowing for presidents 
to bypass congressional gridlock and protect critical Federal 
lands and resources. And here is the most salient fact to me in 
this entire debate: Since 1906, all but three presidents have 
utilized the Antiquities Act to declare at least one national 
monument. All but three presidents in 100 years: Republican 
presidents, Democratic presidents. Apparently, the only people 
who believe that we shouldn't be designating national monuments 
are House Republicans.
    And even if the Grand Canyon was initially designated 
administratively, it wasn't until 11 years later that Congress 
designated it as a national park. So, despite the contentious 
arguments and the Republican efforts to block public land 
conservation legislation, national monuments continue to be 
deeply popular.
    In fact, annual polls conducted by Colorado College just 
last year have consistently found that an overwhelming majority 
of voters, of constituents, of citizens in the West in 
particular, support monument designations. Last year's poll, 
just by way of example, found that 84 percent of Western 
citizens, including more than 70 percent of Republicans, 70 
percent, are supportive of using administrative action to 
create new monuments.
    An example of one of these monuments is in my district. In 
2022, President Biden designated the Camp Hale Continental 
Divide National Monument. Protections for this site have been 
overwhelmingly supported by the local community for over a 
decade: county commissioners, city council, every local 
stakeholder that you could conceive of petitioning the Congress 
for decades to get this done. We passed the bill five times. I 
was here all five times in the House when we passed it. But 
congressional gridlock prevented it.
    The new monument that the President designated celebrates 
Camp Hale as a vital part of our nation's history, and 
recognizes the contributions of the 10th Mountain Division, who 
trained there during World War II, ensuring that their stories, 
their service, their heroic sacrifice to the United States will 
never be forgotten. And I have had the privilege of meeting and 
spending time with some of those veterans and their descendants 
who have been some of the most influential advocates for our 
public lands. This bill would preclude, prevent, and eliminate 
the ability of the President of the United States, Republican 
or Democrat, from taking the step that he did 2 years ago.
    We are also considering a bill regarding modifications to 
draft Resource Management Plans in both Colorado and Wyoming. 
The existing management plans are decades old. They are no 
longer adequate to address modern conditions. The resource 
management plans that these bills are attempting to stall are 
still only in the draft phase, so they are in an early stage of 
their process. And by limiting the Department of the Interior's 
ability to carry out their planning processes, the bills would 
be detrimental to continued resilience, in my view and in the 
view of many others of our public lands.
    Again, I think it is disappointing that my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle are trying to hold up necessary 
agency action intended to ensure that our lands are being 
managed appropriately, with balance between all potential uses.
    And I want to ask unanimous consent to enter letters of 
opposition to H.R. 6547 into the record.
    Mr. Tiffany. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]
                                                 March 19, 2024    

Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:

    On behalf of the 20 undersigned organizations, and our 86,500 
members and supporters across Colorado, we write to urge you to oppose 
H.R. 6547 offered by Rep. Boebert, which would circumvent a court 
ordered public process that would chart management for public lands in 
western Colorado for decades to come.

    Our organizations are deeply invested in western Colorado's public 
lands, and we represent members and supporters who live near, recreate 
on, and otherwise enjoy and benefit from the public lands in the Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley and Grand Junction Field 
Offices. This landscape contains wilderness-quality lands, important 
wildlife habitat, cultural resources, recreation opportunities, and 
other natural resources that community members and staff from our 
organizations have spent decades developing field knowledge about, 
engaging stakeholders around, and working to protect and restore. We 
are grateful for the work by the planning team at the BLM to improve 
management prescriptions throughout the field offices.

    The BLM is conducting a public process for this planning effort as 
the result of a U.S. District Court for Colorado ruling and subsequent 
settlement agreement. The Court found that the BLM violated the law 
with respect to their environmental analysis during the previous 
planning process for the Colorado River Valley Field Office, and 
ordered the BLM to revisit that plan by broadening the range of 
alternatives with respect to what lands are available for oil and gas 
leasing and conducting a more robust analysis of air quality impacts. 
The new plan also considers areas of tribal significance for increased 
protection. The Grand Junction plan suffered from the same legal 
deficiencies, and a challenge to that plan was settled between the 
parties and included with the Colorado River Valley plan for additional 
analysis. The Court ordered no additional oil and gas leasing until the 
supplemental planning process is complete.

    This landscape also accounts for much of the production of fossil 
gas from BLM-managed lands and minerals in Colorado. Of the 8.3 million 
acres of surface lands and 27 million acres of minerals the BLM 
oversees in Colorado, the BLM currently manages 4,712 leases totaling 
3.7 million acres.\1\ Valid existing leases and producing wells in the 
western Colorado planning area would not be affected by this planning 
process, and would continue regardless of the outcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ BLM Colorado Oil & Gas. https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-
and-minerals/oil-and-gas/about/colorado Last visited March 8, 2024.

    We are deeply troubled by Rep. Boebert's attempt to circumvent a 
Court order and dismiss the public input from western Colorado 
residents the BLM continues to consider as it completes its work on 
this planning effort. Further, this legislation would have the 
unintended consequence of prohibiting the BLM from issuing any new oil 
and gas leases in these field offices because the Court-mandated 
supplemental process would never be completed. Should this legislation 
pass, the BLM would be forced to disregard our comments on the draft 
plan, as well as comments from municipalities, counties, and the State 
of Colorado, and feedback received through formal tribal consultation. 
We urge the committee to reject this ill-conceived legislation and 
allow the BLM to complete their public process and finalize new 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
management plans for western Colorado.

            Sincerely,

        Daly Edmunds                  Tracy Coppola
        Director of Policy and 
        Outreach                      Colorado Senior Program Manager
        Audubon Rockies               National Parks Conservation 
                                      Assoc.

        Scott Braden                  Alison Gallensky
        Director                      Conservation Geographer
        Colorado Wildlands Project    Rocky Mountain Wild

        Brien Webster                 Mark Pearson
        Public Lands Campaign 
        Manager                       Executive Director
        Conservation Colorado         San Juan Citizens Alliance

        Kara Matsumoto                Mason Osgood
        Public Lands Policy 
        Director                      Executive Director
        Conservation Lands 
        Foundation                    Sheep Mountain Alliance

        Michael Browning              Jim Ramey
        Advocacy Committee Co-Chair   Colorado State Director
        Eagle Summit Wilderness 
        Alliance                      The Wilderness Society

        Ellen Montgomery              Emily Hornback
        Public Lands Campaign 
        Director                      Executive Director
        Environment Colorado          Western Colorado Alliance

        Sherry Schenk                 Kyle Tisdel
        Leadership Team-Grand 
        Junction                      Climate & Energy Program Director
        Great Old Broads for 
        Wilderness                    Western Environmental Law Center

        Sallie Thoreson               Hannah Stevens
        Leadership Team-North San 
        Juan                          Executive Director
        Great Old Broads for 
        Wilderness                    Western Slope Conservation Center

        Louise van Vonno              Delaney Rudy
        Broadband Leader-South San 
        Juan                          Colorado Director
        Great Old Broads for 
        Wilderness                    Western Watersheds Project

        Jennifer Thurston             Will Roush
        Director                      Executive Director
        Information Network for 
        Responsible Mining            Wilderness Workshop

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before I close, I do want to take a moment to highlight my 
fellow Democratic colleagues' bills for today's Subcommittee 
hearing.
    H.R. 5015, the Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat 
Restoration Act of 2023, from my dear friend and a leader here 
in the House from New Mexico, a Subcommittee member, 
Congresswoman Leger Fernandez, would amend the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Omnibus Public Land Management Act 
of 2009 to support the development of native seed repositories 
and nurseries. The bill represents a proactive example of 
multiple use policy that would benefit the health of our 
forests and protect native seeds to promote re-vegetation, and 
I am so grateful to Congresswoman Leger Fernandez for her 
leadership in bringing this bill forward.
    Secondly, H.R. 6209, the Sloan Canyon Conservation and 
Lateral Pipeline Act, from my dear friend, Congresswoman Titus 
of Nevada, who has been fighting the good fight for years. And 
this bill would expand the Sloan Canyon National Conservation 
Area. It would authorize the Horizon Lateral Water Pipeline. 
Having access to clean water is vital for our communities, and 
Congresswoman Titus has been a leader on that front as part of 
the Colorado River Caucus, in particular, and I am looking 
forward to hearing from her about the importance of the Sloan 
Canyon National Conservation Area and the value that this 
project would bring to her community.
    Again, I want to thank all the witnesses for traveling to 
Washington, DC. We appreciate you being here.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member. I will now 
recognize Representative Leger Fernandez for 5 minutes on H.R. 
5015.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
Ranking Member, for pointing out this bill and the importance 
that this bill places.
    Sadly, this bill comes out of a very tragic event in New 
Mexico, as we know. But the tragic event that befell New Mexico 
with regards to its horrific wildfires affects our states 
across our Western landscape and, as we are going to be seeing, 
across our entire country. And as every member of this 
community knows, following devastating wildfires we have a 
desperate need for reforestation.
    The Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire burned 341,471 acres, but 
it was not the only fire in New Mexico. That year, New Mexico 
saw numerous wildfires. And we will hear later today how that 
one fire, though, focusing on the Hermits Peak, we need 12 
million seedlings, 12 million seedlings to reforest the burn 
scar.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill passed by the 117th 
Congress included billions of dollars for reforestation and re-
vegetation. The BIL called on the Department of the Interior 
and the U.S. Forest Service to procure and plant millions of 
seedlings, but unfortunately did not support the facilities nor 
the research needed to produce this amount of seedlings to make 
sure they survived.
    Currently, there is an inadequate supply of native 
seedlings, and non-native seedlings procured from nurseries 
outside of the Southwest have only a 25 percent rate of 
survival. In comparison, when a locality grows their own 
seedlings, survival rate might be as high as 80 percent. So, my 
legislation strengthens the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law by 
providing the Forest Service the authority to enter into 
contracts, grants, and agreements with state forestry agencies, 
local private or non-profit entities, institutions of higher 
education, and multi-state coalitions.
    My bill would also make clear that institutions of higher 
education are eligible recipients for reforestation grants. 
Thankfully, when we first introduced this bill, we were having 
a hard time. There was some confusion about the authorities 
that the Forest Service had regarding this. Since its 
introduction, we have identified ways in which the Forest 
Service can actually find the authority and can grant 
reforestation funds to institutions of higher education. 
Because of this, higher institutions like New Mexico State 
University, go Aggies, are able to continue their incredibly 
important and exciting work on seedling production at the John 
T. Harrington Forestry Research Center in Mora, New Mexico.
    I am grateful to have doctor Jay Lillywhite here, who will 
testify to the Committee on the groundbreaking research and 
results that have been seen at the research center.
    Since introducing the Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat 
Restoration, I have also worked with Senator Lujan and the New 
Mexico State University to identify further opportunities with 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to allow for that seedling 
production. In light of this, I have a discussion draft here 
which I have shared with the Committee and the Forest Service. 
This draft includes additions to make clear that seedling 
production is considered a component of ecosystem restoration.
    The urgency of reforestation and native seedling production 
cannot be overstated. Our landscapes, communities, and wildlife 
habitats continue to bear the scars of devastating wildfires. I 
know that the Ranking Member has suffered this within his own 
district, and you look around this Committee and we know we 
have all experienced that and we need swift and effective 
action.
    I love the story when is the best time to plant a tree, 30 
years ago, but if you can't, let's do it today, and that is 
what we want to make sure we have, is the seedlings to do that 
today.
    So, the seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act 
is sensible and a crucial step forward in strengthening 
reforestation efforts that are already contained in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, a law that I need to say I am so 
glad when I go out in my rural areas and talk about it, because 
it is one of the biggest investments in rural America we have 
seen in generations. And I just love that law for its emphasis 
on rural areas.
    I am looking forward to the stories that will emerge today, 
and I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle and the Administration to make the 
necessary adjustments to the bill as we move forward in this 
process.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for being open to that and 
supportive of these kinds of efforts.
    And with that, I yield back because I think we are going to 
together sow the seeds of renewal.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Leger Fernandez, and 
I now recognize Representative Boebert for 5 minutes on H.R. 
6547.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. LAUREN BOEBERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today. In particular, Kathleen Sgamma 
from Western Energy Alliance.
    Ms. Sgamma, thank you so much for everything that you do on 
behalf of America's hard-working energy producers.
    Colorado's Western Slope used to have a booming energy 
economy. Unfortunately, we have been regulated into poverty by 
bad Democrat policies. I remember our booming economy because 
roughnecks used to come into my restaurant, and I knew I was 
having a good day when I would find mud on the floor from their 
boots. They were coming and patronizing my business and 
spending money there, but they were all forced out of our areas 
and onto other parts of America. There used to be 112 rigs on 
the Western Slope, but now we only have 4 drilling rigs. Now, 
not-in-my-backyard extremists and job-killing Federal policies 
have driven away those good-paying jobs.
    The Bureau of Land Management's draft Resource Management 
Plan for the Colorado River Valley Office and Grand Junction 
Field Office is the latest fossil fuels attack. This proposed 
land grab could remove over 1.6 million acres of public lands 
in Colorado from future oil and gas leasing, and establish nine 
different areas of critical environmental concern on over 
100,000 acres of BLM land. If this proposal is finalized, the 
United States will lose access to vital energy resources, many 
more than the 600 fewer wells projected by the agency to be 
lost by 2043. The consequences will be felt far beyond the 
state of Colorado, where residents will lose their livelihoods 
and see increased gas and energy prices.
    BLM is proposing to close all areas with no known low and 
moderate oil and gas development potential, and is basing its 
analysis of the oil and gas potential on out-of-date 
information that does not take into consideration modern 
technology. The Permian Basin was once thought to be low to 
medium, and now it is the highest producing oil field in the 
world. As a result, the Permian Basin would be closed if this 
proposal had been in place in New Mexico and Texas prior to the 
significant amount of production that is now occurring. This 
proposed land grab is nothing short of partisan politics meant 
to further restrict access to the oil and natural gas 
development that could reinvigorate the economy of Colorado and 
help ensure energy security for all Americans.
    There are already stringent standards and requirements in 
place for oil and gas producers that aim at reducing 
environmental and cultural impacts. And guess what? No one does 
it better than American oil and gas workers. We produce the 
world's cleanest, safest, most efficient energy in the world.
    This proposed rule is yet another blatant land grab 
designed to dismantle the fossil fuel industry and force a 
Green New Deal transition funded by you, the taxpayers, by the 
way. Closing the door on over 1.6 million acres of vital public 
lands for energy development is not just an issue of economics, 
it is a threat to our nation's energy independence and 
security. And we should be pursuing energy dominance. We have 
the capability to export freedom around the globe.
    This proposed RMP goes beyond necessary environmental 
considerations, and instead seeks to restrict access to 
promising resources, hindering the potential for economic 
growth and prosperity, particularly in the Western Slope of 
Colorado. Rogue bureaucrats at the BLM shouldn't be 
unilaterally locking up more land in Colorado. It is urgent 
that we block this overreach and prioritize responsible energy 
production to lower gas prices, utility bills, and protect 
good-paying jobs in Colorado and throughout America.
    In this Committee, we hear a lot of extremists pushing the 
Green New Deal agenda, and I believe that it is very 
disingenuous because they don't want to pursue nuclear, which 
is the greenest and cleanest of them all. They don't want to 
address the carbon emissions that are produced by wildfires, 
and allowing us to be good stewards of our land and managing 
our forests, and instead would rather have 40,000 children 
mining with their bare hands for cobalt in the Congo and China-
owned mines rather than producing the world's best, cleanest 
energy right here in America.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Boebert. I now 
recognize Representative Hageman for 5 minutes on H.R. 6085.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to testify 
on my bill to prohibit the finalization of the draft Resource 
Management Plan, or RMP revision, and its associated Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement from the Bureau of Land 
Management that would severely restrict grazing, mining, oil 
and gas development, recreation, and other activities on 3.6 
million acres in Wyoming.
    As everyone in this Committee is aware, BLM field districts 
are required to update their resource management plans in 
accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or 
FLPMA. In 2011, the Rock Springs Field Office began the process 
of updating its own plan. Prior to release of the new draft 
plan, the Rock Springs Field office had used and implemented 
the existing RMP since 1997. The new draft, however, that was 
released for public comment in 2023 is gaining national 
attention for its unprecedented attack on land access and use.
    The RMP contains four alternatives for the planning area, 
including Alternative A, which is the no action alternative; 
BLM's preferred Alternative B, which would have tremendous 
negative consequences for the state of Wyoming, our nation, 
energy independence, access to millions of acres of land, and 
national security; Alternative C, which severely restricts 
recreational activities; and Alternative D, which attempts to 
balance various uses with the development and conservation, but 
also significantly hinders existing projects on Federal lands.
    To say that the draft plan is bad is an understatement, and 
Alternatives B and C are especially bad for Wyoming, which was 
why there was so much opposition from my constituents. In 
typical fashion, the Federal Government has chosen the very 
alternative that has the most community opposition and would do 
the most damage.
    In total, under the preferred alternative, about 2.5 
million acres of land would not be available for new rights-of-
way. This would be an increase of more than 480 percent placed 
off limits for such things as power lines, pipelines, and 
maintaining roads. The RMP severely restricts vehicle access, 
including upwards of 4,500 miles of existing roads and trails 
of all uses, and would remove about 10,000 miles of routes from 
the transportation network. The plan even calls for limiting 
vehicles to designated roads across the landscape, but it 
doesn't clarify what roads it will designate for travel.
    The draft RMP designates 1.8 million acres of the planning 
area as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, or ACECs, 
which undermine all opportunities for economic development, 
particularly as it relates to energy production, grazing, and 
mineral extraction. This is an increase of 1.3 million acres 
compared to what is currently in the plan.
    The preferred alternatives significantly impact Wyoming 
energy production, which is essential to the state and local 
economy, as well as to national energy independence and 
security. According to the Department of the Interior, in 
calendar year 2022, leasable minerals in Sweetwater County 
alone netted over $32 million in revenue for the Federal 
Government and $433 million in total for the state of Wyoming.
    This is not just about mining or energy and mineral 
extraction, however. This is one of the largest land grabs we 
have ever seen, and an all-out assault on every vital Wyoming 
industry and the rule of law. Wyoming ranchers are facing a ban 
on livestock grazing in big game habitat during the birthing 
season, prohibiting range improvement projects such as troughs, 
reservoirs, and fences, and suspending AUMs that are currently 
authorized within the planning area. The Wyoming Stock Growers 
Association highlighted many of the specific impacts this 
proposed alternative would have on grazing, including the 
ability to control noxious weeds and other invasive plant 
species.
    Most disheartening about this RMP is the fact that it 
ignored stakeholder input over the past 12 years. The 
Administration continues to insert itself into every community 
in America under the guise of claiming to do good, only to 
outright ignore the community's needs and to pursue bad 
policies in the pursuit of political goals for this 
Administration, goals that are not shared by Wyoming, and goals 
that are not in the best interests of our country.
    In a letter to the Rock Springs Field Office, Wyoming 
Sweetwater County Commissioners highlighted the fact that 
``behind closed doors, and without any coordination with the 
county or other cooperating agencies, the BLM has taken a 
completely politically-driven reversal from its original 
direction, and released a proposed RMP and DEIS that eliminates 
multiple use within the Rock Springs Field office and, in turn, 
Sweetwater County.''
    Mr. Chairman, we have seen this kind of thing happen in 
other areas, including within the Bears Ears Monument 
designation in Utah and others in Colorado and Arizona. We need 
to put a stop to these illegal land grabs, administrative 
overreach, and outright violation of our Federal land 
management laws. We need to protect our communities. The 
alternatives laid out in the Rock Springs RMP, particularly 
Alternative B, will destroy Wyoming's local economy.
    We cannot go on like this. I urge my colleagues to support 
my bill, which would nullify the implementation of this 
monstrosity of a plan.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with that I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Hageman. I now 
recognize Representative Titus for 5 minutes on H.R. 6209.
    Welcome to the Committee.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DINA TITUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing 
me to sit in, and also Ranking Member Neguse, for the 
opportunity to testify today on H.R. 6209. It is the Sloan 
Canyon Conservation and Lateral Project Pipeline Act.
    This bill would allow a portion of the Southern Nevada 
Water Authority's horizontal lateral water pipeline project to 
tunnel underneath Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area. The 
project will increase water reliability for over a million 
southern Nevadans. It will fortify the region's water 
infrastructure against potential outages, and it will minimize 
disruptions and impacts to communities in my district in 
southern Nevada, all while enhancing the preservation of the 
surrounding desert landscape and unique habitat.
    Currently, 40 percent of southern Nevada's drinking water 
is provided by the South Valley Lateral, a 27-mile pipeline 
that has been in service since the 1990s. Unfortunately, the 
line doesn't have the redundancy that is needed to ensure 
continued water services during a disruption or system 
emergency. This vulnerability became apparent in 2017, when the 
SVL, Southern Valley Lateral, underwent emergency repairs and 
was subsequently shut down, forcing local agencies to 
temporarily adjust water delivery operations.
    In recent years, public planning engagements with all the 
stakeholders at the table have resulted in two options for an 
additional pipeline. The first is known as the Northern 
Alignment, and it would involve years of construction through 
neighborhoods in Henderson, Nevada, causing significant traffic 
congestion and disrupting multiple neighborhoods and 
businesses.
    The second option, known as the South Alignment, would be 
constructed on undeveloped land, including a nearly 7-mile 
stretch beneath the Sloan Canyon NCA. Not only would this 
preferred option minimize disruptions in surrounding 
communities, but it would also be better positioned to meet a 
targeted completion date of 2030, and it would save ratepayers 
at least $200 million compared to the Northern Alignment.
    In order for this project to move forward in a permanently 
protected area, congressional authorization is required. That 
is why I introduced H.R. 6209. It is the House companion of 
Senator Cortez Masto's legislation, which the Senate Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources passed unanimously last year.
    In addition to granting a right-of-way to the Southern 
Nevada Water Authority for constructing this pipeline, the bill 
ensures additional habitat protections by expanding the current 
NCA by 9,290 acres. This would ensure connectivity for bighorn 
sheep between the protected areas, including the recently 
designated Avi Kwa Ame National Monument.
    The language also includes insurances that the right-of-way 
will minimize ecosystem disruptions by ensuring that the 
Horizon Lateral cannot have a permanent adverse effect on 
resources, and that the pipeline cannot go underneath the 
wilderness area within the Sloan Canyon.
    I am proud to say that this legislation has secured wide 
support from Clark County and the City of Henderson, as well as 
local conservation organizations, labor unions, and business 
associations. Letters of support from these groups have been 
submitted to the Committee, and I would ask unanimous consent 
that they be made part of the record.
    Mr. Tiffany. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

                          CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

                                                 March 18, 2024    

Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for the Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act 
        (H.R. 6209/S. 2042)

    Dear Chair Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:

    On behalf of the Clark County Board of County Commissioners , I 
express support for the Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline 
Act (H.R. 6209/S. 2042). The legislation expands the Sloan Canyon 
National Conservation Area (SCNCA) by 9,290 acres. This expansion will 
elevate the conservation, wildlife and outdoor recreation values the 
SCNCA brings to our community. In addition. this legislation would 
enhance the redundancy of southern Nevada's water system by granting 
important rights-of-way to the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) 
for the Horizon Lateral water infrastructure project.
    This timely passage of this bill is important. Clark County is home 
to over 2 million people hosting millions of visitors each year. In 
southern Nevada, part of our region relies upon a single water 
transmission line known as the South Valley Lateral (SVL). The SVL 
delivers 40 percent of our region's drinking water, but it lacks 
redundancy to provide continual water service in case there are system 
emergencies or outages. After years of studies, discussion, and 
engagement with SNWA, the community and its leaders have expressed 
strong support for the South Alignment of the Horizon Lateral project.
    The South Alignment of the Horizon Lateral project avoids urban 
areas by tunneling under the SCNCA, reducing major public impacts. 
Alternatively, the Northern Alignment would cause significant 
disruptions to due to the density of existing development, including 
businesses, apartments, homes, medical facilities, childcare and 
educational facilities, roads, utilities--all at great cost of $200 
million. We have seen SNWA produce successful outcomes with tunneling 
under federal land during development of the Third Intake for Lake Mead 
and Low Lake Levels Pumping Station. We know the same care would be 
taken underneath the SCNCA to ensure there were no discernable surface 
disturbances during the development of the Horizon Lateral Project.
    H.R. 6209 will augment the conservation efforts of our community 
and facilitate important infrastructure needs that will enhance water 
system redundancy, reliability and improve public safety. We appreciate 
Congresswoman Dina Titus for her leadership on this bill and the Nevada 
congressional delegation for their support. Thank you for your 
consideration of this important legislation.

            Sincerely,

                                            Kevin Schiller,
                                                     County Manager

                                 ______
                                 

                    SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY

                                                 March 20, 2024    

Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:

    Thank you for agreeing to hold a legislative hearing on H.R. 6209, 
the Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act. As detailed 
below, the legislation will help remedy a substantial vulnerability 
within our existing water transmission system, ensuring the reliability 
of water service for Southern Nevada residents, and expanding the Sloan 
Canyon National Conservation Area.
    The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) is responsible for 
acquiring and managing the community's regional water supplies, 
developing, and administering regional water conservation programs, 
maintaining and protecting water quality, building and operating major 
facilities and protecting environmental resources. SNWA maintains a 
vast network of transmission facilities that provides reliable water 
service to Southern Nevada's 2.3 million residents and more than 40 
million annual visitors. In general, this system includes redundancies 
that enable us to isolate pipeline segments to make repairs and move 
water from other parts of our system, allowing for uninterrupted 
service to our customers.
    However, at present, a significant portion of residents and 
businesses in Southern Nevada receive water exclusively from the South 
Valley Lateral, a lone transmission line constructed 25 years ago. The 
South Valley Lateral, unlike other major system components, lacks 
interconnections with the rest of our regional infrastructure and it is 
imperative that we secure the ability to shut the lateral down for 
maintenance or emergency situations. To be clear, a failure or 
disruption within this part of the system could have severe 
consequences for our community and pose risks to public health and 
economic stability. In fact, the South Valley Lateral serves 
approximately 1,000,000 people and 40 percent of the businesses in the 
Las Vegas Valley, including the City of Henderson.
    To help solve for this problem, H.R. 6209 would require the Bureau 
of Land Management to grant the Southern Nevada Water Authority a 
right-of-way across a portion of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation 
Area to install the Horizon Lateral Water Pipeline. Critically, the 
construction of the Horizon Lateral would occur underneath the NCA (50 
to 2,000 feet below), will not be seen or heard, and will not 
compromise in any way the natural values that the NCA was specifically 
designated to protect. The extremely minimal surface disturbance that 
would occur would be temporary access to drill seventeen, 6'' diameter 
geotechnical boreholes to ensure the sound operation of the tunnel 
boring machine. The drilling will occur on 50' x 140' temporary pads 
and the equipment necessary to carry out that work will be air-lifted; 
those areas will be returned to their pre-drilling conditions upon 
completion.
    The legislation would also expand the Sloan Canyon National 
Conservation Area by 9,290 acres, increasing its total acreage to 
57,728 acres. The legislation also maintains the existing management 
plan for the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area as established in 
Sec. 16 U.S.C. 460qqq. Finally, H.R. 6209 also ensures that Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act requirements for environmentally 
protective terms and conditions in right-of-way grants and BLM's right-
of-way regulations are followed, as previously provided by Congress.
    The construction of the Horizon Lateral is endorsed by the City of 
Henderson, Clark County Board of Commissioners, Clark County Department 
of Aviation, Dignity Health--St. Rose Dominican Hospitals, Henderson 
Chamber of Commerce, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 
12, Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce, Las Vegas Global Economic 
Alliance, Latin Chamber of Commerce--Nevada, LiUna! Laborers' Local No. 
872, Nevada Governor's Office of Economic Development, Nevada Resort 
Association, Nevada State AFL-CIO, Regional Transportation Commission 
of Southern Nevada, Retail Association of Nevada, Southern Nevada Home 
Builders Association, Teamsters Local 631 and Vegas Chamber.
    H.R. 6209 not only reflects the strong support from the above-
listed organizations in Southern Nevada, but it also reflects input 
from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. As you know, 
the Senate companion legislation, S. 2042, was reported favorably to 
the Senate by majority voice vote during an open business session in 
September 2023.
    SNWA appreciates the leadership from Congresswoman Dina Titus in 
authoring H.R. 6209 and the leadership from its Senate delegation in 
helping to advance this measure. As appropriate, SNWA would be happy to 
answer any questions on this measure from the House Committee on 
Natural Resources.

            Sincerely,

                                           John Entsminger,
                                                    General Manager

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would urge my 
colleagues on the Committee to support this legislation, doing 
well by doing good.
    I yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Titus follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress 
                        from the State of Nevada

    Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today on H.R. 6209, the Sloan Canyon 
Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act. My bill would allow a portion of 
the Southern Nevada Water Authority's (SNWA) Horizon Lateral water 
pipeline project to tunnel underneath Sloan Canyon National 
Conservation Area (NCA), while expanding the NCA by 9,290 acres. This 
project will increase water reliability for over a million Southern 
Nevadans, fortify the region's water infrastructure against potential 
outages, and minimize disruptions and impacts to communities in my 
District, all while enhancing the preservation of the surrounding 
desert landscapes and unique habitat.
    Currently, 40 percent of Southern Nevada's drinking water is 
provided by the South Valley Lateral (SVL), a 27-mile pipeline which 
has been in service since the 1990s. Unfortunately, the line does not 
have the redundancy needed to ensure continued water services during a 
disruption or system emergency. This vulnerability became apparent in 
2017 when the SVL underwent emergency repairs and was subsequently shut 
down, forcing local agencies to temporarily adjust water delivery 
operations.
    In recent years, public planning engagements have resulted in two 
options for an additional pipeline:
    The first, also known as the ``Northern Alignment'', would involve 
years of construction through neighborhoods in Henderson, Nevada, 
causing significant traffic congestion and disrupting multiple 
neighborhoods and businesses.
    The second option, known as the ``South Alignment'', would be 
constructed on undeveloped land, including a nearly seven mile stretch 
beneath the Sloan Canyon NCA. Not only would this preferred option 
minimize disruptions in surrounding communities, but it would also be 
better positioned to meet a targeted completion date of 2030 and would 
save ratepayers at least $200 million compared to the Northern 
Alignment.
    In order for this project to move forward in a permanently 
protected area, Congressional authorization is required. This is why I 
introduced H.R. 6209, the House companion to Senator Cortez Masto's 
legislation which the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 
passed unanimously last year. In addition to granting a right-of-way to 
the Southern Nevada Water Authority for constructing the pipeline, the 
bill ensures additional habitat protections by expanding the current 
NCA by 9,290 acres to ensure connectivity for bighorn sheep between 
protected areas--including the recently designated Avi Kwa Ame National 
Monument. The language also includes assurances that the right-of-way 
will minimize ecosystem disruptions by ensuring the Horizon Lateral 
cannot have a permanent adverse effect on resources, and that the 
pipeline cannot go underneath the wilderness area within Sloan Canyon.
    I am proud to say this legislation has secured wide support from 
Clark County and the City of Henderson, as well as local conservation 
organizations, labor unions, and business associations. Accordingly, I 
urge my colleagues on this committee to support this legislation.

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Titus. I now 
recognize Representative Miller-Meeks for 5 minutes on H.R. 
5499.
    Welcome to the Committee.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, A 
       REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and I want 
to thank you for allowing me to waive on to this important 
hearing today. I would like to speak in support of my 
legislation, H.R. 5499, the Congressional Oversight of the 
Antiquities Act, which I am grateful is under consideration in 
this legislative hearing.
    The Antiquities Act was enacted in 1906 to authorize the 
President to protect antiquities or objects of historic 
interest under imminent threat. The plain language of the law 
requires that all designations be confined to the smallest area 
compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be 
protected.
    The Minority party would like you to believe that the 
country hasn't changed in over 100 years. This Act has never 
been updated since 1906, and I think that we can all agree that 
the United States has drastically changed and progressed since 
Teddy Roosevelt was president. Compare the language of the law 
and the historically obvious intent of the Congress that passed 
it. At the time, it was even debated whether the law should 
limit designations to 320 or 640 acres.
    With its abuse over the last half century, presidents, 
regardless of what party, have repeatedly flouted the rule of 
law and usurped the powers of Congress to arbitrarily block off 
millions of acres of land. President Theodore Roosevelt was the 
first president to use the Act. He used it 18 times to reserve 
a total of 1.5 million acres of land. President Barack Obama 
used it 37 times to designate 553.6 million acres of land.
    Make no mistake, this Act does not prevent a president of 
either party from declaring a national monument or setting land 
aside. In August 2023, President Biden unilaterally restricted 
access to almost 1 million acres of land surrounding the Grand 
Canyon. Actions such as these are not the rule of law. It is an 
arbitrary rule by one person.
    To vest one person with the unfettered power, regardless of 
what political party, to make these decisions with no 
congressional check or local input, should be offensive to each 
and every Member of Congress who has taken an oath to support 
and defend the Constitution and the impartial rule of law.
    H.R. 5499 is simple. It requires congressional approval of 
presidential monument or reservation declarations within 6 
months, or before the end of the last session of Congress it 
was introduced, whichever comes first. If not approved by 
Congress, the monument cannot be designated again by the 
president for 25 years.
    I thank Chairman Tiffany for including this legislation in 
the hearing today. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
important update to the Antiquities Act of 1906, and I yield 
the balance of my time.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, Representative Miller-
Meeks. We are now going to move on to our second panel.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you 
must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but your entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on 
the microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I 
will ask you to please complete your statement.
    First, I would like to introduce Ms. Nada Wolff Culver, 
Principal Deputy Director for the Bureau of Land Management.
    Principal Deputy Director Culver, you are recognized for 5 
minutes. Welcome to the Committee.

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

    Ms. Culver. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the 
opportunity to provide testimony for today's hearing. Again, I 
am Nada Wolff Culver, Principal Deputy Director at the Bureau 
of Land Management.
    The BLM manages approximately 245 million surface acres, 
located primarily in 12 western states, as well as 700 million 
acres of subsurface mineral estate under the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA. The BLM is committed to 
its core multiple use and sustained yield mandate, which 
provides for a careful balancing of many uses and resources for 
the benefit of all people.
    First, the Biden-Harris administration strongly opposes 
H.R. 5499, which would require congressional approval of 
presidential proclamations of national monuments within a very 
short time frame, and otherwise preclude protection of those 
same lands for 25 years.
    Enacted over 100 years ago, the Antiquities Act is a key 
tool used by 18 presidents of both political parties to 
preserve and protect critical natural, cultural, historical, 
and scientific resources on Federal lands for future 
generations. Designations under the Antiquities Act apply only 
to lands owned or controlled by the Federal Government, subject 
to valid existing rights. They place no restrictions on private 
property or lands owned by state or local governments.
    While national monuments can be established legislatively, 
Congress has frequently chosen to enhance or expand protections 
initially established through a presidential proclamation under 
the Antiquities Act. Congressional action, however, often 
occurs many years, even decades after presidents first took 
action.
    The BLM currently manages 30 national monuments designated 
by presidential proclamation. The most recently designated BLM 
national monument, co-managed with the Forest Service, is the 
Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand 
Canyon National Monument in Arizona. This incredible monument 
protects approximately 900,000 acres of plateaus, canyons, and 
tributaries, supporting a remarkable diversity of wildlife and 
plants, and preserves the area's spiritual, cultural, 
prehistoric, and historic legacy.
    As Congress intended, the Antiquities Act provides the 
necessary flexibility for Presidents to respond expeditiously 
to impending threats to resources, while striking an 
appropriate balance between legislative and executive decision-
making. Maintaining this established balance is critical to 
protecting our shared national resources now and for future 
generations.
    The BLM also strongly opposes H.R. 6085 and H.R. 6547, 
which would halt ongoing land use planning efforts in Wyoming 
and Colorado, respectively, where draft plans have been issued 
for public input. These bills contravene FLPMA, and would 
prevent the BLM from managing public land resources on millions 
of acres.
    The Colorado planning effort, in particular, is in response 
to litigation. FLPMA requires the BLM to ``develop, maintain, 
and, when appropriate, revise Resource Management Plans to 
manage a wide range of public land resources under the 
principles of multiple use and sustained yield.'' These plans 
serve as blueprints for keeping public landscapes healthy and 
productive. The BLM balances and ensures opportunities for 
commercial, recreation, and conservation activities on public 
lands.
    To prepare plans, the BLM invites local voices and diverse 
views, works closely with state and local governments, respects 
the ties that Native and traditional communities have to the 
land, and develops partnerships that lead to successful 
resource stewardship. All of these efforts are already underway 
in Wyoming and Colorado, reflecting thousands of hours of 
engagement by many people who care about their public lands.
    If enacted, H.R. 6085 and H.R. 6547 would undermine the 
public's right to provide input on management of public lands, 
as well as the BLM's ability to steward them.
    Regarding H.R. 6209, the BLM supports the expansion of the 
Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area in Nevada. However, we 
are concerned that the bill's mandate of a permanent, free 
right-of-way to construct and maintain an underground water 
pipeline across the NCA and direction to permit additional 
activity within existing transmission and utility corridors 
could compromise the natural values of this area. We would like 
to work with the sponsor on changes to the bill and associated 
legislative map to address those concerns.
    Finally, the Department defers to the Securities and 
Exchange Commission on the potential impacts associated with 
H.R. 7006.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on these 
bills. 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
      on H.R. 5499, H.R. 6085, H.R. 6209, H.R. 6547, and H.R. 7006

Introduction

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the bills on 
the hearing agenda related to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
    The BLM manages approximately 245 million surface acres, located 
primarily in 12 western states, and approximately 700 million acres of 
subsurface mineral estate. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) sets forth the BLM's multiple-use mission, directing that 
public lands generally be managed for a broad range of uses, such as 
renewable and conventional energy development, livestock grazing, 
timber production, hunting and fishing, recreation, wilderness, and 
conservation--including protecting cultural and historic resources. 
FLPMA also requires the BLM to manage public land resources on a 
sustained-yield basis for the benefit of current and future 
generations.
    This multiple-use, sustained yield mission enables the BLM to make 
tremendous contributions to economic growth, job creation, and domestic 
energy production, while generating revenues for Federal and State 
treasuries and local economies and allowing for a thoughtful, science-
based approach to management of our public lands and waters. 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. In addition, as recognized by the Biden-Harris 
Administration's America the Beautiful initiative, many uses of our 
lands and waters, including working lands, are consistent with the 
conservation of the nation's natural resources, contributing to the 
long-term health and sustainability of natural systems.
H.R. 5499, Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities Act

    H.R. 5499 would require congressional approval of presidential 
proclamations of national monuments, and reservations of parcels of 
land as a part of national monuments, within six months of a monument's 
establishment or before the end of the current session of Congress, 
whichever is earlier. Under the bill, if the designation or reservation 
is not extended or modified by statute during this limited time frame, 
or the designation or reservation is otherwise rejected by statute, the 
lands in question cannot be designated as or added to an existing 
monument by a President for a period of 25 years. The Administration 
strongly opposes H.R. 5499.
Analysis

    Enacted over 100 years ago, the Antiquities Act has repeatedly been 
used by 18 presidents of both political parties as an instrument to 
preserve and protect critical cultural, historical, and scientific 
resources on Federal lands for future generations. The Antiquities Act 
authorizes presidents to establish national monuments on Federal lands 
to protect historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and 
other objects of historic or scientific interest on those lands and to 
reserve lands as part of such monuments to ensure the proper care and 
management of the objects to be protected. Designations under the Act 
apply only to lands owned or controlled by the Federal government; they 
place no restrictions on private property or lands owned by State or 
local governments. Designations are also subject to valid existing 
rights. Several of the nation's most treasured national parks, 
including Grand Canyon, Joshua Tree, and Death Valley, were first 
protected as national monuments through presidential action under the 
Antiquities Act.
    Congress already has effective tools to modify or even eliminate a 
national monument it deems inappropriate. For example, in 1926 Congress 
enacted legislation removing certain lands from the Casa Grande 
National Monument. Congress has also eliminated national monuments when 
it determines that they are no longer necessary, as it did when it 
eliminated the Old Kassan National Monument in Alaska. These actions 
demonstrated the efficacy of this approach. Under well-established 
principles of law, a national monument proclamation is effective unless 
and until Congress modifies or revokes a monument proclamation. H.R. 
5499 would turn this approach on its head--instead of allowing the 
president to act quickly in order to allow Congress the opportunity to 
deliberate and refine a monument, it would make new monument 
proclamations contingent on congressional ratification in six months or 
less.
    Within the Department of the Interior, the BLM currently manages 30 
national monuments designated by presidential proclamation, three of 
which are co-managed with the National Park Service (NPS) and six of 
which are co-managed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 
Service (USFS). The most recently designated national monument, Baaj 
Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National 
Monument in Arizona, protects approximately 900,000 acres of plateaus, 
canyons, and tributaries supporting a remarkable diversity of wildlife 
and plants, and preserves the area's spiritual, cultural, prehistoric, 
and historic legacy. The NPS currently manages 55 national monuments 
established by presidential proclamation, including the iconic Devils 
Tower, Muir Woods, and the Statue of Liberty. Finally, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service administers eight presidentially proclaimed 
national monuments, two of which are co-managed with the NPS. Though 
some national monuments may have been established amidst controversy, 
they are now recognized as renowned symbols of America's beauty and 
legacy, exemplifying the wisdom of retaining the Antiquities Act in its 
current form.
    The designation of national monuments regularly builds upon decades 
of efforts from Tribal Nations; State and local officials; 
conservation, civil rights, and outdoor recreation advocates; local 
business owners; and Members of Congress to recognize and conserve 
objects of historic or scientific interest in perpetuity. Historical 
data demonstrates an increase in economic growth in communities near 
national monuments.
    Without the President's authority under the Antiquities Act, it is 
unlikely that places like Petrified Forest National Monument or Navajo 
National Monument, both of which faced imminent threat of destruction, 
would have been protected. The Antiquities Act provides the necessary 
flexibility to respond expeditiously to impending threats to historic 
landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of 
historic or scientific interest, while striking an appropriate balance 
between legislative and executive decision making. Maintaining the 
established balance is critical to protecting our shared national 
resources for future generations.
H.R. 6209, Sloan Canyon Conservation & Lateral Pipeline Act

    H.R. 6209 would amend the Clark County Conservation of Public Land 
and Natural Resources Act of 2002 by expanding the Sloan Canyon 
National Conservation Area (NCA) in Clark County, Nevada, to include 
approximately 9,000 additional acres of public land managed by the BLM. 
The bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) 
to grant a free, permanent right-of-way (ROW) to the Southern Nevada 
Water Authority (SNWA) for a water pipeline through the Sloan Canyon 
NCA within one year of enactment. The bill would also allow SNWA to use 
any displaced sand and gravel resources generated by the installation 
of an underground water pipeline within the ROW without cost. Finally, 
the bill would permit additional activity within existing transmission 
and utility corridors or transmission ROWs, including authorizing new 
utility facility ROWs.
Analysis

    Clark County, located in southern Nevada, is home to over 2.2 
million people, as well as significant historic, cultural, and 
paleontological treasures. The BLM manages approximately 2.6 million 
acres of public lands within Clark County for a wide range of uses. 
These include various recreational activities, such as hiking, camping, 
horseback riding, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding, renewable 
energy projects, rights-of-ways for utilities, and mineral development. 
Notably, Clark County contains iconic BLM-managed national conservation 
lands, including the Red Rock Canyon NCA, Sloan Canyon NCA, Gold Butte 
National Monument, and Avi Kwa Ame National Monument.
Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area

    In 2002, Congress designated 48,438 acres of BLM-managed lands in 
southern Nevada as the Sloan Canyon NCA to preserve and protect the 
natural and cultural resources located in the southern Mojave Desert. 
The Sloan Canyon NCA provides outstanding opportunities for visitors 
who wish to experience the unique scenic and geologic features, 
remarkable cultural resources, and diverse recreation possibilities 
within the area.
    In addition, the Sloan Canyon NCA includes the Sloan Canyon 
Petroglyph Site and the North McCullough Wilderness. The Sloan Canyon 
Petroglyph site is one of the most significant, scenic, and important 
cultural resources in southern Nevada, containing more than 300 rock 
art panels and nearly 1,700 designs representing native cultures dating 
from the Archaic period to the modern era. The 14,763-acre North 
McCullough Wilderness lies entirely within the Sloan Canyon NCA and 
contains unique and spectacular natural resources, including thousands 
of acres of land that remain in a natural condition. The wilderness is 
located only a few miles from Las Vegas and the City of Henderson, 
Nevada, and provides opportunities for solitude and a primitive and 
unconfined type of recreation in close proximity to two of the busiest 
and most densely populated cities in the state.
    H.R. 6209 would expand the existing NCA by adding over 9,000 acres 
of BLM-managed public lands. The BLM notes that the majority of the 
lands identified for inclusion in the NCA are currently being used for 
dispersed recreation, OHV use, and recreational shooting. The BLM 
generally supports expanding this NCA but would like to work with the 
sponsor to ensure use of any lands included would be consistent with 
the stated purpose of the NCA.
Rights-of-Way

    Under FLPMA, the BLM issues ROWs for a variety of uses that are in 
the public interest. A ROW grant authorizes certain uses of public 
lands for a specified period appropriate for the life of the project. 
FLPMA also generally requires the BLM to charge rental fees that 
reflect the value of the uses authorized by the ROW. Pursuant to the 
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, upon application, 
SNWA, defined as a regional governmental entity in that Act, shall be 
issued a ROW on Federal lands in Clark County, Nevada, that is valid in 
perpetuity and shall not require the payment of rental or cost recovery 
fees.
    H.R. 6209 would grant a permanent, free ROW to SNWA to construct 
and maintain an underground water pipeline. The bill would further 
authorize the Secretary to include reasonable terms and conditions as 
necessary to protect the resources in the NCA, prohibits construction 
activities that would permanently adversely affect surface resources, 
and prohibits locating the ROW in or under any area designated as 
wilderness. In 2021, BLM rejected a similar ROW request from SNWA for 
the construction of an underground water pipeline in the Sloan Canyon 
NCA as inconsistent with the purposes of the NCA as designated by 
Congress.
    The Department appreciates the inclusion of language in the bill 
that could help reduce impacts from the construction of the water 
pipeline but is still concerned that the bill's mandate for a permanent 
ROW could compromise the natural values that the NCA was specifically 
designated to protect, despite what we understand to be the Sponsor's 
intent. The permanent ROW granted by the bill is for the underground 
water pipeline and associated infrastructure, which would involve 
surface-disturbing activities. In addition, the BLM is concerned that 
the language in section 3(c) of the bill could be interpreted as 
allowing for significant expansion and authorization of surface-
disturbing activities within the NCA, and notes that this section does 
not include some of the protective language provided with the 
authorization of the ROW in section 3(b). The Department would like to 
work with the Sponsor to clarify their intent as to the provisions in 
section 3(c) and to ensure that the bill as written does not 
inadvertently allow for activities beyond the envisioned scope, as the 
Department remains committed to ensuring the core values and resources 
identified for protection by the creation of the Sloan Canyon NCA 
remain protected.
    If the bill moves forward, the Department would like to work with 
the Sponsor to ensure that any ROW issued by the BLM follows the 
established requirements for ROWs, and that the legislative map 
referred to in the bill is updated to reflect current utility corridors 
and related authorizations in the area and to clarify where the 
proposed access road ROW will be located. The Department also notes 
that the one-year time frame to issue the ROW provided by the bill is 
insufficient to complete adequate Tribal consultation and environmental 
analysis.
Federal Minerals

    The Materials Act of 1947 authorized the disposal of certain 
widespread minerals of common occurrence, such as sand and gravel, and 
made them subject to disposal through sale or permit. The Materials Act 
established a process to provide the taxpayer with a fair return for 
those minerals that are disposed of through sale. The BLM shares a 
portion of the revenues from the sale of mineral materials with the 
state where the minerals are produced.
    H.R. 6209 would allow SNWA to use any displaced sand and gravel 
resources generated by the tunneling of the water pipeline in the ROW 
created by the bill without cost. The Department would like to work 
with the Sponsor on modifications to ensure that taxpayers receive a 
fair return for the use of mineral materials by the SNWA.
H.R. 6085, Prohibiting Implementation of the Rock Springs RMP Revision

    H.R. 6085 would prohibit the Secretary from finalizing, 
implementing, administering, or enforcing the Draft Rock Springs 
Resource Management Plan (RMP) Revision and associated Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The BLM strongly opposes H.R. 
6085.
Rock Springs Planning Area & RMP Revision

    The BLM manages approximately 3.6 million acres of surface land and 
3.7 million acres of mineral estate in the Rock Springs Field Office 
(RSFO) planning area, which encompasses portions of Lincoln, 
Sweetwater, Uinta, Sublette, and Fremont counties in southwestern 
Wyoming. The agency administers various programs within the planning 
area, including mineral exploration and development, renewable energy, 
wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation, wild horses, livestock grazing, 
and historic trails. Resources on lands within the RSFO are currently 
managed under the 1997 Green River RMP, as amended. In the 26 years 
since the completion of that plan, new laws have been enacted and there 
have been considerable changes to development patterns and technology 
used for the development of oil and gas, renewable energy, coal, and 
trona resources, which have led to conflicts with other multiple uses. 
These changes, along with emerging issues and management concerns 
(e.g., renewable energy and transmission corridors, impacts of other 
activities on wildlife migration, and increased interest in 
recreation), have culminated in a years-long effort to revise the 
outdated existing plan, informed by public input and extensive work 
with cooperating agencies, including the State of Wyoming and affected 
counties.
    When completed, the Rock Springs RMP Revision will provide an 
updated, comprehensive, and environmentally sound framework for 
managing and allocating uses of public lands and resources administered 
by the RSFO. The revised plan will address the changing needs of the 
planning area by updating information and revising management goals, 
objectives, and decisions while ensuring that public lands are managed 
according to the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. 
Further, the revised plan will account for valid existing rights and 
other obligations already established in the area. The revised RMP will 
address issues that have been identified through extensive input from 
other Federal agencies; State, local, and Tribal governments; and 
members of the public.
    The BLM released the Draft RMP Revision and associated Draft EIS 
(Draft RMP/EIS) for a 90-day public comment period on August 18, 2023, 
and extended the comment period for an additional 60 days to ensure 
that the public had ample time for review. The BLM received valuable 
and specific feedback during the extended comment period and through a 
series of public meetings. Additionally, on January 10, 2024, the 
Governor of Wyoming's Task Force on the Rock Springs RMP (Task Force) 
provided a detailed set of recommendations regarding the draft 
revision. The BLM is carefully reviewing the Task Force's 
recommendations, as well as other comments received during the public 
comment period. Once all the comments received are considered, the BLM 
will prepare the Final EIS and Proposed RMP.
    Finally, it is important to note that in developing a proposed land 
use plan, the BLM may modify the alternatives presented--or may develop 
a new alternative from within the range of alternatives considered--in 
the draft plan. In preparing a proposed RMP, the BLM considers public 
comments on the draft plan and feedback from cooperating agencies. The 
identification of a preferred alternative in a draft RMP does not 
constitute a commitment or a decision in principle. It is required in 
BLM's planning regulations and serves as the most useful starting point 
from which the BLM could construct the proposed plan. As a result, 
proposed RMPs may differ significantly from the preferred alternative 
identified in the draft.
Analysis

    H.R. 6085 is contrary to FLPMA, which requires the BLM to 
``develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise'' RMPs to manage a 
wide range of public land resources under the principles of multiple 
use and sustained yield. RMPs serve as blueprints for keeping public 
landscapes healthy and productive for current and future generations, 
and along with planning decisions, they are the basis for every on-the-
ground action that the BLM takes. The BLM's RMPs allocate resources and 
determine appropriate multiple uses for the public lands; provide a 
strategy to manage and protect resources; and establish systems to 
monitor and evaluate the health of resources and effectiveness of 
management practices over time.
    As plans are prepared, the BLM invites and values local voices and 
diverse views; respects the ties that native and traditional 
communities have to the land; and develops partnerships that lead to 
successful resource stewardship. As a result, we have a strong history 
of ensuring opportunities for and the balance of commercial, 
recreational, and conservation activities on public lands, including in 
the RSFO. The BLM is committed to achieving the balance between its 
multiple use and sustained yield mandate and addressing local 
conditions and concerns through continued collaboration with the public 
and our many partners. We appreciate the Task Force's recommendations 
on the Draft RMP Revision and are incorporating them into the plan, 
where appropriate. If enacted, H.R. 6085 would preclude these efforts 
and undermine the public's right to provide input on management of 
public lands.
H.R. 6547, Colorado Energy Prosperity Act

    H.R. 6547 would prohibit the Secretary from finalizing, 
implementing, administering, or enforcing the Draft RMPs and associated 
Supplemental EIS for the Colorado River Valley Field (CRVFO) Office and 
the Grand Junction Field Office (GJFO) in Colorado or any substantially 
similar documents. The BLM strongly opposes H.R. 6547.
Background

    The BLM manages approximately 494,200 surface acres and 
approximately 695,200 acres of Federal mineral estate in the CRVFO 
planning area, which includes portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, 
Pitkin, and Routt Counties. In the GJFO planning area, which includes 
portions of Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and Rio Blanco Counties, the BLM 
manages approximately 1.06 million acres of surface lands and 
approximately 1.23 million acres of Federal mineral estate. Combined, 
these planning areas total approximately 1.56 million acres of BLM-
managed public lands and approximately 1.92 million acres of Federal 
mineral estate. Both field offices currently manage resources on lands 
within their respective planning areas under RMPs approved in 2015.
    The BLM is currently preparing a Supplemental EIS to comply with an 
adverse 2018 Federal District Court ruling and subsequent settlement 
agreement for litigation of the CRVFO RMP and with a settlement 
agreement for litigation of subsequent oil and gas leasing in both the 
CRVFO and GJFO. The BLM is also developing the Supplemental EIS to 
respond to a court-approved voluntary remand of the GJFO RMP to address 
the same deficiencies identified by the Court in the 2018 court ruling. 
The Supplemental EIS, developed with input from the public and 
cooperating agencies (including the State of Colorado and affected 
counties), considers an expanded range of alternatives for oil and gas 
leasing throughout the two field offices and provides additional air 
quality analysis for the fluid mineral management alternatives 
considered in the original plans. Decisions in both RMPs unrelated to 
fluid mineral leasing remain in effect as the BLM prepares the 
Supplemental EIS. The BLM released the Draft Supplemental EIS for a 90-
day public comment period on August 4, 2023. The BLM is currently 
considering comments received during the public comment period. Once 
all the comments received are considered, the BLM will prepare the 
Final Supplemental EIS.
Analysis

    As directed by the 2018 Federal court ruling and the court-approved 
voluntary remand, the BLM must complete the Supplemental EIS to rectify 
issues with the environmental analysis associated with the 2015 RMPs. 
Additionally, the BLM committed as part of the settlement agreements to 
resolve the litigation involving the 2015 RMPs and subsequent oil and 
gas lease sales to consider new information. The bill, as currently 
drafted, would not obviate the BLM's need to comply with issues 
identified in the Federal court ruling, nor would it relieve the BLM 
from its obligation to meet the commitments outlined in the settlement 
agreements to resolve that and other litigation. Rather, it would 
undermine the efforts of the BLM and cooperating agencies, along with 
the right of the public to provide input on the management of public 
lands.
    H.R. 6547 is also contrary to FLPMA, which requires the BLM to 
``develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise'' RMPs to manage 
public lands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. 
The BLM opposes efforts to limit the agency's ability to allocate 
resources and determine appropriate multiple uses for public land 
resources so that they remain available to present and future 
generations.
    Finally, the BLM notes the Records of Decision for the CRVFO and 
GJFO RMPs were signed in June 2015. All the management decisions and 
actions outlined in the 2015 RMPs--with the exception of their oil and 
gas leasing decisions--are currently in effect. The bill's language 
appears to prevent the implementation of any new decisions that would 
be informed by the Supplemental EIS or substantially similar documents. 
If enacted, H.R. 6547 would prevent State and local governments and 
members of the public from providing any input on the management of 
resources within the CRVFO or GJFO for both current and future planning 
efforts. The bill would also result in the BLM being unable to 
implement any oil and gas leasing within either field office going 
forward.
H.R. 7006, Prohibiting Natural Asset Companies in Utah

    H.R. 7006 would prohibit ``natural asset companies,'' as defined in 
the Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC) withdrawn proposed rule 
regarding the New York Stock Exchange, or substantially similar 
companies, from entering into any agreement with respect to land in the 
State of Utah or natural assets on or in such land. The Department was 
not involved in the withdrawn SEC proposal and defers to the SEC on the 
potential impacts associated with H.R. 7006.
H.R. 5015, Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act

    H.R. 5015 would support USFS ecosystem restoration activities and 
modify the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Collaborative Forest 
Landscape Restoration Program to expand opportunities for the 
collection and maintenance of native seeds. The Department defers to 
the USDA regarding the potential impacts associated with H.R. 5015.
Conclusion

    Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on these 
bills.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. 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. When does the Bureau of Land Management plan to publish 
the so-called ``Conservation and Landscape Health Rule''?

    Question 2. Are you aware of any national monuments the President 
is planning to designate before the end of his term? If so, can you 
please list what monuments are under consideration, and in which 
states?

    Question 3. Has the BLM been asked to provide any technical 
assistance, including creating maps or to hold public listening 
sessions, on any potential national monument designations by the White 
House?

    Question 4. When a new monument is designated and BLM is directed 
to manage it, what funding is provided by the President to carry out 
the management?

    Question 5. What is the last Resource Management Plan finalized by 
the Bureau of Land Management that created a net increase in land 
available for oil and gas production?

    Question 6. How is the BLM abiding by its statutory multiple use 
mandate when the agency is consistently restricting energy development 
across millions of acres of land without opening up any new acres to 
oil and gas leasing?

    Question 7. The Committee received testimony that the BLM is using 
decades-old data to justify restrictive land designations. In the case 
of the Wyoming RMP, the BLM has overestimated potential oil and natural 
gas development by a staggering 1,867 percent to justify locking up 
more than 2 million acres ofland in one of the top energy-producing 
states in the nation.

    Can you please explain how the BLM came to the assumption that 336 
wells would be drilled per year in the case of the Rock Springs RMP?

    Question 8. The Committee has heard concerns from several 
stakeholders and constituents that significant decisions are being made 
at the agency via internal memos to staff, bypassing publication in the 
Federal Register and avoiding opportunity for public comment or 
notification to Congress.

    8a) Has the Bureau of Land Management distributed internal memos or 
internal direction to staff regarding Natural Asset Companies or 
conservation leases?

    8a) Can you please discuss BLM's policy regarding what is sent via 
internal memorandum to staff, versus what the agency seeks public 
comment on?

    Question 9. When the President designated the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument in Utah and directed the BLM to manage it, 
were any additional funds provided to BLM to carry out this 
responsibility?

    Question 10. When the President designated the Bears Ears National 
Monument in Utah and directed the BLM to manage it, were any additional 
funds provided to BLM to carry out this responsibility?

    Question 11. When the President designated the Avi Kwa Ame National 
Monument in Nevada and directed the BLM to manage it, were any funds 
provided to BLM to carry out this responsibility?

    Question 12. Please provide the number of incidents of vandalism 
and/or resource destruction at Bears Ears National Monument from 2013 
(prior to the designation) to 2023.

    Question 13. Please provide the number of incidents of vandalism 
and/or resource destruction at Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
Monument from 2013 to 2023.

    Question 14. When the President designated the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah 
Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument in 
Arizona and directed the BLM to manage it, were any funds provided to 
BLM to carry out this responsibility?

    Question 15. Please provide the annual funding allocated to manage 
Bears Ears National Monument from 2013 (prior to the designation) to 
2023.

    Question 16. Please provide the annual funding allocated to manage 
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument from 2013 to 2023.

    Question 17. In reference to national monument designations under 
the Antiquities Act, BLM's testimony states: ``They place no 
restrictions on private property or lands owned by State or local 
governments.''

    17a) How many acres of private land are included in the 
designations made by President Biden of each of the following 
monuments:

      i. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

      ii. Bears Ears National Monument

      iii. Avi Kwa Ame National Monument

      iv.  Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand 
Canyon National Monument

    17b) How many acres of state or locally owned land are included in 
the designations made by President Biden of each of the following 
monuments:

      i. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

      ii. Bears Ears National Monument

      iii. Avi Kwa Ame National Monument

      iv.  Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand 
Canyon National Monument

    Question 18. Does the BLM use the most accurate and recently 
available data when developing Resource Management Plans?

    Question 19. Why are the two Draft RMPs impacting the Western Slope 
in Colorado using a 2002 U.S. Geological Survey Resource Assessment 
instead of a more recent assessment done in 2016?

    Question 20. Does the BLM conduct an economic analysis when 
developing and updating RMPs?

    Question 21. Regarding the formulation of RMPs and the energy 
sector:

    21a) Does the BLM consider technological advances in oil and gas 
production with the same due diligence that it affords to updated 
ecological studies?

    21b) Do the BLM's decisions adequately reflect how these 
technologies have made oil and gas extraction feasible in new areas?

    21c) Does the agency recognize the potential such developments have 
to create new jobs and support local economies?

    Question 22. Is the BLM aware their draft RMP for Rock Springs, 
Wyoming will cut $5.6 million of revenue to local schools?

    Question 23. Is the BLM aware their draft RMP for Rock Springs, 
Wyoming will cause 2,900 people to lose their jobs?

    Question 24. The RMPs proposed a combined 25 new Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern (ACECs). These are open to public comment. Is the 
public comment period for ACECs important to BLM?

    Question 25. On June 22, 2023, BLM appeared before this Committee 
and testified, in the context of H.R. 3049, that you appreciated ``the 
good work and good faith'' of Utah state officials, especially those 
working for SITLA. It only seems fair, then, that stakeholders should 
expect the same from the BLM. Does the BLM's conduct in formulating the 
Rock Springs RMP reflect ``good work and good faith?'' I am 
specifically referring to the BLM's abrupt and unusual decision to 
pursue the most preservation-heavy plan, or Alternative B, despite 
spending years telling local stakeholders that the agency would likely 
proceed with the more balanced approach described in Alternative D.

    Question 26. According to the testimony of another witness familiar 
with the Rock Springs RMP, the BLM abruptly selected Alternative Bas 
the agency's preferred alternative, despite representing Alternative 
Das the preliminary preferred alternative for many years prior. While 
the BLM retains exclusive authority to select a preferred alternative, 
is so abrupt a change consistent with the principles of collaboration, 
as described in BLM Handbook H-1601-1?

    Question 27. In your testimony, you state that the BLM extended the 
comment period for the Rock Springs RMP ``to ensure that the public had 
ample time for review.'' Why should stakeholders believe that the BLM 
values their comments, when the agency has proved so willing to 
disregard past comments, as indicated by switching abruptly from 
Alternative D to Alternative B?

    Question 28. In your responses to questions at the hearing, you 
stated that the BLM would fully vet applications for conservation 
leases issued under the proposed Conservation and Landscape Health Rule 
to ensure that nefarious parties, including companies controlled by 
America's foreign adversaries, do not acquire such leases.

    28a) Does the BLM currently have the capability and expertise to 
vet corporate applicants, including for any potential national security 
concerns they may pose?

    28b) If so, please describe the departments or teams that are 
tasked with such work.

    28c) If not, please describe, in detail, the BLM's plans to acquire 
this capability by the time the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule 
is finalized.

    Question 29. In your responses to Member questions, you stated that 
the BLM had no contact with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 
(SEC) in connection with the SEC's proposal to allow natural asset 
companies (NACs) to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

    Given the complementary nature of, and probable interactions 
between, NACs and BLM conservation leases, was this lack of 
coordination with the SEC appropriate?

    Question 30. What resources are available to the public that allow 
them to communicate to the BLM that they are interested in pursuing a 
land exchange?

    Question 31. If a party contacts the agency about acquiring a 
parcel of BLM land, how long does it take on average for the BLM to 
determine whether the parcel is suitable for disposal?

    Question 32. When considering the suitability of a parcel's 
disposal, how does the BLM weigh public benefits such as economic 
growth and job creation?

    Question 33. How many firefighters does the BLM have employed as of 
March 25, 2024?

    Question 34. How many firefighters does the BLM plan to hire ahead 
of the 2024 fire season?

    Question 35. Does the BLM anticipate the National Guard or other 
military assets will be needed to augment federal firefighting 
resources this fire year?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Director Culver. I would like to 
now introduce Mr. Chris French, Deputy Chief of the National 
Forest System for the U.S. Forest Service.
    Deputy Chief French, you have 5 minutes. Welcome back to 
the Committee.

STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST 
          SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. French. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Tiffany and 
Ranking Member Neguse. I am Chris French, the Deputy Chief for 
the National Forest System at the U.S. Forest Service. I have 
been with the agency for more than 30 years, and I am here to 
discuss USDA's views on the Congressional Oversight and 
Antiquities Act, the Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat 
Restoration Act, and prohibiting Natural Asset Companies in 
Utah.
    H.R. 5015, Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration 
Act, really focuses on a large issue that we have across this 
country on our National Forest System lands, which is 
essentially our ability to reforest lands that are impacted by 
wildfire. I want to show my sincere appreciation to Congress 
for the reforestation provisions that are under IIJA, in 
particular the REPLANT Act, which focuses on post-disturbance 
reforestation needs, and sets a mandate for us to address the 
backlog of reforestation needs across the National Forest 
System over the next 10 years.
    The provisions in IIJA have enabled the Forest Service to 
increase the pace and scale of restoration to address existing 
needs and anticipate future events. H.R. 5015 amends this in 
the ecosystem restoration section of IIJA to allow the Forest 
Service to enter into contracts, grants, or agreements with 
state forestry agencies, local, private, or non-profit 
entities, institutions of higher education, or multi-state 
coalitions for the collection and maintenance of native seeds, 
and for the production of seedlings for re-vegetation.
    For some of these ecosystem restoration activities in this 
section of IIJA, particularly those that are funding work on 
the National Forest System, we have some of these authorities 
to enter into contracts and agreements with these entities. 
However, for activities on non-Federal lands under IIJA's 
ecosystem restoration section, it expands the range of projects 
and partners potentially requesting funding under this section.
    It would also modify the funding requirements for Forest 
Service landscape restoration proposals under the Collaborative 
Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Though H.R. 5015 does not 
seem to expand or change those authorities, it would broaden 
the framing around the program to explicitly include academic 
institutions and seed collection and seedling production 
activities as part of potential projects. This is in line with 
existing agency program guidance and is helpful.
    USDA recognizes the importance of native seed collection, 
the maintenance and seedling production to support the goals 
that are within this bill, and we would like to work with the 
Committee to provide some technical assistance.
    With regards to H.R. 5499, Congressional Oversight of the 
Antiquities Act, it would amend the Antiquities Act such that 
the presidential establishment or modification of a national 
monument would only be temporary unless the action is ratified 
by Congress through statute. If Congress does not act quickly 
to ratify the action by statute, the action would be void. A 
failure to ratify also bars the acreage from future 
consideration under the Antiquities Act for the next 25 years.
    The National Forest System administers 15 national 
monuments in eight states. Some of these were designated by the 
President through proclamation under the Antiquities Act, while 
others were established by an Act of Congress. We co-manage 
several of these monuments with the BLM. Roughly 5 million 
acres of National Forest System lands within these monuments 
represent a very small fraction of the 193 million acres of all 
the National Forest System lands. These national monuments 
protect historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric 
structures, and other objects of historic or scientific 
interest on Federal lands for future generations.
    The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5499 because of 
the restrictions it places on the establishment or modification 
of national monuments. Regardless, USDA will continue to 
administer lands as national monuments, whether designated by 
the president or by Congress, or them working in concert.
    Finally, regarding H.R. 7006, prohibiting Natural Asset 
Companies in Utah, USDA was not involved with the withdrawn SEC 
rule to adopt listing standards for Natural Asset Companies, 
and we defer to the SEC on the potential impacts associated 
with H.R. 7006.
    Again, thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, 
and members of the Subcommittee. That concludes my remarks, and 
I am ready to take any questions. Thanks.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Chris French, Deputy Chief, National Forest 
         System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
                 on H.R. 5015, H.R. 5499, and H.R. 7006

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the 
Administration's views on H.R. 5499, the ``Congressional Oversight of 
the Antiquities Act,'' H.R. 5015, ``Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat 
Restoration Act of 2023,'' and H.R. 7006, ``Prohibiting Natural Asset 
Companies in Utah''.
H.R. 5015, ``Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act of 
        2023''

    H.R. 5015 amends the Infrastructure Investment and Job's Act's 
(IIJA) ecosystem restoration section (16 U.S.C. 6592a) to allow the 
USDA Forest Service to enter into contracts, grants, or agreements with 
State forestry agencies, local private or nonprofit entities, 
institutions of higher education or multistate coalitions for the 
collection and maintenance of native seeds and for the production of 
seedlings for revegetation to carry out the ecosystem restoration 
activities under section 16 U.S.C. 6592a(b).
    For some of the ecosystem restoration activities described in 
subsection (b), particularly those funding work on the National Forest 
System, the agency already has the authority to enter into contracts 
and agreements with these entities for collection and maintenance of 
native seeds and the production of seedlings for revegetation. For this 
set of activities, this legislation would not augment our authorities 
for these existing programs. Using IIJA funds, the Forest Service has 
engaged with partners on availability of native seed for restoration 
through partnership agreements and contracts, and we have broad 
authority to do so with a range of partners. The list of agency 
partners is broad and includes Tribes who are not specifically 
mentioned in H.R. 5015.
    For activities on non-federal lands under subsection (b)(9) of 
IIJA's ecosystem restoration section (16 U.S.C. 6592a), however, this 
bill would expand authorities. Currently the Rural Forestry Assistance 
section (16 U.S.C. 2102) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act 
gives the agency authority to award financial assistance via grants and 
cooperative agreements to state foresters or equivalent state officials 
for the production of tree seed and seedlings to benefit non-federal 
lands. H.R. 5015 appears to expand this authority to include native 
plants and would expand eligible entities beyond state foresters and 
equivalent state officials. H.R. 5015 may therefore significantly 
expand the range of projects and partners potentially requesting 
funding under subsection (b)(9), which will require the Forest Service 
to prioritize and manage expectations of eligible partners.
    H.R. 5015 would also modify requirements for forest landscape 
restoration proposals for funding under the Collaborative Forest 
Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) (16 U.S.C. 7303(b)(7)). Though it 
does not seem to expand or change authorities, it would broaden the 
framing around the program to make explicit that seed collection and 
seedling production activities could be part of what projects are 
proposed to benefit local economies. This is in line with existing 
agency program guidance. In addition, the bill adds institutions of 
higher education to the list of entities that may provide employment or 
training opportunities under a proposal. Although academic institutions 
are already among the entities that provide local employment and 
training in collaboration with the Forest Service at CFLRP landscapes, 
this bill explicitly includes them.
    USDA recognizes the importance of native seed collection and 
maintenance and for seedling production for revegetation. We support 
the goals of this bill and would like to work with the Committee to 
better understand its intent and to provide technical assistance.
H.R. 5499, ``Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities Act''

    Presidents of both parties have used 54 U.S.C. 320301 (commonly 
known as the ``Antiquities Act'') for over 100 years to protect 
historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other 
objects of historic or scientific interest on Federal lands for future 
generations. National monument designations under the Antiquities Act 
place no restrictions on non-federal property and are subject to valid 
existing rights.
    The National Forest System administers 15 national monuments 
(including two national volcanic monuments) in eight states (Alaska, 
Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and 
Washington) comprising 5,150,746 acres. Some of these were designated 
by the President through proclamation under the Antiquities Act while 
others were established by an act of Congress. Some are co-managed with 
the Bureau of Land Management.
    H.R. 5499 would amend the Antiquities Act such that the 
establishment of a national monument, or reservation of a parcel of 
land as part of a national monument, would only be a temporary 
designation unless it is subsequently enacted through legislative 
action within the earlier of six months or the last day when Congress 
is in session for the Congressional term. Moreover, if a statute to 
extend or modify the designation is not enacted within this time, the 
acreage would be prohibited from establishment or inclusion in a 
national monument designated by the President under the Antiquities Act 
for the next 25 years.
    The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5499. Congress already has 
the ability to enact legislation revising or even eliminating a 
national monument that was created improvidently or that is no longer 
needed. Legislation modifying national monuments has been used 
sparingly but effectively for over a century, and the Administration 
believes this time-tested approach remains the appropriate tool for 
evaluating monuments.
    The Administration believes that, as has been the case since 
enactment of the Antiquities Act in 1906, national monuments should be 
treated as valid unless a court of competent jurisdiction determines 
otherwise, or Congress, acting with deliberative care, concludes that a 
monument is unnecessary. H.R. 5499 reverses 118 years of practice to 
make national monument proclamations presumptively invalid unless 
proclamations are ratified by Congress. This change is counter to the 
core purpose for enacting the Act. The Antiquities Act recognized that 
threats to objects of historic and scientific interest that are found 
on lands that are owned or controlled by the Federal government may 
arise quickly. The Act also recognized that swift action may be needed 
to protect objects of historic or scientific interest, and that the 
President, acting under delegated authority and with the advantage of 
both administrative agency expertise and procedural efficiencies, is 
best positioned to address these threats. And as already noted, 
Congress can already modify any national monument proclamation as 
necessary and appropriate. The Administration believes this time-tested 
approach strikes an appropriate balance, allowing for prompt action to 
protect irreplaceable objects of historic or scientific interest while 
retaining multiple avenues to deliberatively evaluate, and if 
necessary, revise national monument proclamations.
    Furthermore, section 2(c)(2) would prohibit a President from 
protecting as a national monument the land or property included within 
the boundaries of a monument that is not ratified by Congress. This 
prohibition would extend for a period of 25 years and raises at least 
two significant concerns. First, section 2(c)(1) may not provide 
Congress with adequate time to carefully consider and vote on a 
legislation ratifying a national monument proclamation. A needed 
monument may therefore fail to secure ratification for reasons having 
nothing to do with the worthiness of resource protection. Second, 
prohibiting a President from proclaiming a national monument on covered 
lands for the next quarter-century leaves future Presidents powerless 
to respond to new information or changed conditions, including both the 
discovery of new objects of historic or scientific interest, or 
recognition of emergent threats to irreplaceable objects of historic or 
scientific interest on public lands. Under either scenario, the outcome 
is difficult to square with the overall purpose of the Antiquities Act. 
For these reasons, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5499.
H.R. 7006, ``Prohibiting Natural Asset Companies in Utah''

    H.R. 7006 would prohibit ``natural asset companies,'' as defined in 
the Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC) withdrawn proposed rule 
regarding the New York Stock Exchange, or substantially similar 
companies from entering into any agreement with respect to land in the 
State of Utah or natural assets on or in such land. USDA was not 
involved in the withdrawn SEC proposal and defers to the SEC on the 
potential impacts associated with H.R. 7006.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the 
Administration.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Chris French, Deputy Chief 
          for the National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service

Mr. French did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. Are you aware of any national monuments the President 
is planning to designate before the end of his term? If so, can you 
please list what monuments are under consideration, and in which 
states?

    Question 2. Has USFS been asked to provide any technical 
assistance, including creating maps or to hold public listening 
sessions, on any potential national monument designations by the White 
House?

    Question 3. When a new monument is designated and USFS is directed 
to manage it, what funding is provided to carry out the management?

    Question 4. When the President designated the Camp Hale-Continental 
Divide National Monument in Colorado and directed the USFS to manage 
it, were any funds provided to USFS to carry out this responsibility?

    Question 5. In your responses to Member questions, you stated that, 
to your knowledge, USFS bad no contact with the U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with the SEC's proposal to 
allow natural asset companies (NACs) to be listed on the New York Stock 
Exchange. Given the substantial effects that NACs could have on USFS 
land, was this lack of coordination with the SEC appropriate?

    Question 6. As we are approaching the upcoming wildfire season, we 
are hearing reports that USFS is having challenges filling seasonal 
vacancies for wildland firefighters in California.

    6a) Please provide an update on the current staffing levels for the 
2024 wildfire season in California and other states.

    6b) What are the total number of available wildland firefighter 
positions in each USPS region, both permanent and seasonal?

    6c) How many of these positions have been filled, and how many 
remain to be filled?

    6d) What is the agency's plan to fill these positions by July 1, 
2024?

    6e) What is the agency's plan if remaining vacancies are not filled 
by July 1, 2024?

    6f) Will National Guard or other military resources be needed to 
augment USFS resources?

    Question 7. Last year, a federal judge in Montana directed USPS to 
obtain a Clean Water Act permit for the discharge of fire retardant 
from aerial assets. Please provide an update on the status of this 
Clean Water Act permit process, the current schedule for publication of 
any relevant NEPA documents, and the plan to engage affected States and 
other stakeholders on the development of this Clean Water Act permit.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Deputy French. I now recognize 
Members for 5 minutes for questions. First, we will turn to 
Representative Leger Fernandez for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much for your 
testimony, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am struck reading the testimonies about the amount of 
acreage and what we actually need to reforest what has been 
burned. Could you elaborate a little bit more on that, Mr. 
French, how much acreage we are seeing as lost, and what we 
would require to grow our forest back with these seedlings?
    Mr. French. You bet.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And how long would it take us if we 
didn't actually invest more in this effort?
    Mr. French. Yes, I appreciate the question, Congresswoman.
    I think it is important to look historically at the agency 
and how our reforestation programs were established. They were 
really set up to mimic the consequence of forest management. As 
that has changed over time, and whereas we see the largest 
disturbance that is occurring across our national forests is 
really being driven by wildfire, we have had a major backlog of 
reforestation needs across the country.
    One thing to remember is about a third of all acres that 
experience wildfire usually have burned at such intensities, 
given conditions that we have right now, that they don't 
naturally regenerate. So, if we don't go back in and plant 
seedlings, we will lose that forest, this is a much higher 
number in places like California than that one-third.
    We estimate over the next 10 years that we will need around 
60 million seedlings a year to keep up with the reforestation 
efforts that we see right now. Current nursery production 
within the Forest Service is around 28 million seedlings per 
year. And then we really rely on other institutions and private 
nurseries to help us overcome those gaps. We continue to make 
those investments in our nursery system, it is one of the big 
pieces of the REPLANT Act, as well as working with states and 
partners in investments in non-Federal nursery systems.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. One of the things that I like about 
what we did in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and what we 
are trying to build on with regards to our legislation is the 
importance of, actually, those kinds of partnerships that you 
raised, right, that in order to really get this done, we need 
to both expand partnerships that actually create jobs in rural 
communities with people who actually know how to work the land. 
This is something that they are intimately familiar with.
    We are going to have our New Mexico State University speak 
later, but can you add your perspective to the importance of 
these partnerships with educational institutions, and then 
other private organizations, people who actually know the land, 
foresters, local foresters?
    Mr. French. You bet. Your points earlier were very 
accurate. Collecting native seeds from the area in which trees 
are going to grow is really a key piece of long-term success 
that those trees will continue.
    I think we are also recognizing right now that some of the 
trees that have species that have been in certain areas are 
going to change over time as we are seeing temperature regimes 
change under climate change.
    So, working with universities and working with other 
partners in order to identify what are the right seedlings, 
what is the right genetic stock, what is the right composition 
of species that you want to bring into these areas so they have 
the longest chance for persistence is super critical and 
helpful.
    We know, working with the private sector, a nursery system, 
that there are a number of species that just aren't economical 
for them to produce. So, it really comes down to university 
systems, our own Federal nurseries to produce things like 
whitebark pine, as an example, that we need to reforest in 
areas because it is not available commercially.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much.
    Mr. Chair, with that I will yield back. I could talk all 
day about forest and trees, but I know we have lots of bills 
before us.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlewoman yields.
    I ask unanimous consent the following letters supporting 
H.R. 5499, the Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities Act, 
be added to the record for today's hearing.
    The letter from three different organizations representing 
stakeholders involved in the power sports industry notes 
recreationists are left out of the process when massive 
national monument designations are carried out under 
questionable interpretations of the Antiquities Act.
    Specifically, these groups include the Motorcycle Industry 
Council, Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, and the 
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association.
    Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                                             March 18, 2024    

The Honorable Mariannette Miller-Meeks
U.S. House of Representatives
1034 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Representative Miller-Meeks:

    On behalf of the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), Specialty 
Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA), and Recreational Off-Highway 
Vehicle Association (ROHVA)--together referenced as the Associations, I 
write in support of H.R. 5499, the Congressional Oversight of the 
Antiquities Act. As you know, H.R. 5499 would require congressional 
approval of presidential declarations of National Monuments within six 
months or before the end of the last session of the Congress it was 
introduced, whichever comes first.
    The Antiquities Act of 1906 grants the President the authority to 
designate ``. . . historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric 
structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that 
are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of 
the United States to be national monuments.'' The Antiquities Act also 
holds that national monuments should be ``. . . confined to the 
smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects 
to be protected . . .,'' yet multiple Presidents have, in our view, 
inappropriately designated enormous swaths of public lands as national 
monuments.
    The Associations, off-highway vehicle enthusiasts, and other 
recreationists strive to support collaborative processes to develop 
consensus on management of shared public lands. Too often when 
collaborative processes are complicated, or otherwise breakdown, some 
attempt to restrict recreational access by urging the current 
Administration to designate the area as a National Monument. It is no 
secret that those most affected by land use decisions are those who 
live, recreate, and make their livelihoods on or near the public lands 
in question, and they should have a say in the management of those 
lands. As a result, it is imperative that Congress enact National 
Monument reform like H.R. 5499 which would provide for maximum public 
input and local involvement.
    Thank you for your consideration.

            Sincerely,

                                              Duane Taylor,
                      Director of Safe and Responsible Use Programs

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, 
the Ranking Member, Mr. Neguse, for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today and, as always, for your 
service. And I appreciate the opportunity to talk a bit about 
some of the bills that are before us today.
    Deputy Director Culver, I want to talk a bit about your 
testimony regarding the Resource Management Plans and the bill 
that we are considering that I vehemently disagree with, and 
think would undermine the BLM, it would undermine broader 
agency rulemaking, and a public process that is literally 
ongoing as we speak. So, I think it is important for us to kind 
of clarify for the record.
    The development of the draft Resource Management Plan and 
the supplemental Environmental Impact Statements that are 
targeted for repeal, are those plans final?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the question. No, they are not. 
They are draft plans.
    Mr. Neguse. And that is an important distinction, because 
they remain draft plans. And to the extent that Members of 
Congress care to opine on them or play a role in elevating the 
voices of stakeholders and their constituents, they are welcome 
to do so, right?
    Ms. Culver. Correct.
    Mr. Neguse. And that actually would be the proper venue, 
the proper avenue to do that, as opposed to, in my view, 
impairing and impinging on the hard work done by dedicated 
career public servants at our agencies.
    Now, there has been a lot of misinformation, I think, about 
the opportunities for stakeholder input. Has there been an 
opportunity for the public and interested stakeholders to 
comment on the proposal?
    Ms. Culver. Yes, there have been numerous opportunities, 
scoping meetings in person, opportunities to submit written 
comments. The draft plans were available for a 90-day, 3-month 
comment period. There were numerous public meetings. And if 
people request a meeting, the BLM will also hold one.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Deputy Director. And what I found 
fascinating, it is a shame our colleague from Wyoming isn't 
here, but in the case of the Rock Springs RMP plan, my 
understanding is that the public comment was extended at the 
request of the Governor of Wyoming, who is a Republican. But 
irrespective of party affiliation, requests came in from the 
Governor, and the BLM generously extended that public comment 
period. Is that right?
    Ms. Culver. Correct. We extended it by an additional 60 
days. So, the comment period was about 5 months on that plan.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I think that is good to hear. And 
clearly, you all are deeply engaged in a thoughtful process, a 
lot of public meetings, a lot of opportunities for stakeholders 
to weigh in, and then for you all to consider a balancing of 
the equities, which is what we charge your agency to do. So, I 
am grateful to you.
    And I would just say if there is one silver lining, it is 
that this bill, I don't think, is ultimately going to get to 
the President's desk. And, of course, he will have every 
opportunity to express his will if it were to get to his desk. 
But I doubt that that is going to happen. And I hope that this 
is not par for the course, and doesn't become standard practice 
over here, because you all have important work to do, and your 
door has always been open, and Members are free to engage you 
in these processes, rather than introducing legislation to stop 
it in its tracks.
    I know we want to have a number of other witnesses who are 
ready to testify, so I will yield the balance of my time.
    But I will just say before doing so to you, Mr. French, 
that I am grateful for your agency's work with respect to the 
Camp Hale National Divide Monument, which I spoke a bit about 
during my opening remarks, because I think it crystallizes to 
me everything that the Antiquities Act is designed to preserve 
and to protect, and we ought to be proud of that. That is, I 
think, a legacy that we ought to build on. And clearly, the 
bill that we are considering with respect to the Antiquities 
Act, that does quite the opposite.
    But anyway, I will yield back the balance of my time. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I ask unanimous consent 
the following testimony supporting H.R. 7006, sponsored by 
Representative Curtis, be added to the record for today's 
hearing.
    The testimony submitted by Hayden Ballard on behalf of the 
Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office shares the concern 
many Western stakeholders have with the actions and proposals 
from the Biden administration. Referencing the Natural Asset 
Companies Proposed Rule, the testimony states the natural asset 
rule, coupled with the conservation rule, would have provided 
the necessary financing for those who wish to remove multiple 
uses from our Federal lands through the purchase of 
conservation leases.
    Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]
                        Statement for the Record
                    Hayden L. Ballard, Legal Counsel
              Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office

    Chairman Tiffany, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the 
opportunity to participate in the hearing today through the submission 
of this written testimony.
    My name is Hayden Ballard, and I serve as Legal Counsel to the 
State of Utah's Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (``PLPCO''). As 
the name implies, the role of our agency is to coordinate with federal 
agencies, other state agencies, the public and other stakeholders to 
further the State of Utah's adopted policies regarding federal land 
management. Through this coordination, we seek to find practical 
solutions to the array of challenges facing Utah's public lands.
    We strongly support H.R. 7006, a bill ``to prohibit natural asset 
companies from entering into any agreement with respect to land in the 
State of Utah or natural assets on or in such land.'' While the overall 
text of this bill is brief, the benefits of prohibiting natural asset 
companies from entering into any agreement with respect to land in the 
State of Utah, are great. This bill is a direct response to a proposed 
rule put forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''), 
just last fall, to allow the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') to 
adopt a new listing standard for the listing of Natural Asset 
Companies'' \1\ or ``NACs''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 88 FR 68811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While this notion of authorizing NACs seems harmless enough on its 
face, we were extremely concerned when the SEC proposed this rule, and 
just as relieved when the SEC withdrew the same. The concern arose from 
the fact that the proposed rule had many latent, and potentially 
extremely harmful consequences to Utah's federal land and federal land 
users. Chief among these harmful consequences was that this proposed 
rule would have created a funding vehicle for the implementation of the 
BLM's proposed ``Public Lands Rule'' or ``Conservation and Landscape 
Health Rule'' \2\ (or simply the Conservation Rule) which was proposed 
last year as well. While this testimony is specific to Congressman 
Curtis's bill H.R. 7006, and the prohibition of NACs from acquiring any 
interests in Utah, it is impossible to discuss the negative effects of 
NACs in Utah without also discussing this Conservation Rule. In short, 
hand-in-hand, the NAC Rule coupled with the Conservation Rule would 
have provided the necessary financing for those who wished to remove 
``multiple-uses'' from our federal lands through the purchase of 
conservation leases. Allow me to explain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 88 FR 19583.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In terms of high-level understanding, the BLM's ``Conservation 
Rule,'' attempts to redefine the BLM's multiple-use mandate under the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (``FLPMA'') \3\ to 
include ``conservation'' as a use (in the process unilaterally 
bypassing Congress to amend this statute) and placing conservation on 
par with other multiple-uses of the land such as livestock grazing, 
recreation, energy development, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1701-1785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To implement ``conservation'' as a use on par with the other 
statutorily defined multiple-uses, the BLM intends to issue 
``conservation leases'' to businesses, organizations, individuals, and 
arguably government bodies, who would hold the leases to further 
conservation purposes.\4\ During the Clinton Administration, the BLM 
tried to amend its grazing regulations to allow for the issuance of 
leases solely for conservation. This provision in the regulations was 
struck down by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000, as ``the 
court found that the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the BLM) 
lacked the statutory authority to issue grazing permits intended 
exclusively for ``conservation use.'' \5\ While the BLM was thwarted in 
its attempts then to issue permits and/or leases solely for 
conservation purposes, it has again made this attempt through its own 
separate rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 88 FR 19600; Proposed Rule Sec. 6102.4(a).
    \5\ Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287, 1308 (10th Cir. 
1999), aff'd, 529 U.S. 728 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The burning question left unanswered through this rulemaking 
process has been where would the money come from to purchase these 
conservation leases? Surely some companies, organizations and 
individuals would have the capital available to simply purchase 
conservation leases outright, but without a way of receiving a return 
on that ``investment'' it seems that there was a missing piece as to 
how these leases would be funded. Enter stage left the SEC's NAC rule.
    In brief, the SEC's proposed rule on NACs stated that a proposed 
NAC could issue shares in a publicly traded company, that would then 
acquire ecological performance rights, or EPRs, by obtaining a license 
concerning such rights from a government entity or a private landowner. 
For purposes of the SEC's Proposed Rule on Natural Asset Companies, the 
BLM's Conservation Rule would arguably open the door for businesses to 
purchase a conservation lease (conveniently for a period of 10 years, 
the same as the licensing requirements imposed by the SEC's Proposed 
Rule) \6\ and thereby become eligible for NAC listing as they now hold 
ecological performance rights on federal land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 88 FR 68815.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the public comment period, the State of Utah submitted 
comments adamantly opposing the implementation of the SEC's NAC Rule, 
and urged the SEC amend the proposed rule in a manner that would 
prohibit companies seeking to qualify as NACs from using the purchase 
of BLM Conservation Leases to qualify as ecological performance rights. 
Allowing NACs to purchase BLM Conservation Leases as ecological 
performance rights simply allows companies to make money off of the 
well-meaning public (via an Initial Public Offering or the subsequent 
trading of stocks) to then purchase these leases from the BLM, all for 
taking that land completely out of use and allowing it to remain 
untouched and fallow. This allows the BLM to make money for doing 
nothing, and allows the NAC to make money for doing nothing, all at the 
expense of the American people who are being misled into believing 
they're making a difference.
    Further, this interlocking scheme imperils the viability of our 
western livestock grazers, as these conservation leases (if purchased 
on top of existing federal grazing allotments) threatens to put them 
out of business if they are seen as being incompatible with the terms 
of the newly created conservation lease. This could be done even though 
a growing body of scientific research points to the fact that removing 
all use of the land (particularly grazing animals) results in greater 
desertification in western, arid landscapes.\7\ In short, not only 
would removing grazing NOT improve the environment, the allowance of 
conservation leases to qualify as EPRs is simply the funding mechanism 
necessary for the implementation of the BLM's disastrous conservation 
leasing scheme in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See generally Alan Savory, Holistic Management: A Commonsense 
Revolution to Restore our Environment, Third Edition, Island Press, 
Library of Congress Control Number 2016941253 (2016); see also Peter 
Byck, Roots so Deep Trailer, available at: www.rootssodeep.org (2023); 
see also Peter Byck, et. al, Improvements in soil properties under 
adaptive multipaddock grazing relative to conventional grazing, 
Agronomy Journal, available at: https://carboncowboys.org/images/
published_research/pdfs/Agronomy_Journal_2022-Mosier-
Improvements_in_soil_ 
properties_under_adaptive_multipaddock_grazing.pdf (2022); see also 
Bill Weir, Hamburgers and steaks are a big climate problem. Could new 
grazing practices be the answer?, CNN, available at: https://
www.cnn.com/2023/07/03/us/climate-crisis-cattle-amp-grazing/index.html 
(2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As highlighted up to this point, the SEC's NAC rule contained the 
latent ability to completely turn on its head the proper functioning 
working landscapes on federal/public lands. Relatedly, the SEC's 
Proposed Rule threatens Utah's ability to properly provide food, fiber 
and fuel to its citizenry through the noblest of human endeavors--
agriculture itself.
    This threat arises from the fact that the SEC NAC rule imposed 
various reporting requirements on potential NACs, as well as ongoing 
restrictions on what types of activities may be engaged in by the NAC. 
For example, the proposed rule stated that ``the NAC will be prohibited 
from engaging directly or indirectly in unsustainable activities.'' 
What was defined as being an ``unsustainable activity'' included the 
term ``perpetuating industrial agriculture'' and the rule provided that 
the NAC would be ``prohibited from using its funds to finance such 
unsustainable activities''.\8\ If an NAC were to willfully or 
unwillingly venture into an unsustainable activity, then ``the NAC will 
be subject to delisting from the NYSE.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ 88 FR 68814.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The problem here is that the proposed rule never attempted to 
define what constituted ``perpetuating industrial agriculture'' or to 
justify why this undefined term was an ``unsustainable activity''. This 
could mean a wide variety of operations, both large and small, 
including family livestock ranchers and crop farmers. There simply was 
no attempt to define what was meant by industrial agriculture. Further, 
the term could encompass suppliers, such as a feed store, as that could 
seen as a business that was ``perpetuating'' industrial agriculture. 
This ambiguity could very well be exploited by a potential NAC to 
purchase a private farm or ranch and then take it out of production as 
to remain eligible for listing as an NAC. In short, when coupled with 
the BLM's Conservation Rule, the SEC NAC rule would have provided the 
funding necessary to purchase conservation leases on top of existing 
grazing allotments and other uses, and take those lands out of 
production. When used on private ground, the rule would have allowed 
for the same outcome on private farms and ranches. At a time when less 
than 2% of the nation's population is engaged in agriculture, and in a 
time when food costs are skyrocketing, purposefully taking working 
lands out of production, in the name of acquiring ecological 
performance rights, is a danger to our nation's agriculture and her 
citizens.
    In addition to these concerns, the SEC's NAC rule contained no 
prohibition on the foreign ownership of NACs, which raises yet another 
concern. At a time when many states are banning the foreign ownership 
of our agricultural lands, this rule would have opened the door for 
foreign adversaries to purchase controlling shares in NACs (or create 
them outright) and then purchase ecological performance rights (whether 
on public or private ground) and take those lands out of production--
artificially controlling our natural resources and food production.
    For the reasons outlined, our agency opposed the implementation of 
the SEC's NAC rule last year, and were relieved to see its ultimate 
withdrawal.
    It is for the same reasons we are now extremely supportive of 
Representative Curtis's bill that takes a proactive approach to ensure 
that NACs are not imposed on Utahns in the future. We thank 
Representative Curtis for his dedicated work to move this bill forward 
and urge your support for this bill.
    I again thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to participate 
and voice these concerns and make known our support.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. I am going to take 5 minutes to ask some 
questions here.
    Mr. French, so the U.S. Forest Service had no contact with 
the SEC in regards to the natural asset rule?
    Mr. French. Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. Tiffany. Same question, Ms. Culver.
    Ms. Culver. I know the BLM did not have any contact with 
the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the rule.
    Mr. Tiffany. When does the Bureau of Land Management plan 
to publish the so-called Conservation and Landscape Health 
Rule?
    Ms. Culver. We are working to finalize the rule based on 
input we received on the proposed rule, and hope to publish it 
in the coming months.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you know how soon?
    Ms. Culver. I don't have a specific date.
    Mr. Tiffany. You say the coming months, but 2 months, 3 
months?
    Ms. Culver. I don't have a specific date. It goes through a 
review process with the Office of Management and Budget.
    Mr. Tiffany. What role do you see the BLM having with the 
Natural Asset Companies? What role would the BLM play in 
regards to the conservation leasing system proposed under the 
Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, how would they work 
together?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that.
    The BLM has no role with regard to the establishment, 
definition, regulation of Natural Asset Companies. Under the 
proposed Public Lands Rule, the BLM would issue leases for 
restoration or mitigation activities based on the terms and 
conditions that we would develop, and entities could apply for 
those leases. They would not be guaranteed to be issued upon.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, what would stop a company controlled by 
the Chinese Communist Party from purchasing a conservation 
lease?
    Ms. Culver. Again, the way the proposed rule is set up, an 
entity or a non-profit or a state or local agency could apply, 
propose to apply for a lease to restore or mitigate public 
lands. The BLM would evaluate whether or not the proposal was 
for specific activities that were suitable for that area, 
whether or not the proposal was held by an entity that was 
qualified to carry out the activities, and exercise discretion 
as to whether or not to grant such a lease.
    Mr. Tiffany. Why is the Bureau of Land Management 
considering selling off our natural assets to perhaps our 
foreign adversaries like Communist China or Russia?
    Ms. Culver. The BLM is not considering selling off 
America's public lands to foreign countries.
    Mr. Tiffany. But based on your description there, if 
somebody has invested in one of those companies, they would 
become, in effect, a part owner of that natural asset.
    Ms. Culver. No, the BLM grants leases and permits to 
entities upon application. We have foreign companies that mine 
on public lands that hold oil and gas leases in the National 
Petroleum Reserve, Alaska.
    In terms of the leases that we are proposing in the Public 
Land Rule, we heard a lot in public comment about concerns as 
to whether----
    Mr. Tiffany. So, you are going to fully vet any application 
to make sure that there are not interests from the Communist 
Chinese that are going to be part owners of our land in 
America.
    Ms. Culver. We will fully vet applications for leases to 
ensure those----
    Mr. Tiffany. You will guarantee that we will not see the 
Communist Chinese buying our public lands.
    Ms. Culver. We are not selling public lands to foreign 
entities, nor will we.
    Mr. Tiffany. Did you read the testimony of Eric Bingham, 
Land Use Director for Sweetwater County, Wyoming?
    Ms. Culver. I have not. I have seen a summary. I skimmed 
it.
    Mr. Tiffany. You did not get a chance to read it.
    Ms. Culver. I skimmed it, but I did not read every single 
word.
    Mr. Tiffany. He describes working with the Bureau of Land 
Management for a decade on what the county was told would be a 
preferred alternative, and now the rug has been pulled out from 
under them, it sounds like there are four alternatives. Is this 
how the BLM is working with state partners at this point, state 
and local partners?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. The 
Rock Springs draft plan, the alternatives were created working 
with cooperating agencies like Sweetwater County through seven 
week-long meetings. And we----
    Mr. Tiffany. So, you talk about these meetings, and I am 
sorry to interrupt, but you talk about having these meetings, 
and the Ranking Member talked about the extension, that you 
were so generous to give this extension for public comment. But 
are you actually coordinating with those counties, which, as 
you know, is a separate process, right, in Federal law?
    Ms. Culver. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, they serve as 
cooperating agencies. They help us to create these alternatives 
that are out now for public comment.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, why did you do this with these four other 
alternatives, when they had been working through the process?
    And they were surprised, some people would say they were 
backstabbed, by the Bureau of Land Management with these 
alternatives when they thought they were headed in a much 
better direction.
    I mean, as a coordinating partner, wouldn't you try to 
prevent that from happening?
    Ms. Culver. Again, all of the co-operators had a chance to 
create those alternatives. The alternatives themselves were not 
changed, but things have changed on the ground as these 
alternatives have been developed. And the difference, I think, 
that he was referring to is which alternative was proposed as 
the preferred in the draft plan for comment.
    Mr. Tiffany. Isn't it the case that the only change is not 
on the ground out in Wyoming, it is the change on the ground 
here in Washington, DC, with a change of administration? Isn't 
that the change?
    Ms. Culver. I think there are changes on the ground and in 
the state of Wyoming, as well.
    Mr. Tiffany. Can you name the last Resource Management Plan 
finalized by the Bureau of Land Management that created a net 
increase in land available for oil and gas production? When is 
the last one that was approved by the Bureau of Land 
Management?
    Ms. Culver. I would have to look at that and get back to 
you.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, could you get us an answer to that? We 
would really like to know.
    How much additional land is enough for the Federal 
Government? How much is enough?
    Ms. Culver. As an employee of the Bureau of Land 
Management, I work to steward the 245 million acres that the 
BLM is charged with managing.
    Mr. Tiffany. We hear about the failures, infrastructure is 
falling apart. I mean, we hear those stories when we go out and 
visit various facilities that are held under public management 
by the Federal Government. Why would we want to have more land 
come under Federal control when the Federal Government can't 
manage what it has now?
    Ms. Culver. At the Bureau, we seek to manage all the lands, 
the 245 million acres that we are charged with. We appreciate 
Congress' support in bills like the Great American Outdoors Act 
which allow us to continue to maintain and upgrade our 
infrastructure, and we continue to work to do that.
    Mr. Tiffany. But we do have facilities that are not up to 
par, right? And we continue to acquire more land as we see 
these proposals.
    Ms. Culver. Again, I work to manage the land that the BLM 
currently has under our jurisdiction.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. French, how much land is enough? How much 
land under public ownership by the Federal Government is 
enough?
    Mr. French. I am not equipped to answer that for you, sir. 
That is a really, I think, the purview of Congress and the 
Administration.
    Mr. Tiffany. I have exceeded my time significantly for 
questioning. I want to thank you very much for taking our 
questions and providing your testimony. It is greatly 
appreciated.
    And now we will move on to our next panel.
    While the Clerk resets our 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.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Tiffany. I would now like to introduce the Honorable 
Greg Poschman, Chair of the Board of County Commissioners in 
Pitkin County, Colorado.
    Commissioner Poschman, you have 5 minutes. Did I pronounce 
your name correctly?
    Mr. Poschman. You did, and thank you very much.
    Mr. Tiffany. Good. You have 5 minutes for your testimony.
    Welcome to the Committee.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG POSCHMAN, COMMISSIONER, BOARD OF 
      COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PITKIN COUNTY, ASPEN, COLORADO

    Mr. Poschman. Good morning, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking 
Member Neguse, and members of the Committee. I am Greg 
Poschman. I am a native Coloradan, an active outdoorsman, and a 
Pitkin County Commissioner in western Colorado. I am speaking 
on behalf of my constituency of Pitkin County citizens. I thank 
you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to H.R. 5499 
and H.R. 6547, and to express Pitkin County's strong support 
for one of our bedrock Federal laws, the Antiquities Act.
    Eighty years ago, my father shipped out to chase the Nazis 
from northern Italy. In the early spring of 1945, he and his 
fellow ski troopers of the 10th Mountain Division fought 
heroically in battle after battle in the Apennine Mountains, 
suffering one of the highest casualty rates of the war. They 
took Riva Ridge, Della Spe, Mount Belvedere, pushing the 
Germans across the Po Valley until their surrender at Lake 
Garda, Italy. Though never as famous as the storming of 
Normandy, taking northern Italy away from the Nazis helped win 
the war and defeat fascism.
    Seventy-seven years after their epic battles, Camp Hale, 
Colorado, their training ground, was designated a national 
monument under the Antiquities Act. It was a proud moment for 
my family and all the descendants of the 10th Mountain 
Division. Although my father was not around to celebrate it 
with us, he would have been grateful to see America finally 
honor his comrades, the ones who came back alive and the ones 
who didn't.
    The Antiquities Act of 1906 has led to the designation of 
about 160 important monuments. Of 18 presidents who declared 
national monuments, 9 were Republican and 9 were Democrat. This 
is clear testimony to its effectiveness and value for all 
Americans. Camp Hale monument, like our Thompson Divide area in 
Pitkin County, had widespread public support for many, many 
years, if not decades, before it was designated.
    H.R. 5499 proposes to weaken a law that has worked well for 
100 years. Given the deep divisions in Congress, places needing 
protection might easily be lost to cynical political arguments. 
If passed, this bill would make permanent designation of places 
like Camp Hale near impossible.
    Remember, Congress already has the power to pass 
legislation creating, revoking, or modifying national monuments 
on a case-by-case basis, so this legislation is completely 
unnecessary.
    Polling has consistently demonstrated public support for 
national monuments. Eighty-four percent of Westerners support 
the president's ability to designate existing public lands as 
national monuments: H.R. 5499 is, quite frankly, out of step 
with American values.
    Regarding BLM Resource Management Plans, my community is 
surrounded by Federal lands that will be directly impacted by 
the BLM's Colorado River Valley Resource Management Plan. Over 
83 percent of Pitkin County is Federal land. It is home to the 
White River National Forest and the iconic 14,000-foot Maroon 
Bells. These lands contribute to our world-class outdoor 
recreation experiences and make our economy thrive. Grazing 
allotments on BLM and Forest Service lands maintain the 
historic ranching cultural identity alongside the tourism and 
ski resorts.
    H.R. 6547 would prohibit the implementation of the Colorado 
River Valley in Grand Junction management plans. The BLM is 
conducting a public process to update its management plans 
because a Federal court found the agency violated the law in 
approving the prior version of these plans. By halting this 
process, this bill would prohibit the agency from considering 
the extensive and broad public input it has received.
    A recent analysis shows the industry has had access to 
lease more than 90 percent of BLM lands nationwide. In 
Colorado, that number is 94 percent. The industry has been 
stockpiling leases, with more than 6,700 approved leases going 
unused. Of the 36 million acres under lease across all BLM 
lands, only 35 percent are in production, leaving 23 million 
acres locked up by the industry. The BLM's proposed plans for 
these areas are emblematic of what a balanced, multiple use 
management plan should look like, where lands with no or low 
oil and gas potential and lands with important ecological and 
cultural resources are closed to future oil and gas leasing 
while existing leases and development would be able to 
continue.
    Now, I just want to say in 2021, oil and gas provided about 
20,000 jobs in Colorado. Outdoor recreation provided close to 
125,000 jobs, six times as many.
    In conclusion, I want to commend the BLM staff for leading 
an inclusive process to update our RMP. They have conducted 
extensive outreach to solicit input from all stakeholders. As 
our population grows rapidly, energy development, recreation, 
and tourism continue to grow with it. In our part of Colorado, 
the Antiquities Act and updated management plans are critical 
tools for preserving America's historical, cultural sites and 
treasured landscapes for future generations. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Poschman follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Greg Poschman, Pitkin County Commissioner
                              on H.R. 6547

INTRODUCTION

    Good morning, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members 
of the Committee. My name is Greg Poschman. I am a native Coloradan, an 
active outdoorsman and a Pitkin County Commissioner on the western 
slope of Colorado. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in 
opposition to H.R. 5499 and H.R. 6547 and to express Pitkin County's 
strong support for one of our bedrock federal laws, the Antiquities 
Act. Also, thank you for the opportunity to express our strong support 
for modernizing the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Resource 
Management Planning process.

NATIONAL MONUMENTS & THE ANTIQUITIES ACT

    Eighty years ago, my father shipped out to chase the Nazis out of 
northern Italy. Through a cold late winter and spring in 1945, he and 
his fellow ``Ski Troopers'' of the 10th Mountain Division fought 
heroically in battle after bloody battle in the Apennine mountains, 
suffering one of the highest casualty rates of the war. They took Riva 
Ridge, Mt. Della Spe, and Mt. Belvedere, pushing the Germans across the 
Po Valley until their surrender at Lake Garda, Italy. Though never as 
famous as the storming of Normandy, taking northern Italy away from the 
Nazis helped win the war and defeat fascism. Seventy-seven years after 
their epic battles, Camp Hale, Colorado, their training ground, was 
designated a National Monument under the Antiquities Act. It was a 
proud moment for my family and the descendants of the 10th Mountain 
Division. Although my father was no longer alive to celebrate the new 
monument, he would have been grateful to see America finally honor his 
comrades, the ones who came back alive and those who didn't.
    Like many Americans and visitors to the United States, I have had 
the great good fortune to visit the Grand Canyon with my family and 
witness its glorious scenery. As you know, President Theodore Roosevelt 
established the Grand Canyon as one of the earliest National Monuments 
under the Antiquities Act just two years after the act became law. 
Today, it is a national park, but like many of our great national 
parks, the path toward that designation started as a national monument.
    In short, this act, signed into law in 1906, has led to the 
designation of more than 160 monuments, protecting our cultural 
heritage and some of our most treasured natural wonders. Of the 18 
presidents who have declared national monuments, nine have been 
Republicans, and nine have been Democrats. This is clear testimony to 
its effectiveness and value for both parties and all proud Americans.
    What I fear about the proposed legislation, H.R. 5499, is that it 
will weaken and water down a law written more than 100 years ago and a 
law that has worked so well for many years. Given Congress's deep 
divisions, land, statues, or buildings that need protection might 
easily be lost due to thoughtless and cynical political arguments. H.R. 
5499 would sunset monument designations if not approved by Congress 
within six months or the end of that Congress (whichever is earlier). 
If passed, this bill would make permanent designations of places like 
Camp Hale much more challenging to achieve and a slap in the face to 
our veterans and to those who appreciate their sacrifice.
    I want to remind you that Congress already has the power to pass 
legislation creating, revoking, or modifying national monuments on a 
case-by-case basis, so this cynically written legislation is completely 
unnecessary.
    Polling has consistently demonstrated public support for national 
monuments. The supermajority of Westerners love national monuments and 
support their protections--84 percent of Westerners support presidents 
continuing to use their ability to designate existing public lands as 
national monuments to maintain public access and protect the land and 
wildlife for future generations.
    People understand that a monument designation protects land from 
various types of industrial development and can help support their 
local economy. We can't let anti-conservation efforts undermine the 
president's ability to use the Antiquities Act. Bills like H.R. 5499 
attempting to weaken the act are out of step with American conservation 
values.

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT'S RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS

    H.R. 6547 would render useless essential updates to the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) RMPs, taking us back to a time and place that no 
longer exists. The job of the BLM land in the West is no longer to 
lease exclusively for extractive potential. Growing populations in 
Colorado and the West are making new demands on our public lands. We 
have more ways to visit, enjoy, and utilize it and more sophisticated 
and comprehensive perspectives on protecting these essential public 
resources. The BLM draft resource management plans, as written, reflect 
a deeper understanding of the land and the diverse and growing 
population on it than previously.
    What the BLM draft RMPs do, quite frankly, is modernize and correct 
a long-standing and narrow policy of taking land from the American 
people and leasing it to extractive boom and bust industries.
    H.R. 6547 would prohibit the implementation of the Draft Resource 
Management Plan and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 
for the Colorado River Valley and Grand Junction field offices. The BLM 
controls more federal land than any other agency--close to 245 million 
acres nationwide. A recent analysis by The Wilderness Society shows the 
oil and gas industry has had access to lease more than 90% of this vast 
expanse of land. That number is even higher in Colorado: 94% of the 8.3 
million acres in Colorado.
    After over 111 years of federal subsidy with the people's money, 
the oil and gas industry has been stockpiling leases, and currently, 
more than 6,700 approved leases are going unused. Of the 36 million 
acres under lease across all BLM lands, only 12.6 million acres (35%) 
are in production, leaving more than 23 million acres of American land 
locked up by the oil and gas industry and under real threat of 
degradation.
    This is an industry that does not go light on the land. Anyone who 
has ever flown over, driven, or hiked the west where leases have been 
developed will see a vast network of roads, settling ponds, pipes, and 
compressor stations. What were once pristine landscapes are now heavily 
industrialized, ruining vast stretches of wildlife habitat, hunting 
country, and what might have been great areas for American recreation. 
With our current essential focus on reducing carbon emissions, it has 
been discovered that thousands of these wells and pipelines are leaking 
methane and other greenhouse gasses, exacerbating an existential 
problem.
    With the BLM's Draft RMPs and Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement, the agency is finally right-sizing its planning process to 
balance other uses, including conservation and recreation, which have 
become more valuable to the American people. H.R. 6547 would prohibit 
the agency from considering the extensive input it received through 
public comment.
    The BLM's proposed management plans seek to fairly consider 
important stakeholders that represent significant value beyond the oil 
and gas industry. Among those stakeholders are the tens of thousands of 
men and women whose livelihood depends on the recreational uses on BLM 
land. Consider this: In 2021, oil and gas provided about 20,000 jobs in 
Colorado. Outdoor recreation provided more than sixfold that number at 
close to 125,000 jobs. And, of course, over 40 million Americans 
downstream depend upon clean water that flows from these lands, for 
they are our national ``water towers,'' containing the mountain 
aquifers and streams that support our lives and livelihoods.
    One of the goals of Pitkin County, the Colorado General Assembly 
and the nation at large is to address climate change's imminent and 
obvious dangers. Whether you're a rancher or farmer witnessing severe 
droughts, a tourism operator worried about dry summers and about 
winters shortened by over a month, or a wildlands firefighter risking 
your life to fight repeated and disastrous fires on federal lands, the 
dangers of climate change caused by the continued use of carbon-
intensive oil and gas cannot be denied by any but those most willfully 
refusing to study the science, and those who profit from intentional 
neglect. To wit, a 2023 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists 
found that 37% of the area burned by forest fires in the western U.S. 
and southwest Canada since 1986 can be attributed to heat-trapping 
emissions from the world's largest fossil fuel producers.
    My community is surrounded by federal lands that will be directly 
impacted by the BLM's Colorado River Valley RMP.
    Over 83 percent of Pitkin County is federal public land. It is home 
to the White River National Forest and the iconic 14,000-foot Maroon 
Bells. These public lands contribute to our world-class outdoor 
recreation experiences and help ensure our local economy thrives. 
Numerous grazing allotments on BLM and Forest Service lands maintain 
the historic ranching cultural identity alongside tourism and ski 
resorts throughout Pitkin County.
    Our public lands, farming, ranching heritage, and thriving outdoor 
recreation economy make Pitkin County a uniquely desirable place to 
hunt, fish, ski, hike, bike, and raft. However, our public lands are 
challenged by a changing climate, continued population growth, and 
increased demand for natural resources, development, and outdoor 
recreation.
    Oil and gas leases last at least ten years whether the company 
drills or not and if wells are drilled, then leases can be extended for 
decades, precluding other activities like recreation, cattle grazing or 
hunting. The lands under lease also take away the opportunities to 
manage these lands for conservation purposes, including protecting 
watersheds and wildlife habitat.
    It's important to note that the BLM is conducting a public process 
to update its management plans because a federal court found the agency 
violated the law in approving the prior version of these plans. H.R. 
6547 would prohibit the agency from considering the extensive input it 
received through public comment from Pitkin County and the general 
public by prohibiting the agency from finalizing this process.
    As stated in an article by E&E News, ``One of the primary 
explanations BLM offers for reducing oil and gas access is to protect 
specific cultural and Native American sites from drilling, roads and 
pipelines that could damage them, reflecting their larger stated goal 
of increasing tribal consultation and answering a long-standing 
complaint of Native American leaders.''
    Most of Colorado's oil and gas-producing regions have been in 
production for decades, some for over 50 years. The industry has had 
plenty of time to lock up as many federal lands for oil and gas leasing 
as it has desired. The BLM's proposed new plan for these areas is 
emblematic of what a balanced, multiple-use management plan should look 
like from the agency, where lands with no, low and moderate potential 
and lands with significant ecological or cultural resources are closed 
to future oil and gas leasing; and existing leasing and development 
would be able to continue.
    It is important to stress that our region's economies are changing 
and diversifying. A 2023 report by the Colorado Fiscal Institute shows 
that continuing the BLM's status quo oil and gas leasing process could 
negatively impact Colorado's economy and recreation economy in 
particular.
    The report illustrates that winter recreation in Colorado, like 
skiing, ``generated about $1.3 billion in economic activity in 2021, or 
about a quarter of snow sports' $5.2 billion in economic output in the 
entire country.''
    Notably, the report states that, unlike oil and gas extraction, 
winter recreation sports don't ``require the cleanup and plugging of 
abandoned wells. Also, the outdoor recreation industry doesn't 
contribute to climate change and the increasing severity of forest 
fires as the fossil fuel industry does.
    The report concludes, among other things, ``that in choosing to 
downsize oil and gas development in tourist areas of Colorado, the BLM 
will fall in line with recent climate goals set by Congress and the 
Colorado General Assembly to address `the harmful impacts that the oil 
and gas industry have on our health, economy, and climate' and, 
possibly, help protect one of Colorado's most important economic 
drivers.''
    Protecting our natural resources while maintaining a thriving 
economy is a balancing act. The BLM's Resource Management Planning 
process is critical for achieving this balance. It considers the input 
of all stakeholders on how a BLM area should be managed. It helps 
elected officials like me and my constituents to work with the BLM in 
managing the delicate ecosystems we rely on for clean air and water for 
recreation and agriculture. Protecting these areas by recognizing their 
actual value to a diverse population of beneficiaries is especially 
important with the imminent threats to western water and the increased 
wildfire dangers. RMPs promote the BLM's multiple-use mission and allow 
collaboration among users, including timber, grazing, extraction, 
mining, and recreation--for the benefit of all.
    The BLM's Resource Management Plans (or RMPs) are a critical 
planning tool for managing landscapes for multiple use. However, many 
of the BLM's RMPs are woefully outdated and don't reflect current 
conditions on the ground or adequately address current needs.
    Eighty-five percent of BLM lands in our Colorado River Valley Field 
Office have been open to oil and gas development for decades. These 
include popular recreation and wildlife areas on the Colorado and Eagle 
Rivers.
    These BLM lands are essential in supporting world-class recreation 
opportunities that create Colorado's $9.6 billion outdoor recreation 
economy. Tourism and outdoor recreation account for over 50% of Pitkin 
County's annual revenues. Pitkin County has worked hard to create a 
diversified economy that includes and balances development while 
conserving our public lands. We rely on having federal land management 
partners that work with us to balance these needs.
    If enacted, H.R. 6547 would tie the hands of the BLM, undermining 
the agency's ability to manage critical public lands in my county, 
across western Colorado, and around the West.

CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, I commend the BLM agency staff for leading an 
inclusive public process to update our RMP. They have conducted 
extensive outreach to solicit public comments from all stakeholders. 
H.R. 6547 would undo all that work.
    I support the Antiquities Act and modernizing the BLM's Resource 
Management Planning process. As climate change, energy development, and 
recreation and tourism continue to grow in Pitkin County and Colorado, 
the Antiquities Act and updated RMPs are critical tools for preserving 
America's historic and cultural sites and treasured landscapes for 
future generations.
    Thank you.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Commissioner. I now recognize Ms. 
Kathleen Sgamma, President of the Western Energy Alliance.
    You have 5 minutes.

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

    Ms. Sgamma. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad the 
Commissioner brought up the Camp Hale monument designation, 
because that is a good example of why H.R. 5499 is so 
necessary. The Ute Indian Tribe was very upset by that 
designation of a monument, because it didn't have a chance to 
weigh in on that monument designation. And that is the problem 
with the Antiquities Act, it is a fiat from on high from the 
president, without the public participation that normally 
accompanies public land management decisions. And as such, the 
Ute Indian Tribe and its historical ties to that area were 
completely forgotten in the national monument designation.
    We are also concerned about the use of the Antiquities Act, 
which to date has not resulted in large areas that are 
productive for oil and natural gas being locked off, but that 
remains a concern, especially with the President, who has 
pledged no Federal oil and natural gas. So, that is why we are 
concerned about the Antiquities Act and we support H.R. 5499.
    In regards to the Resource Management Plans that are the 
subject of bills before the Committee today as well, we are 
very concerned by both of those because they lock away huge 
amounts of land to oil and natural gas and, although they are 
not yet finalized, we know how well BLM listens during the 
public comment process, although we are hopeful that the 
Colorado BLM is listening to stakeholders and is perhaps 
looking at another alternative that would be more balanced, 
because the locking away of the huge amount of acreage to oil 
and natural gas in the Colorado River Valley and Grand Junction 
RMP is just based on old information. It is not necessary. It 
is not the least restrictive means to protect other resource 
values, and it would lock away about 1.5, almost 1.6 million 
acres to oil and natural gas, which is very extreme.
    Likewise, with the Rock Springs RMP, we are talking about 
an RMP in an area that is a major oil and natural gas-producing 
area in one of the major oil and natural gas-producing states 
in the country. And the shock that that alternative produced in 
Wyoming from the legislature to the county commissioners to 
stakeholders was quite profound. That RMP would lock away about 
2.5 million acres, or 2.1, 2.2 million acres, depending on 
which chart in the RMP you read, it is not clear, it is a 
little bit concerning that BLM would have that inconsistency in 
that RMP. That would lock away about 59 percent of the mineral 
estate, again, in that planning area in which that economy is 
very dependent on oil and natural gas.
    So, that is a very extreme RMP, as well, so we support both 
those bills to revoke those RMPs.
    And finally, with the Natural Asset Company bill, I applaud 
that Mr. Curtis has put that bill forward. We only wish that it 
applied not just to Utah, but all across the country, and 
particularly on Federal and tribal lands. I was disappointed 
that the Deputy Chief French and Deputy Director Culver both 
just deferred to the Securities and Exchange Commission on that 
rule, on those bills, because it was clear when SEC put forward 
that bill or that rule, that it had not done any coordination 
with Federal land managers, and didn't consider the effect of 
that rule on Natural Asset Companies on Federal or tribal 
lands.

    And that is a bit concerning, because there are things like 
FLPMA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, that discuss 
how Federal lands should be managed, and how oil and natural 
gas, ranching, and mining are principal uses of those Federal 
lands, yet the SEC rule would have precluded those productive 
uses, those multiple uses of Federal lands on Federal land. And 
that is antithetical to existing law like FLPMA.

    I really appreciate the opportunity to comment today and I 
look forward to questions.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sgamma follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Kathleen Sgamma, President, Western
                            Energy Alliance
           on H.R. 5499, H.R. 6085, H.R. 6547, and H.R. 7006

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Committee Members, 
thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will address four of the 
bills before the committee today as they would help provide reasonable 
access for oil and natural gas development and production on non-park, 
non-wilderness public lands.
    Western Energy Alliance is the leader and champion for independent 
oil and natural gas companies in the West. Working with a vibrant 
membership base for over 50 years, our expert staff, active committees, 
and committed board members form a collaborative and welcoming 
community of professionals dedicated to abundant, affordable energy and 
a high quality of life for all. Alliance members lease and regularly 
operate in an environmentally responsible manner on public lands in the 
West.
H.R. 6085 and H.R. 6547

    On January 27, 2021, just a week into his presidency, President 
Biden issued a moratorium on new leases on federal lands and waters. 
Lacking the power to do so, this Biden leasing ban was fairly easily 
overturned in court. BLM is now using the public land use planning 
process to preclude leasing on vast swathes of land across the West, in 
effect serving as the Biden leasing ban by other means. In five RMPs 
that are currently being updated across the West, BLM is proposing to 
close 6,723,418 acres to oil and natural gas leasing.\1\ While we 
strongly support H.R. 6085, Rep. Hageman's bill to prohibit the 
implementation of the Rock Springs RMP revision and H.R. 6547, Rep. 
Boebert's bill to prohibit the implementation of the RMP revision for 
the Colorado River Valley and Grand Junction field offices, Congress 
should also consider these other RMPs that contain large closures in 
Colorado, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Draft Resource Management Plan Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement Colorado River Valley Field Office and Grand Junction 
Field Office, BLM, August 2023; Rock Springs Field Office Draft 
Resource Management Plan Revision and Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement, BLM, May 2023; Gunnison Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan 
Amendment--Draft Environmental Impact Statement, BLM, November 2023; 
Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact 
Statement for Big Game Habitat Conservation for Oil and Gas Management 
in Colorado, BLM, October 2023; North Dakota Draft Resource Management 
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, BLM, January 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In my 18 years at the Alliance, I cannot recall but a few isolated 
examples where a standard RMP amendment did not result in more 
protections being put in place and more lands being locked away from 
leasing. Whether the Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden administrations, 
almost every time BLM opens up an RMP for revision, it finds new 
reasons to impose more restrictions on oil and natural gas development 
and production or to close areas to leasing. It almost never goes the 
other way despite the fact that expanded use of horizontal drilling 
reduces surface disturbance by up to 70%.\2\ Once lands are closed to 
leasing, they remain that way. I understand that to a certain extent, 
as there are other resource values on public lands that must be 
protected, but the extent of the current proposed land closures and 
restrictions is at an unprecedented level, with the ultimate effect 
being a ban on leasing in large parts of the federal mineral estate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``Oil and gas impacts on Wyoming's sage-grouse: summarizing the 
past and predicting the foreseeable future,'' Human-Wildlife 
Interactions Vol. 8 No 2, Dave H. Applegate and Nick L. Owens, 2014, p. 
284-290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With the Colorado RMP amendment, BLM would close 1,566,300 acres to 
oil and natural gas leasing out of a planning area of 1,921,660, or 82% 
of the federal mineral estate. BLM's justification is that the lands 
have no-known, low, or medium potential for oil and natural gas. BLM 
used an analysis of the potential based on a 2002 U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) resource assessment despite the existence of a 2016 USGS 
resource assessment that found a 318% increase in natural gas and a 23% 
increase in oil resources. The justification for BLM to close the areas 
to leasing because of poor potential is based on two-decades-old data. 
Since 2002, oil and natural gas technology has advanced exponentially 
and we are accessing new shale resources that were previously 
completely inaccessible.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan and 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado River 
Valley Field Office and Grand Junction Field Office, Western Energy 
Alliance, West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association, and COGA, 
November 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even with BLM's incorrect assumption about the oil and natural gas 
potential, closing the lands to leasing would violate the law. The 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Energy Policy Conservation Act Amendments 
of 2000 require federal land management agencies to use the least 
restrictive means necessary to protect other resource values. BLM has 
many means at its disposal to protect wildlife, cultural, air, water, 
recreation, and other resources. Those means include lease stipulations 
that range from timing limitations on when oil and natural gas activity 
can occur, to controls on the use of the surface, to the most extreme 
restriction, which is no surface occupancy (NSO). NSO means that no oil 
and natural gas equipment, such as a drilling rig, can be placed on a 
lease whatsoever. The lease must be accessed from adjacent lands using 
horizontal or directional drilling. Since the lateral reach of 
horizontal wells is about two to three miles at a maximum, NSO can 
result in isolating lands that are beyond reach, and therefore, should 
be used sparingly. However, even NSO restrictions are less extreme than 
the blanket closure of 82% of the federal mineral estate in the 
planning area.
    The Rock Springs RMP revision is likewise extreme.\4\ BLM is 
proposing to close 2,186,218 acres to leasing, out of a planning area 
of 3,718,451 acres of federal mineral estate, or 59%. Of the 1,532,233 
acres of the planning area that would remain open, 813,354 or 53% would 
carry the most restrictive NSO designation. This area of Wyoming is one 
of the major oil and natural gas production areas in a state that is 
one of the major oil and natural gas states in the nation. For the 
1,772,213 acres currently leased, BLM is proposing that these lands are 
closed to leasing once the terms of the leases expire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See Comments on the Rock Springs Draft Resource Management Plan 
and Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Springs RMP Revisions, 
Petroleum Association of Wyoming and Western Energy Alliance, January 
17, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, BLM grossly overestimates the number of wells that will 
likely be developed in Rock Springs in order to justify closing this 
extreme amount of acreage. Using outdated assumptions from 2010, BLM 
projects 6,719 new wells will be drilled over the 20-year life of the 
RMP, an average of 336 wells per year. This flawed ``reasonably'' 
foreseeable development scenario is used to quantify the projected 
impacts to surface disturbance, air quality, water quality, surface and 
ground water usage, cultural resources, invasive species, wildlife 
habitat, visual resources and just about every resource analyzed in the 
RMP.
    In fact, BLM's own data show that in 2022, 33 Applications for 
Permits to Drill were received, 21 approved, 13 are pending, and 18 
wells were actually spud.\5\ Such recent data show BLM's assumptions to 
be very wide of the mark. Rather than 336 wells drilled a year, it is 
more likely that 360 wells will be drilled over the entire 20-year life 
of the final RMP. The more realistic assumption of 18 wells drilled per 
year indicates that BLM is overestimating likely oil and natural gas 
development in the planning area by 1,867%, with that extreme 
overestimation causing commensurate exaggeration in the impacts to 
other resources. Only by exaggerating these impacts can BLM propose to 
impose such drastic restrictions on responsible oil and natural gas 
development in the Rock Springs planning area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ BLM Oil & Gas Statistics, FY2022, Table 16: Applications for 
Permits to Drill (APD) Report
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is no wonder that the reaction to the release of the Rock 
Springs RMP was one of shock that rippled through the State of Wyoming. 
Stakeholders' input that had been collaboratively provided for 12 years 
was discarded. Never before had the BLM selected an extreme 
conservation alternative as the preferred alternative, one hastily 
developed and contrary to the balanced objectives envisioned by those 
involved in the multi-year stakeholder and cooperating agency process. 
The public's reaction to the BLM's decision was proportional and 
necessary.
    Wyoming and the Rock Springs community rely on responsible oil and 
natural gas production from public lands for economic prosperity and 
job creation. Oil and natural gas development in the area has shaped 
the cultural and societal fabric of the community and supports a robust 
economy. Despite the fact that BLM heard overwhelmingly from members of 
the community that they wished to retain access to public lands for oil 
and natural gas activities, BLM seemed to listen to environmental 
special interests only who do not represent the community at large. 
Usually, BLM's preferred alternative strikes a balance, however 
imperfect, between the most protective alternative and the most 
extractive one, yet for this oil and natural gas community, BLM chose 
the extreme conservation alternative. We urge Congress to pass H.R. 
6085 to prevent this fundamentally flawed RMP.
H.R. 7006

    Western Energy Alliance strongly supports H.R. 7006, Rep. Curtis' 
bill to prohibit Natural Asset Companies (NAC) from operating in Utah. 
I only wish the bill applied across the whole country and in 
particular, on tribal and federal lands. As envisioned, NACs would have 
been able to monetize ecosystem services and natural resource values on 
public and tribal lands without an adequate system for compensating 
tribal members nor the American people who collectively own public 
lands. Although the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has 
withdrawn the rule to list NACs on the New York Stock Exchange, H.R. 
7006 is necessary because the concept is far from dead, as the 
administration moves forward with its Natural Capital Accounting 
strategy.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ National Strategy to Develop Statistics for Environmental-
Economic Decisions: A U.S. System of Natural Capital Accounting 
Associated Environmental-Economic Statistics, Office of Science and 
Technology, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Commerce, 
January 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill should be extended to all federal lands because the 
concept of NACs conflicts with BLM's organic statute, the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and to all tribal lands, as NACs 
benefiting from tribal resources is contrary to the Department of the 
Interior's trust responsibility to tribes and their members. NACs are 
envisioned to prevent productive activities like oil and natural gas 
development off federal lands, even though FLPMA mandates that the 
``principal or major uses'' of public lands include ``mineral 
exploration and production.'' See 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(l). Please see my 
recent testimony before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
regarding NACs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Testimony of Kathleen Sgamma before the U.S. House Committee on 
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, March 
7, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 5499

    We strongly support H.R. 5499, Rep. Miller-Meeks' Congressional 
Oversight of the Antiquities Act, as the Antiquities Act has been 
inappropriately used over many years to create huge monument 
designations that are well beyond the original intent of the law. 
Enacted in 1906, the Antiquities Act served to protect historic and 
cultural resources from looting, destruction, and private 
appropriation. No federal laws existed at the time to protect public 
lands outside of national parks and the resources on them. The original 
intent of the Antiquities Act was to protect small, significant places 
of national interest and the cultural resources they contain.
    According to the text of the Act, monument designations are to be 
made for ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and 
other objects of historic or scientific interest,'' and the government 
must reserve ``the smallest area compatible with proper care and 
management of the objects to be protected.'' The clear implication of 
this language is that monuments were intended by Congress to protect 
specific resources and the land in their immediate vicinity that is 
directly threatened, not hundreds of thousands or millions of acres. 
Recent designations have far exceeded this intent.
    Large monument designations are undemocratic, lacking input from 
local communities and elected officials, and negatively impact state 
and local economies. They are the only large actions on federal lands 
that do not require analysis under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) and hence, are not subject to robust, transparent public 
comment and consultation with elected officials. National monument 
designations that affect large areas have been made over the objection 
of state, local, and tribal leaders, and those who live and make a 
living near the monuments.
    In addition, both federal law and public appreciation of historical 
sites have significantly changed since 1906 when the Antiquities Act 
was enacted. With the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 
public lands are no longer being transferred into private ownership and 
special areas can be protected, with public input, through the land use 
planning process. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 
criminalized destruction of archaeological resources, and the Native 
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) 
provided additional protections. Moreover, the National Historic 
Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) prevents damage to cultural resources. 
The threat to our cultural heritage that the Antiquities Act was meant 
to address has largely disappeared, and the Act has been used instead 
as unrestrained presidential power that circumvents the will of 
Congress and the needs of local communities.
    Western Energy Alliance is concerned that the current president, 
who has repeatedly promised to prevent federal oil and natural gas 
production, or future presidents would use unrestrained monument 
designations to lock away large areas that contain oil and natural gas 
resources. We urge Congress to pass H.R. 5499.

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Sgamma. I would like to now 
introduce Ms. Michelle McConkie, Director for the Utah School 
and Institutional Trust Lands Administration.
    Director McConkie, you have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE McCONKIE, DIRECTOR, STATE OF UTAH SCHOOL 
 AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION, SALT LAKE CITY, 
                              UTAH

    Ms. McConkie. Chairman Tiffany, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today. My name is Michelle McConkie. I 
am the Director of the Utah School and Institutional Trust 
Lands Administration, or SITLA, and SITLA is a state agency 
that manages trust lands granted by Congress at Utah's 
statehood for the financial support of public education and 
other institutions.
    SITLA manages approximately 3.3 million acres of surface 
and subsurface trust lands, along with an additional 1 million 
acres of severed mineral estate. Revenue from activities on 
these lands is invested, and distributions are made annually to 
every public school in the state.
    When scattered state trust lands are embedded within 
Federal conservation areas, the utility of these lands is 
severely limited. For example, mineral development nearly 
always requires areas larger than scattered 640 acres or 1-
square-mile trust land sections to be economically viable. If 
the surrounding Federal lands do not allow for compatible 
activities, these trust lands are unlikely to be developed for 
such purposes.
    One way to mitigate these management conflicts is to 
undertake State-Federal land exchanges. Unfortunately, these 
involve a lengthy and expensive process with political hurdles 
that are magnified by monument designations that do not include 
congressional oversight or seek state and local input.
    A recent example of these types of difficulties is the 
ongoing political wranglings associated with the designation of 
the Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah. This 
monument was established by presidential proclamation near the 
end of the time of President Obama. President Trump 
subsequently reduced the footprint of the monument during his 
administration. The monument boundaries were then once again 
expanded by President Biden. This back and forth over the past 
8 years has brought tremendous uncertainty for state trust land 
inholdings within the monument boundaries, which under the 
current iteration captures more than 200 scattered tracts of 
trust lands and over 126,000 acres.
    An exchange was contemplated shortly after President 
Obama's designation, but was postponed when it became clear the 
footprint would be changing once President Trump took office. 
Discussions on an exchange resumed once the boundaries were 
expanded by President Biden in 2021. We have spent the last 
2\1/2\ years working on these efforts, which have, 
unfortunately, recently been paused by continued tensions 
between the State and Federal Governments over management of 
the monument.
    It is difficult for SITLA to work on an exchange, or for 
industry to commit capital to a project on trust lands in such 
circumstances. The unfortunate result is that these trust lands 
often lie stagnant for years, making us unable to generate 
much-needed funding for Utah's public schools.
    For example, in 2019, an oil and gas company expressed 
interest in leasing trust lands in the Bears Ears Monument Area 
that had been included in the Obama era boundaries, were 
outside the then-current Trump-era boundaries, and were 
anticipated to be re-incorporated into the boundaries if Biden 
were to take office. Given these uncertainties, SITLA had to 
decide whether to hold the lands for potential exchange or 
encumber them with leases that may never be explored or 
developed. Ultimately, SITLA held off on leasing those lands, 
and less than 2 years later they were back inside the re-
expanded monument boundaries.
    Contrast the Bears Ears experience with trading out of 
school trust lands in the San Rafael Swell area of central 
Utah. The San Rafael Swell is important to many different 
stakeholders who came together and worked for several years 
with various administrations, Congress, and state and local 
officials to put together the Emery County Public Lands 
Management Act. This was later incorporated into the 2019 John 
Dingell Act, which includes the establishment of recreation 
areas, wilderness areas, wild and scenic river designations, 
and provisions for the exchange of state trust lands out of 
these new Federal designations. Though it was a difficult 
process, the end result is a Federal land exchange that has 
been significantly less controversial than the proposed Bears 
Ears exchange. It has brought greater finality and certainty to 
the uses of Federal land, and has allowed SITLA to move forward 
with acquiring Federal land to fulfill its mission to fund Utah 
schools.
    Given the impacts monument designations on Federal lands 
have on state trust lands and other surrounding landowners, it 
may be helpful to have more public discussion on proposed 
monuments and to have some congressional oversight on this 
process.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I am 
happy to answer any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. McConkie follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Michelle McConkie, Director, Utah School and 
                Institutional Trust Lands Administration
                              on H.R. 5499

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    My name is Michelle McConkie and I am the Director of the Utah 
School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (``SITLA''), a 
state agency that manages state trust lands granted by Congress at 
Utah's statehood for the financial support of public education and 
other state institutions. In addition to public schools, beneficiaries 
of Utah's trust lands grants include the University of Utah, Utah State 
University, a hospital providing healthcare to disabled miners, and the 
state schools for the blind and deaf. SITLA manages approximately 3.3 
million acres of state trust lands, along with an additional million 
acres of severed mineral estate. Revenue from school trust lands--
derived from oil and gas, mining, real estate development, and other 
activities, is deposited in the Utah Permanent School Fund, a perpetual 
endowment supporting public schools. The Utah Permanent School Fund has 
a balance of approximately $3.2 billion. Proceeds from the fund are 
distributed annually to every public school in the state to help with 
each school's most pressing academic needs.
    State trust lands are largely distributed in a checkerboard pattern 
throughout their respective states and these scattered sections are 
often surrounded by federal lands. Due to this ownership pattern, large 
national monument designations under the Antiquities Act can have far-
reaching effects on school trust lands and can create serious 
management conflicts when they become trapped inholdings within 
monument boundaries.
Restrictive Use Designation on Federal Lands Affect Activities on State 
        Trust Lands

    When scattered state trust land inholdings are embedded within 
federal conservation areas such as national monuments and other 
designations, land management conflicts arise. State trust lands were 
granted by Congress at statehood with a directive to utilize them for 
the financial benefit of public schools and other beneficiaries. But 
when restrictive uses are designated on surrounding Federal lands, the 
utility of these lands and ability to meet this Congressional directive 
are severely limited.
    For example, oil, gas and other mineral development activities 
nearly always require development areas larger than scattered 640-acre 
(1 square mile) trust lands sections to be economically viable. For 
this reason, if the surrounding federal lands do not allow for 
compatible development activities, these trust lands are unlikely to be 
developed for such purposes. Even if industry is able to economically 
develop an isolated section of trust lands, there is the added 
difficulty of gaining access to the state lands over surrounding 
federal lands with restrictive use designations.
Land Exchanges as a Solution to Management Conflicts

    One way to mitigate these management conflicts is to undertake 
state/federal land exchanges, where state inholdings within the 
boundaries of restrictively-managed federal lands are traded for 
federal lands with greater revenue-producing potential. Unfortunately, 
land exchanges are a lengthy and expensive process with many political 
hurdles. These political difficulties are often magnified when the 
restrictive uses are due to a national monument designation that did 
not include Congressional oversight or seek state and local input.
Uncertainties due to Changing Monument Boundaries

    A recent example of these types of difficulties is the ongoing 
political wranglings associated with the designation of the Bears Ears 
National Monument in southeastern Utah. This monument was established 
by Presidential Proclamation near the end of the term of President 
Obama. President Trump subsequently reduced the footprint of the 
Monument during his administration. The Monument boundaries were then 
once again expanded by President Biden.
    This back-and-forth over the past eight years has brought 
tremendous uncertainty for state trust land inholdings within the Bears 
Ears National Monument boundaries. An exchange was contemplated shortly 
after President Obama's designation of the Monument but was postponed 
once it became clear the footprint would likely be changing once 
President Trump took office. Discussions on an exchange resumed once 
the boundaries were expanded by President Biden in 2021. The current 
designation of the Bears Ears National Monument captures more than 200 
scattered tracts of state trust land within its outer boundaries, 
totaling over 126,000 acres. We have spent the last 2\1/2\ years 
working on an exchange effort for these lands, which has unfortunately 
recently been paused by continued political tensions between the state 
and federal governments over management of the Monument.
    It is difficult for SITLA to commit resources toward working on an 
exchange when there is uncertainty as to the number of acres that will 
be impacted or whether the footprint will continue to change with every 
new administration. In addition, industry wants certainty before 
committing capital to a project and does not want to operate on trust 
lands that are in the middle of an ongoing battle over monument 
boundaries. The unfortunate result is that these trust lands often lie 
stagnant for years and we are unable to generate much-needed funding 
for Utah's public education system and other beneficiary institutions.
    For example, in 2019 an oil and gas company expressed interest in 
leasing some state trust lands in the Bears Ears Monument area that had 
been included in the Obama-era Monument boundary but were outside the 
then current Trump-era Monument boundary. Given the uncertainties 
surrounding these lands as to whether they would remain outside the 
Monument or be re-incorporated into the Monument in the next 
administration, SITLA had to determine whether to hold the lands for 
potential exchange or encumber them with leases that may never be able 
to be explored or developed. Ultimately, SITLA held off on leasing 
those lands and less than two years later they were back inside the 
Monument once President Biden re-expanded the boundary.
Collaborative Processes Bring More Certainty and Stability in the Long 
        Run

    Though they are also not quick or easy, more collaborative 
processes on federal land management that include meaningful 
involvement from state and local stakeholders, along with some 
Congressional oversight, can yield more long-term stability.
    SITLA's experience in managing and trying to trade out of school 
trust lands in the Bears Ears National Monument can be contrasted to 
the process associated with trading out of school trust lands in the 
San Rafael Swell area of central Utah. The San Rafael Swell is a unique 
area of Utah that is important to many different stakeholders including 
local communities, recreational users, energy and mineral interests, 
livestock operators, and environmental protection advocates. These 
diverse interests came together and over several years of discussions 
and consensus building between various executive administrations, state 
and local officials, and Congress, they put together the Emery County 
Public Lands Management Act. This comprehensive, grass roots 
legislation, later incorporated into the 2019 John Dingell Act, 
included the establishment of recreation areas, wilderness areas, wild 
and scenic river designations, and provisions for the exchange of state 
trust lands out of these new federal designations.
    Though it was a difficult process, the end result has been a 
federal land exchange that has been significantly less controversial 
than the proposed Bears Ears National Monument exchange. It has brought 
greater finality and certainty to the uses of federal land for 
wilderness purposes in the San Rafael Swell area and has allowed SITLA 
to move forward with acquiring federal land that can better help 
achieve its mandate to make money for Utah's public school children.
Conclusion

    Given the impacts that restrictive monument designations on federal 
lands have on surrounding landowners, including state trust lands, it 
may be helpful to allow for more public discussion about the purpose 
and need for a monument and to also have some Congressional oversight 
on this process.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy to 
answer any questions that members of the committee may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Director McConkie. I would now like 
to introduce Mr. Eric Bingham, who serves as the Land Use 
Director in Sweetwater County, Wyoming.
    Welcome.

   STATEMENT OF ERIC BINGHAM, LAND USE DIRECTOR, SWEETWATER 
                  COUNTY, GREEN RIVER, WYOMING

    Mr. Bingham. Good morning, Chairman Tiffany. Thank you for 
the opportunity today to speak on H.R. 6085. My name is Eric 
Bingham. I am the Land Use Director for Sweetwater County, 
Wyoming. I have over 19 years of experience in land use, sub-
division, economic development, Federal land collaboration, 
development codes, and growth management.
    I am speaking to you today to discuss some of the 
significant issues with the draft Rock Springs RMP and the 
BLM's preferred alternative as they relate to the content, and 
the process that they were developed. These issues include, but 
are not limited to the failure of the agency to honor and 
comply with the Federal Land Policy Management Act, FLPMA; 
mandates for coordination with local governments in the 
development of the preferred alternative; and the development 
and access barriers associated with right-of-way exclusion 
areas, fluid mineral closures, special designations as proposed 
in the draft RMP, and the detrimental effects, socioeconomic, 
of implementing the preferred alternative of the draft RMP.
    FLPMA requires local government coordination to maintain 
meaningful and continuous participation through the RMP 
process. The following timeline illustrates the direction and 
development of the alternatives through the RMP process that 
co-operators were given, and the lack of continuous and 
meaningful participation.
    In 2012, BLM spent a short period discussing and developing 
Alternatives B and C. Both alternatives were conveyed as 
representing a bookend or placeholder, versus being functional 
or reasonable. Alternative B was heavy on conservation, 
Alternative C on resource use.
    Starting in 2015, the BLM instructed cooperating agencies 
to shift and focus on developing Alternative D, which BLM and 
co-operators refer to as ``the balanced alternative.''
    From 2017 through 2022, the BLM identified Alternative D, 
balanced alternative, as the agency's preliminary preferred 
alternative. Cooperating agencies spent their time and efforts 
on working with the BLM to develop, refine, and focus comments 
on Alternative D.
    It was not until the release of the proposed RMP to the 
public in August 2023, where Sweetwater County and other 
cooperating agencies were made aware of the BLM's dramatic 
shift in its preferred Alternative D, the balanced alternative, 
to the bookend and more restrictive on resource use, which is 
not reasonable nor ready for submission.
    This dramatic shift in preferred alternatives to the draft 
RMP negates the decade-long collaboration efforts of both BLM 
and cooperating agencies. It further goes against BLM policy 
requiring the BLM to collaborate with cooperating agencies to 
develop and reach a consensus on a preferred alternative.
    The lack of development of BLM's current preferred 
alternative since 2013 resulted in management actions that do 
not consider current and future development projects. For 
example, the right-of-way exclusion area will prevent access to 
critical infrastructure for the development of a new trona mine 
facility that will create over 1,000 high-quality jobs in 
Sweetwater County.
    The fluid mineral closures and right-of-way exclusion areas 
will shut down mineral exploration and have a catastrophic 
effect on Sweetwater County's economy. For example, Sweetwater 
County received $16.9 million in oil and gas production ad 
valorem taxes in 2023. The draft RMP predicts a 74 percent 
reduction in public revenue, decreasing revenues to $4.3 
million. The biggest revenue hit will be for local school 
districts, which will reduce their revenues from $8.5 million 
to $2.9 million. Reducing jobs and earnings will also impact 
schools by losing student enrollment.
    Sweetwater County understands the importance and 
significance of public lands and the contribution these lands 
have to our customs, culture, and socioeconomics. We have long 
worked with the BLM to balance productive uses of Federal 
lands, including solid conservation efforts. The current draft 
RMP requires significant additional work and further 
stakeholder input to balance managing multiple uses without 
compromising the economic health of communities of Sweetwater 
County and Wyoming.
    Co-operators are amenable to sitting at the table with the 
BLM to engage in a collaborative process to develop a plan that 
balances multiple uses.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bingham follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Eric Bingham, Land Use Director, Sweetwater 
                            County, Wyoming
                              on H.R. 6085

    Good morning, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and 
distinguished committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak 
with you today concerning issues with the Rock Springs Draft Resource 
Management Plan and its implementation. My name is Eric Bingham, I am 
the Land Use Director for Sweetwater County, Wyoming. I have over 19 
years of work experience in land use, subdivision, economic 
development, federal land collaboration, development codes, and growth 
management.
    Sweetwater County recognizes the congressional authority you 
provide to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to manage public lands 
for multiple uses. Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 1976, 43 
U.S.C. Chapter 35. Sweetwater County supports managing federal land for 
multiple use and sustained yield, while recognizing that public lands 
are to be managed for the primary multiple uses of domestic grazing, 
minerals, timber, wildlife, recreation, and rights of way. I, and other 
leaders in Sweetwater County, vigorously oppose the Draft Rock Springs 
Resource Management Plan (RMP) because of the federal land use 
restrictions and special designations that will essentially eliminate 
multiple uses and constrain economic growth and activity necessary to 
maintain our quality of life in Sweetwater County and impact all 
Wyoming citizens.
    The Federal Government owns over 67% of the lands within Sweetwater 
County; federal land use decisions and policies, especially those that 
close access to public lands, directly affect our community's economic 
well-being and vitality.

    I am speaking to you today to discuss some of the significant 
issues with the Draft Rock Springs RMP as they relate to the content 
and the process by which it was developed. These issues include but are 
not limited to:

  1.  The failure of the agency to honor and comply with the Federal 
            Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) mandates for 
            coordination with local governments in the development of 
            the preferred alternative, and

  2.  The development and access barriers associated with right-of-way 
            exclusion areas, fluid mineral closures, special 
            designations as proposed in the Draft RMP, and

  3.  The detrimental socioeconomic effects of implementing the 
            preferred alternative of the Draft RMP.

    FLPMA requires local government coordination to maintain meaningful 
and continuous participation throughout the RMP process. The following 
timeline illustrates the direction and development of the alternatives 
through the RMP process that cooperators were given and the lack of 
continuous and meaningful participation:

     In 2012, BLM spent a short period discussing and 
            developing Alternatives B and C. Both alternatives were 
            conveyed as representing a bookend or placeholder versus 
            being functional or reasonable. Alternative B was heavy on 
            conservation use, and Alternative C on resource use.

     Starting in 2015 the BLM instructed cooperating agencies 
            to shift and focus on developing Alternative D, which BLM 
            and cooperators referred to as the ``Balanced 
            Alternative''. At this point all focus of further 
            cooperating agency meetings was on developing Alternative D 
            and the analysis associated with that alternative.

     April 3, 2017, the BLM identified Alternative D as the 
            agency's preliminary preferred alternative. Cooperating 
            agencies spent their time and efforts on working with the 
            BLM to develop, refine, and focus comments on Alternative 
            D. Cooperators were explicitly directed not to focus on 
            Alternative B.

     In June 2020, the BLM held a cooperating agency meeting 
            that continued to identify Alternative D as the preferred 
            alternative.

     On June 22, 2022, after two years of no meetings with 
            cooperating agencies, the BLM provided an update on the 
            status of review of the Draft RMP and amendments that were 
            made by the BLM to the preferred Alternative D to reflect 
            current BLM policy and direction.

     It was not until the release of the Proposed RMP to the 
            public, a year later in August 2023, where Sweetwater 
            County and other cooperating agencies were made aware of 
            the BLM's dramatic shift in its preferred Alternative D to 
            the bookend and most restrictive on resource use, 
            Alternative B. Alternative B is not reasonable nor ready 
            for submission. In addition, the cooperators had zero 
            involvement with the selection of Alternative B as the 
            Preferred Alternative.

    This dramatic shift in preferred alternatives to the Draft RMP 
negates the decade-long collaboration and efforts of both BLM and 
cooperating agencies. It further goes against BLM's policy requiring 
the BLM to collaborate with cooperating agencies to develop and reach a 
consensus on a preferred alternative. See BLM Handbook 1601, Section 
1.E.2.c; see id. at Section 9.2.7.3.
    The lack of development of BLM's preferred alternative, since 2013, 
resulted in management actions that do not consider current and future 
development projects and private landownership access issues within the 
checkerboard ownership. For example, right-of-way exclusion areas shown 
in the Draft RMP limit access and expansion of infrastructure within 
planned critical transmission corridors, which include areas of 
Sweetwater County that offer the most growth potential by preventing 
access to thousands of private lands. See Map 2-22 of the Draft RMP.
    Right-of-way exclusions under the Draft RMP will block access to 
hundreds of thousands of surface and mineral acres, even under 
restrictive assumptions. See Map 2-22 Draft RMP. Right-of-way exclusion 
areas infringe on private property rights by preventing the ability to 
access private and state lands and to develop infrastructure (i.e., 
roads, pipelines, electric lines, etc.) on the neighboring public 
lands.
    The right-of-way exclusion areas conflict and will significantly 
impact other development and federal land use. It will limit future 
access to mineral exploration, development sites, and grazing 
allotments by federal permittees. Furthermore, exclusion areas will 
directly and immediately impact future large scale industrial projects. 
For example, the right-of-way exclusion areas will prevent access to 
critical infrastructure for the development of a new trona mine 
facility that will create over a thousand high quality jobs in 
Sweetwater County.
    The Draft RMP also uses special designations and right-of-way 
exclusions to eliminate the possibility of fluid mineral leasing on 
about 70% of the 3.7 million acres. Rock Springs Field Office Draft 
Resource Management Plan (RMP) Revision and Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS), page ES-4. It will also eliminate an estimated 40,000 
acres of trona leasing subsurface acres managed by the Rock Springs 
Field Office. Id. at ES-5. Oil and natural gas development will only be 
available where valid existing leases are held and will close currently 
available lands when those leases expire.
    The fluid mineral closures and right-of-way exclusion areas will 
shut down mineral exploration and have catastrophic effects on 
Sweetwater County's economy. See Maps 2-6 & 2-22 of Rock Springs Draft 
RMP. All quantified economic and public revenue indicators for oil and 
gas development and production are approximately 74% lower under the 
Draft RMP than the current management plan. As the Draft RMP indicates, 
the 74% anticipated reduction in oil and gas development will harm 
local economies and public services. According to initial estimates 
from the University of Wyoming. Over 55% of Sweetwater County's 
valuation comes from natural gas, oil, and trona, which means the 
ramifications of a loss in revenue will affect a diverse spectrum of 
services county-wide.
    For example, Sweetwater County received $16.9 million in oil and 
gas production ad valorem taxes in 2023. A 74% reduction will result in 
$12.2 million less revenue, decreasing revenue to $4.3 million. The 
biggest revenue hit will be for local school districts, which will 
reduce their revenue from $8.5 million to $2.9 million. Reducing jobs 
and earnings will also impact schools by losing student enrollment.
    Sweetwater County understands the importance and significance of 
public lands and the contribution these lands have to our customs, 
culture, and socioeconomics. We have long worked with BLM to balance 
productive uses of federal lands, including solid conservation efforts. 
The current Draft RMP requires significant additional work and further 
stakeholder input to balance managing multiple uses without 
compromising the economic health of communities of Sweetwater County 
and Wyoming. Cooperators are amenable to sitting at the table with the 
BLM to engage in a collaborative process to develop a plan that 
balances multiple uses.

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Director Bingham. I now recognize 
Dr. Jay Lillywhite, Assistant Dean for Economic and Rural 
Development at the New Mexico State University.
    Dr. Lillywhite, good to have you here. You have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JAY M. LILLYWHITE, ASSISTANT DEAN FOR ECONOMIC AND 
RURAL DEVELOPMENT, NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY, LAS CRUCES, NEW 
                             MEXICO

    Dr. Lillywhite. Chairman Tiffany and members of the 
Subcommittee, good morning and thank you for inviting me here 
today. My name is Jay Lillywhite. I am the Assistant Dean for 
Economic and Rural Development, and the Interim Associate Dean 
for the Agricultural Experiment Station in the College of 
Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences at New 
Mexico State University.
    The Agricultural Experiment Station has 12 science centers 
located throughout the state, including the John T. Harrington 
Forestry Research Center located in Mora, New Mexico, adjacent 
to the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests.
    Forests provide numerous environmental and economic 
benefits. They are natural carbon sinks and offer critical 
watershed benefits, especially important in the arid West. In 
New Mexico, forest watersheds supply more than 50 percent of 
all water used by municipalities and agriculture. The United 
States produces more than $200 billion in forestry products 
annually, and with additional economic benefits coming from a 
wide variety of forest-related activities.
    Forests throughout the United States, but especially in the 
West, face significant wildfire risk and damage. Over the last 
10 years, forest fires in the United States have burned more 
than 7 million acres annually. New Mexico has faced significant 
wildfire damage in recent years, recording the two largest 
fires in its history in 2022: the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon 
Fire, burning more than 340,000 acres; and the Black Fire, 
burning more than 325,000 acres.
    Large fires, as we have heard today, reduce the forest's 
natural ability to regenerate and necessitate reforestation. 
Land grant universities have contributed to solutions to 
agricultural and natural resource problems in the past, and are 
prepared to assist with problems caused by wildfires today.
    Faculty at the John T. Harrington Forestry Research Center, 
along with their higher education, state and Federal partners, 
conduct research to address the unique reforestation needs of 
the western United States. Researchers at the Center, 
collaborating with their partners, have refined methods for 
drought conditioning nursery seedlings grown from locally 
collected seeds, developed nucleation planting strategies that 
mimic natural regeneration, have identified optimal planning 
time frames, and have examined the microclimates on tree 
establishment in post-wildfire areas.
    The research conducted at the Forestry Research Center has 
had impressive results. Current efforts to reforest often use 
non-native seedlings grown outside the Southwest. These 
seedlings, planted using traditional methods, have a survival 
rate of 25 percent or less. The Center's research and 
corresponding strategies described earlier have increased the 
survival rates. It is estimated that seedling survival rates 
using the combination of strategies can approach 80 percent. 
These strategies are reducing the cost of reforestation.
    Today, the John T. Harrington Forestry Research Center 
grows 300,000 seedlings annually, but more is needed to meet 
reforestation needs. The Forest Service estimates that there 
are more than 4 million acres that need reforestation, but they 
have only been able to address about 6 percent of that need. It 
is estimated that more than 5 million seedlings will need to be 
produced annually for the next 10 or more years to reforest 
wildfire-lost land in New Mexico and Arizona alone.
    Recognizing this unprecedented need, New Mexico State 
University has joined universities within the state and the 
State Forestry Division to build the New Mexico Reforestation 
Center using proven research from the Agricultural Experiment 
Station. When fully operational, the Center will be able to 
produce 5 million hardy seedlings annually.
    Universities and state agencies want to be a part of the 
solution, but we need assistance. H.R. 5015, Seedlings for 
Sustainable Habitat Restoration sponsored by Representative 
Leger Fernandez, will help. The bill would amend the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to authorize the 
Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the 
Forest Service, to enter into contracts, grants, and agreements 
with universities and other partners for the purpose of 
producing seedlings for re-vegetation, and explicitly support 
needed capacity development.
    New Mexico State University and its partners understand the 
importance of forest and reforestation, and are making 
significant investments to ensure that they are prepared to 
meet current and future challenges. H.R. 5015 would make 
resources available that are desperately needed if we are to 
succeed.
    Thank you for your invitation and your attention.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Lillywhite follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Jay M. Lillywhite, Assistant Dean, Economic & 
            Rural Development, New Mexico State University,
     College of Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences
                              on H.R. 5015

Introduction

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present my views on H.R. 
5015, ``Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act of 2023,'' 
and its potential impacts on New Mexico and New Mexico State 
University.
    I have been a professor in the College of Agricultural, Consumer, 
and Environmental Sciences at New Mexico State University for more than 
20 years. In my current position as Assistant Dean for Economic and 
Rural Development, I work to fulfill the College's mission of serving 
``as an engine for economic and community development in New Mexico.'' 
The State's forests and woodlands provide an important contribution to 
the State's economy and provide economic and community development 
opportunities for the State.
    In my role as Interim Associate Dean and Director of the 
Agricultural Experiment Station, I have responsibilities for 
administering the College's agriculture and natural resources research. 
New Mexico's Agricultural Experiment Station has 12 science centers 
located throughout the State, including the John T. Harrington Forestry 
Research Center in Mora, New Mexico. The Center is adjacent to the 
Santa Fe and Carson National Forests. The Center's mission is to 
advance the understanding and success of forest restoration activities 
in New Mexico through multidisciplinary research, education, and 
stakeholder collaborations. The Center is New Mexico's only research-
based tree nursery. It conducts innovative research to produce 
seedlings that will survive in harsh, burned area environments today 
and thrive in the climate of 2100.
    The Hermits Peak and Calf Canyon Fire, created when two USDA Forest 
Service fires escaped prescribed burn areas, burned more than 340,000 
acres in 2022. The fire, the largest in New Mexico's history, came 
within one-tenth of a mile of the John T. Harrington Forestry Research 
Center. Agricultural Experiment Station faculty and staff evacuated 
tree seedlings and the seed bank in advance of the firefront and were 
able to salvage nearly all of the crop. In the same year, the Black 
Fire burned more than 325,000 acres in the Gila wilderness. It is from 
this backdrop that I present my testimony.
The Importance of Forests

    There are 766 million acres of forests in the United States, 
including New Mexico's nearly 17 million acres (Oswalt et al., 2019). 
Forests provide numerous benefits, including recreation, wood 
resources, and, especially important in the arid West, watershed 
benefits. In New Mexico, forest watersheds supply more than 50% of all 
water used by municipalities and agriculture. Additionally, forests 
provide the largest terrestrial carbon sink on the earth, sequestering 
more than 11% of carbon emissions each year (Oswalt et al., 2019). It 
is estimated that the forest products industry accounts for 
approximately four percent of the United States' total manufacturing 
gross domestic product (Oswalt et al., 2019).
Forests at Risk

    All forests in the United States, especially in the Western United 
States, face forest damage and destruction caused by wildfires. Over 
the last ten years, forest fires in the United States burned an average 
of more than seven million acres annually, with three years recording 
more than ten million acres burned (Figure 1). As I previously 
indicated, New Mexico has faced significant wildfires in recent years 
with substantial damage. Over the last 20 years, the state has had 
nearly 300,000 acres burned annually. These fires are often large. 
Large fires increase the need for reforestation as they reduce the 
forests' ability to regenerate naturally.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Figure 1. U.S. Wildfires and affected acreage, 1993-2023. 
Source: National Interagency Fire Center, N.D.

Reforestation Needs

    A number of factors contribute to the need for reforestation, 
including wildfire, insect infestations, disease, and drought. The 
Forest Service estimates that 80% of reforestation needs are associated 
with wildfires. The Forest Service has estimated that more than four 
million acres of forests need reforestation as a result of wildfire, 
but it has only been able to address six percent of this need (USDA FS, 
N.D.).
    It is estimated that more than five million tree seedlings will 
need to be produced each year over the next ten years or more to 
reforest lands that have been lost to wildfire in New Mexico and 
Arizona alone. Where will these seedlings come from? The case of tree 
losses from the Hermits Peak and Calf Canyon Fire, where 341,735 acres 
were burned, can be used to illustrate the significant need to increase 
reforestation capacity. If only the severely burned acreage were 
replanted, experts estimate that the reforestation would require more 
than twelve million seedlings. The Forest Service does not have a 
nursery in Arizona or New Mexico. The largest nursery in the region is 
New Mexico State University's John T. Harrington Forestry Research 
Center, which has the capacity to produce 300,000 seedlings annually. 
If reforestation were left to the Forest Research Center alone, it 
would take more than 40 years to have enough seedlings to reforest the 
Hermits Peak and Calf Canyon Fire.
New Mexico State University's John T. Harrington Forestry Research 
        Center

    The John T. Harrington Forestry Research Center not only grows 
seedlings for reforestation but also conducts vital, related research. 
It hosts one of the few research programs in the United States with a 
reforestation focus. Along with other higher education, state, and 
federal partners, the Center conducts research to address the unique 
reforestation needs of Western states. For example, the Center's 
research includes refining methods to ensure newly planted seedlings 
survive. Researchers, collaborating with partners, have refined a 
method for drought-conditioning seedlings during nursery growth that 
improves their survival when planted in the harsh environment of a 
wildfire burn scar. The Center and its partners have pioneered 
``nucleation'' planting strategies in reforestation, which are designed 
to mimic natural regeneration. These strategies nurture a core area of 
planted trees to reproductive age, rather than the traditional method 
of grid planting, where many seedlings will die. The Center and its 
partners also conduct research to examine the impacts of microclimates 
on tree establishment in post-wildfire areas and are modeling how 
future climate change may impact reforestation. This research 
translates to improved reforestation efficiency for public and private 
lands.
    The research conducted at the Forestry Research Center has had 
impressive results. Current efforts to reforest often use non-native 
seedlings grown outside the Southwest. These seedlings planted using 
traditional methods have a survival rate of 25 percent or less. The 
Center's use of local tree seeds, seedling drought-conditioning, and 
nucleation planting strategies has significantly increased survival 
rates. It is estimated that our seedling survival rates, using this 
combination of strategies, can approach 80 percent. These strategies 
can also reduce the cost of reforestation.
    Faculty, staff, and students at the Agricultural Experiment 
Station's John T. Harrington Forestry Research Center regularly 
collaborate with the Forest Service, State Forestry Division, faculty 
and staff at Highlands University, the University of New Mexico, and 
other universities on reforestation efforts. Staff from these 
institutions are leaders in reforestation science and have the 
expertise and experience that positions New Mexico to be a model for 
successful reforestation practices across the nation.
More Needs to be Done

    In recognition that the scale of the need for reforestation is 
accelerating, New Mexico State University, Highlands University, the 
University of New Mexico, and New Mexico's Forestry Division recently 
entered into agreements that created the New Mexico Reforestation 
Center. With significant state and federal support that can be made 
available through the USDA Forest Service as facilitated through this 
bill, the Reforestation Center, when fully operational, will be able to 
provide up to five million seedlings annually. These seedlings will be 
acclimated to harsh Southwestern growing conditions and, with 
appropriate planting strategies, can have much higher survival rates.
H.R. 5015 ``Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act of 2023''

    H.R. 5015 ``Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act of 
2023'' would amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to 
authorize the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the 
Forest Service, to enter into contracts, grants, and agreements with 
various institutions, including institutions of higher education, for 
the purposes of collecting and maintaining native seeds and for 
producing seedlings for the purposes of revegetation. The bill is 
needed because funds currently made available in the IIJA for 
reforestation and revegetation include funding for the Department of 
the Interior and Department of Agriculture to purchase seedlings but 
not for needed capacity development.
    H.R. 5015 clarifies that the Forest Service can use the funding in 
the IIJA that is intended for revegetation or reforestation after a 
wildfire not only to purchase seedlings but also for the creation of 
the capacity to make those seedlings available, namely, the collection 
and maintenance of the native seeds needed to grow the seedlings and 
the production of the seedlings themselves. The allowances made in the 
bill would support the work of the Agricultural Experiment Station's 
John T. Harrington Forestry Research Center and the New Mexico 
Reforestation Center. Such support would enable the Centers to continue 
to conduct research that would improve the country's ability to meet 
its significant reforestation needs, particularly in the West and 
Southwest.
    Section 40804, subsection (9) of the IIJA currently provides 
funding to the Forest Service that can be used for the development of 
seedling production capacity. However, the funding available in this 
subsection is not sufficient to provide the infrastructure necessary to 
produce the five million seedlings per year needed to reforest the 
Southwest. Additional proposals have been made to amend this bill that 
would free other subsections pertaining to revegetation and 
reforestation of federal lands to include the capacity building 
necessary to produce the seedlings needed. I strongly recommend that 
these proposals be considered.
    Lastly, the workforce needed to do this vital work needs to be 
educated and trained. The concluding section of this bill further 
clarifies that institutions of higher education are eligible for 
funding under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program to 
provide employment or training in the collection, maintenance, and 
production of native seeds for the purpose of revegetation or 
reforestation. This is in recognition that not only the facilities but 
also a workforce is needed to conduct reforestation activities.
Conclusion

    Forests play an important economic and ecosystem role for our 
country, especially in the West and in New Mexico. Persistent droughts 
and changing climates are increasing existing wildfire, disease, and 
pest risks and exacerbating forest damage and loss. These losses have 
significantly increased the need for reforestation. New Mexico State 
University and its partners understand the importance of forests and 
reforestation needs and are making significant investments to ensure 
that they are prepared to meet current and future challenges. H.R. 5015 
would make resources available that are desperately needed if we are to 
succeed.

References

Gleason, Megan. ``Reforestation Center Aims to Replant Trees in 
Northern NM Burn Scar.'' July 18, 2022. Source NM. https://
sourcenm.com/2022/07/18/reforestation-center-aims-to-replant-trees-in-
northern-nm-burn-scar/#::text=The%20goal%20for% 
20the%20New,Peak%2DCalf%20Canyon%20footprint%2C%20Burney. Accessed 17 
March 2024.

Oswalt, Sonja. ``The State of the Forest.'' USDA Forest Service. April 
22, 2019. https://www.fs.usda.gov/features/state-forest. Accessed 14 
March 2024.

Oswalt, Sonja N., W. Brad Smith, Patrick D. Miles, and Scot A. Pugh. 
``Forest Resources of the United States, 2017.'' USDA Forest Service 
General Technical Report. 2019. https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/
treesearch/57903#. Accessed 14 March 2024.

Southwest Coordination Center. N.D. ``SW Historical Fire and Resource 
Data.'' No Date. https://gacc.nifc.gov/swcc/predictive/intelligence/
Historical/Fire_and_Resource _Data/Historical_Fires_Acres.htm. Accessed 
15 March 2024.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 
``Reforestation.'' No date. https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/
forest-management/vegetation-management/
reforestation#::text=Uncharacteristic%20wildfire%2C%20insect%20infestat
ions% 2C%20diseases,on%20National%20Forest%20System%20lands. Accessed 
16 March 2024.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Curtis [presiding]. Thank you, Dr. Lillywhite. I now 
recognize Mr. Wade Garrett, Vice President for Advocacy and 
Strategic Relationships at the Utah Farm Bureau.
    Mr. Garrett, you have 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF WADE GARRETT, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADVOCACY AND 
 STRATEGIC RELATIONS, UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, SANDY, UTAH

    Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee, for allowing me the 
opportunity to be here today. As a former congressional 
staffer, I understand the work and effort that goes into these 
hearings, so thank you for your time.
    My family operates a cow-calf operation in Juab County, in 
the central part of Utah, where seven generations of Garretts 
have cultivated and showed stewardship over private and public 
lands. I am also a volunteer with Future Farmers of America and 
Vice President of Advocacy for Utah Farm Bureau, and work on 
their strategic relations.
    Healthy public lands and sound management are critical to 
each of these organizations. Before the Farm Bureau, I was a 
congressional staffer overseeing public lands and natural 
resource policy. In this role, I learned that farmers and 
ranchers deserve a seat at the table, but also the importance 
of having all voices represented. I am proud of the Utah Farm 
Bureau and the views and policies we have adopted to put the 
farmers first, while also being open and receptive to different 
points of view.
    Our mission at the Utah Farm Bureau is to inspire all 
families to connect, succeed, and grow through the miracle of 
agriculture. We are the state's largest volunteer organization 
of farmers and ranchers, with just over 34,000 member families.
    Public lands are the backbone of our state ranching, 
recreation, and tourism economies. Nearly 70 percent of Utah is 
comprised of federally owned public lands, which means that 
each for each sector to thrive, coordination, collaboration, 
and compromise are paramount to our collective successes.
    The continued multiple use of Federal lands in Utah is 
critical for our economy, way of life. For example, our family 
operates grazing permits on the Mount Nebo Forest located in 
the Uinta-Wasatch National Forest on spring and fall days, when 
moving cattle will come into contact with a variety of users 
who embrace the multiple use and sustained yield ethic. Young 
campers look at our cowboys in awe, with images of the Old West 
in their eyes. Hikers will also stop for pictures and talk to 
us about the conditions. Some bikers power by on their way to 
the top of the mountain, while others race past us on their way 
down. We drive our trucks on improved roads and never drive in 
the section designated as wilderness. None of this happens by 
accident. Collaboration, planning, coordination across Federal 
agencies and different stakeholder groups are what enable 
multiple use and sustained yield of our public lands.
    I am here on behalf of Utah Farm Bureau to support 
Representative Curtis' H.R. 7006, a bill to keep public lands 
public. Public lands are a critical part of the ranching 
community in Utah. I personally know our local forest 
supervisors and BLM field managers where we graze cattle. If 
Natural Asset Companies, private companies, were allowed to 
manage public lands, myself and other farmers and ranchers 
throughout Utah would lose those local relationships. Land 
management regulations would be at the whim of these private 
owners who closed off access, cherry-pick their preferred use, 
and close land altogether. We truly value Representative Curtis 
and his leadership on these important topics.
    I am also here to support H.R. 5499, the Congressional 
Oversight of the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act has given 
the president unilateral power to make the use decisions in 
large areas that impact local communities, ranchers, and all 
other land use. As we have seen in southern Utah, decisions 
made in Washington can create acrimony and discord, and lead to 
reversals and re-reversals on these important pieces of land.
    I will stop there because I am out of time.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garrett follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Wade Garrett, Vice President for Advocacy & 
            Strategic Relations, Utah Farm Bureau Federation
                       on H.R. 5499 and H.R. 7006

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 
5499 and H.R. 7006. The Utah Farm Bureau Federation supports both 
bills, and I hope that my testimony will add positively to the 
committee's deliberations.
    My name is Wade Garrett, and I am the Vice President for Advocacy 
and Strategic Relations at the Utah Farm Bureau Federation. The Utah 
Farm Bureau Federation is our state's largest voluntary organization of 
farmers and ranchers. Our organization consists of over 35,000 members 
committed to protecting Utah's farms and ranches and ensuring a safe, 
fresh, and locally grown food supply. Our members live in all of Utah's 
29 counties and belong to county Farm Bureaus, which, in turn, comprise 
the Utah Farm Bureau Federation. Our mission is to inspire all Utah 
families to connect, succeed, and grow through the miracle of 
agriculture.
    In addition to my work for the Utah Farm Bureau, I am a volunteer 
with the Future Farmers of America, and my family runs a farm in Nephi, 
Utah, where seven generations of Garretts have cultivated and stewarded 
private and public land. I was born and raised in Juab County, a rural 
county roughly three times the size of the state of Rhode Island with a 
population of 12,155 people. Throughout my life I have been fortunate 
to travel to all corners of Utah and to meet Utahns from all walks of 
life. Prior to working for the Utah Farm Bureau, I worked as a staffer 
for former Congressman Jason Chaffetz. During my time with 
Representative Chaffetz' office, I spent considerable time visiting 
Utah's public lands, including Utah's national monuments. I have a deep 
love for rural Utah, its people, and its lands.
    Utah is a public lands state, with roughly 66 percent of our land 
owned by the federal government. Utah is second only to Nevada in the 
overall percentage of land owned by the federal government. With such a 
sizable portion of our state's land owned or managed by the federal 
government, the economic viability of many industries including 
ranching, logging, mining, recreation, and tourism, hinges on decisions 
made by our federal land management agencies.
    This hearing comes at a crucial time, as Utah is once again in the 
national spotlight regarding national monuments and other restrictions 
on federal public lands. Members of the Utah Farm Bureau are watching 
debates surrounding federal lands closely and we are actively 
participating in planning processes. Utah Farm Bureau is troubled by 
the trajectory our federal lands are on in Utah and throughout the 
West. We are concerned about changes that federal land management 
agencies are proposing or recently made, including restrictive land 
management plans for Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National 
Monuments, creation of a sprawling new monument in our neighboring 
state of Arizona, significant expansions of wilderness areas and areas 
of critical environmental concern, and the Bureau of Land Management's 
(BLM) proposal to issue conservation leases and to elevate conservation 
as a use on par with other multiple uses.
    Utah is at the epicenter of debates surrounding the establishment 
of national monuments using the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act 
authorizes the President of the United States to ``declare by public 
proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, 
and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated 
on land owned or controlled by the Federal Government to be national 
monuments.'' The Act further states that the monument ``shall be 
confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and 
management of the objects to be protected.'' For more than a century, 
the president has had the power to unilaterally designate federal lands 
as a national monument without the input or consent of Congress, state, 
and local governments, or affected citizens. The designation of Grand 
Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments in Utah were 
clear abuses of the original intent of the Antiquities Act, as they set 
aside far more land than was necessary to meet the law's purpose.
    The Antiquities Act is itself a relic of the past as it pre-dates 
the establishment of five states, the establishment of the Bureau of 
Land Management and the National Park Service, and the enactment of 
major environmental and archeological resource protection laws. Use of 
the Antiquities Act is now a blunt tool of the executive that does not 
provide for the robust public process that Americans expect and that 
decisions of this magnitude merit in the modern era. If added 
protections for specific objects of historic or scientific interest are 
needed, these proposals should be thoroughly vetted by Congress and 
receive signoff from local elected officials. The scale of Antiquities 
Act designations in recent decades goes far beyond the executive 
authority that Congress originally intended. Such abuses of the 
Antiquities Act hinder economic opportunity and remove decision making 
from the states and private citizens. These designations affect grazing 
rights, water rights, and even access to state and private lands.
    Utah Farm Bureau supports H.R. 5499, Congressional Oversight of the 
Antiquities Act, sponsored by Representative Miller-Meeks. This 
commonsense bill provides a vital check on the president's ability to 
designate monuments using the Antiquities Act by requiring 
congressional approval of presidential declarations within six months 
of a designation or before the last day of the sitting Congress during 
which the monument was designated, whichever comes first. We believe 
Congress, in coordination with the executive branch, and with the input 
and approval of state and local governments, should be the body to 
designate national monuments.
    As mentioned above, Utah Farm Bureau is also concerned about 
restrictive land use designations. We support the multiple-use concept 
of federal lands, recognizing that definable land areas have dominant-
use capability, which should be recognized with the concept of multiple 
uses without the total exclusion of other uses. For these reasons, Utah 
Farm Bureau also supports H.R. 7006 sponsored by Representative Curtis 
to prohibit natural asset companies (NACs) from entering into any 
agreement with respect to land in Utah or natural assets on or in such 
land.
    On October 4, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 
(SEC) published in the Federal Register a public notice entitled 
``Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of 
Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Amend the NYSE Listed Company Manual 
to Adopt Listing Standards for Natural Asset Companies.'' Although the 
NYSE later withdrew the Proposed Rule, we continue to have serious 
concerns about NACs and their potential creation and growth in the 
future.

    The Proposed Rule defined a NAC as:

        ``. . . corporation whose primary purpose is to actively 
        manage, maintain, restore (as applicable), and grow the value 
        of natural assets and their production of ecosystem services. 
        In addition, where doing so is consistent with the company's 
        primary purpose, the company will seek to conduct sustainable 
        revenue-generating operations. Sustainable operations are those 
        activities that do not cause any material adverse impact on the 
        condition of the natural assets under a NAC's control and that 
        seeks to replenish the natural resources being used.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 88 FR 68811.

    Under the Proposed Rule, if a proposed NAC met the definition 
conceptualized above, then the new NACs would be expected to hold 
ecological performance rights (EPRs), which are defined as ``the value 
of natural assets and production of ecosystem services.'' The NACs 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
would:

        ``. . . acquire the ecological performance rights of a 
        designated area by entering into an agreement with the natural 
        asset owner (e.g., a governmental entity or private landowner) 
        to obtain a license with respect to such rights.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 88 FR 68814.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Utah Farm Bureau is extremely concerned about this concept, 
especially considering the BLM's recent Conservation and Landscape 
Health Proposed Rule. The BLM's Proposed Rule redefines multiple use to 
include ``conservation'' as a use. To further ``conservation'' as a 
use, the BLM would issue ``conservation leases'' to businesses, 
individuals, and certain government bodies, who would hold the leases 
to further the ``conservation'' purposes. We believe that BLM adding 
``conservation'' as a use and issuing conservation leases violates the 
law and clear congressional intent under the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act. We encourage Congress to act swiftly should BLM 
finalize its Conservation and Landscape Health Proposed Rule. Utah Farm 
Bureau also notes that BLM's Proposed Rule would allow businesses to 
purchase a conservation lease (coincidentally which is for 10 years, 
the same as the minimum licensing requirements under the SEC's Proposed 
Rule \3\) and thereby become eligible for NAC listing as they would 
hold EPRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 88 FR 68815.

    The Proposed Rule for NACs also included reporting requirements for 
NACs on what types of activities may be engaged in by the NAC. The 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule states:

        ``The NAC will be prohibited from engaging directly or 
        indirectly in unsustainable activities. These are defined as 
        activities that cause any material adverse impact on the 
        condition of the natural assets under its control, and that 
        extract resources without replenishing them (including, but not 
        limited to, traditional fossil fuel development, mining, 
        unsustainable logging, or perpetuating industrial agriculture). 
        The NAC will be prohibited from using its funds to finance such 
        unsustainable activities'' (emphasis added).

    Utah Farm Bureau is concerned about the ambiguous phrasing in this 
part of the Proposed Rule, especially the phrase ``perpetuating 
industrial agriculture.'' Not only are we unclear on what that even 
means, we are frustrated by the hostility the Proposed Rule shows 
toward agriculture. We take seriously the need to feed and clothe the 
world. Agriculture, including livestock grazing on federal lands, is 
vital to the economies of rural Utah. In addition to the important 
economic role that livestock grazing plays, livestock grazing 
contributes to carbon sequestration through managed landscapes. Utah 
Farm Bureau opposes involuntary reductions in grazing and will oppose 
any efforts by BLM or NACs to that end. Appropriate grazing provides 
science-backed environmental benefits, and allowing environmental 
organizations, corporations, or members of the public to lease public 
lands for the exclusion of other uses runs counter to the principles of 
multiple use and sustained yield. Livestock grazing is also an 
effective management tool used to remove noxious and invasive weeds. 
Using grazing as a management tool also reduces fire risk and is much 
less expensive than other management options.
    For the reasons stated above, Utah Farm Bureau wholeheartedly 
supports a prohibition on NACs from entering into any agreement with 
respect to land in Utah or natural assets on or in such land. We 
appreciate Congressman Curtis' efforts to prevent federal overreach and 
to protect the livelihoods of our farming and ranching communities in 
the state of Utah.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before your 
subcommittee.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. OK. Yes, thank you very much.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. Now, 
we are going to go to Member questions. And first of all, I 
will go to Representative Curtis from Utah for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Ranking Member. It 
is great to be here. What a delight to have not just one, but 
two witnesses from Utah today.
    And Mr. Garrett, you not only represent Utah's Farm Bureau, 
but, as you said, you are a rancher and you live this every 
day. And you understand, as well as all the Utahns, how our 
Federal lands are shared and shared responsibly between 
conserving, between recreation, between energy, and ranching, 
and grazing.
    But recently, there was a proposal by the SEC that would 
allow Natural Asset Companies to tie up large portions of these 
lands in order to meet some of their ESG goals. That would 
include the public land in Utah. So, those of you who are not 
familiar with Utah, perhaps you hear me say this a lot, I don't 
think I can say it enough, two-thirds of all the land in Utah 
are public lands. Just stop and think about that number for a 
minute: two-thirds.
    In the rural part of my district, 90 percent of these 
counties are owned by the Federal Government. So, think for a 
minute about taking 90 percent of the property tax away from 
local government. How do you pay for police, fire, roads, 
parks, schools, and everything else that local government is 
supposed to do?
    Now imagine locking up those public lands so that they 
can't be used for the shared uses that we have talked about 
today, and you can see why this is a problem.
    And I want to be really clear. And, Mr. Garrett, you can 
probably help me on this. Sometimes I call our ranchers and 
farmers the original environmentalists, and I think they 
sometimes take that as a little bit of an insult. But could you 
just tell us why, in the heart, farmers and ranchers care 
deeply about the land and taking care of, preserving the land?
    Mr. Garrett. Absolutely. As I mentioned, my son is seventh 
generation on this land, and this land has been improved even 
in my lifetime, dramatically, in ways that we use that, ways 
that we protect riparian areas, ways that we let other folks, 
as a multiple use, use that.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes, and in the end, if this land is not 
preserved and protected, then you don't have that ability to 
ranch and use it. So, your livelihoods are deeply dependent on 
conservation and protecting this land.
    And I simply bring that up because as we push back on Wall 
Street and their attempt to lock these lands up, it is not an 
attempt to somehow destroy these lands or not to preserve them, 
but it is actually to protect them and make sure we can keep 
using them.
    Mr. Garrett. Absolutely.
    Mr. Curtis. So, Mr. Garrett, just in your mind, what 
happens if large sections of these lands are able to be locked 
up? What happens to you and those around you?
    Mr. Garrett. It decimates our rural economies. Tourism is 
an important piece, but the ranching and that piece of it 
provides for tire stores, grocery stores, other services, 
schools that are in those areas. And if those go away, the 
tourism economy is not enough to sustain them, you have been in 
several parts of those areas; that does not happen.
    But through sustained use and proper use, it allows these 
rural areas to thrive, have an economy, and provide for those 
in those areas.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes, and in some ways make up for that loss of 
revenue that you don't collect by property tax.
    Mr. Garrett. Absolutely.
    Mr. Curtis. Ms. McConkie, you have an incredibly 
interesting situation that also is difficult to understand if 
you are not from the West, but you literally own thousands of 
parcels that look like little checkerboard squares around the 
state, and your mission is to maximize those, and that revenue 
goes primarily to our schools.
    What happens to one of your checkerboard squares if you are 
locked around it by these NACs?
    Ms. McConkie. Thank you, Congressman.
    The use of surrounding Federal lands affects trust lands 
significantly. Little, scattered 1-square-mile pieces of land 
are difficult for industry to put money into. It is just not a 
large-enough area.
    And there are also access issues, as well. Having to get 
access to these pieces across restrictively-managed Federal 
lands is difficult, and it makes our land have significantly 
less utility.
    Mr. Curtis. Great. This is why I have introduced the bill. 
I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield my time.
    Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. The gentleman yields, and now I 
turn to Representative Leger Fernandez for 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you 
all for your testimonies. And while I am sorry I had to step 
out for a minute, I have reviewed the written testimonies and 
very much appreciate it.
    And thank you, Dr. Lillywhite, for coming here to share the 
experiences of what you have been doing at the Research Center 
in northern New Mexico.
    There are a couple of things I think are wonderful. People 
pointed out how much public lands there might be in Utah. There 
are huge public lands in New Mexico. Mora happens to be one of 
our counties that has not as much public land, it has a lot of 
private land because the land grants were actually recognized, 
right? We are going back when we talk about how long we have 
been on the land. I am a 17th, add another decade, add another 
10 generations New Mexican on the European side. So, there is 
this long tradition, and I think it is important to talk about 
the fact that ranchers and farmers and people who live in the 
forested areas are amazing conservationists, and your program 
works with those people on the land.
    Tell us a little bit about the work that you have been 
doing at the Research Center with regards to the importance of 
the research, and looking at what are the kind of seedlings 
that have the higher survival rates, because that is key if we 
want to get as many of those seedlings actually growing into 
trees.
    Dr. Lillywhite. Yes, thank you very much for the question, 
and I certainly agree with the people who work in and around 
the national forest and forests in general. They are 
conservation minded.
    The science center is focused on reforestation. It is one 
of the few forestry programs in the country that focuses 
primarily on reforestation. And I will say it from the outset, 
I am not a forester. I am not a forest scientist.
    So, in my conversations with them, I work with them on a 
regular basis, it is really a combination of the entire system: 
so collecting the seeds, the native seeds, you heard that today 
from the Forest Service, how important that is; stressing, 
drought-stressing the seedlings as they are growing, so they 
are prepared as they are planted into the soil; and then also 
they use a special planting technique, where they plant the 
trees into clusters and let them grow and then regenerate 
naturally after that. So, it is a combination of that entire 
supply chain where they achieve those really impressive 
survival rates.
    I said they are approaching 80 percent. I talked to the 
forester several days ago and he said they have had some 
experiments where they have gone up to above 90 percent. So, 
you can think about the cost savings associated with that, if 
you can keep that many alive during the reforestation process.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And I really appreciated in your 
witness testimony, as well, that you talked about the 
importance of developing the workforce. It is not just, let's 
grow the seedlings, but we need the skilled workforce to be 
able to actually do the planting, to do the research, to follow 
all of this. Can you share a little bit about whether you think 
that changing the Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration 
to open up more opportunities to support seedlings production 
like what you are doing at the Harrington Research Center is 
important not just for New Mexico, but for across the country?
    And I know you have been part of the discussions of how do 
we modify the bill to make it reflect what we need today.
    Dr. Lillywhite. Absolutely. It is critical. We don't have 
the resources available, as a land grant university, to be able 
to do the research, to be able to do the workforce development 
without support from funding such as the Act that we are 
talking about.
    It has been made available. As you talked about, we have 
received some funding. There are other places in the Act that 
we could adjust and make those funds available in some of the 
subsections that are in the re-vegetation, re-forestation 
section.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. That is the intent, is we want to 
unlock sources of funding that already exist but that are not 
available to you now. Is that kind of how you see it?
    Dr. Lillywhite. Yes, absolutely. We want to help, and we 
have the research to be able to help. Our partners, Highlands 
University and their work with workforce development, we have 
the resources, the human resources to be able to do it, but we 
need the financial resources to be able to continue.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. OK, thank you so much.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields back. I now turn to the 
gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Bentz, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is extremely 
interesting testimony.
    I am so happy you are all here. I am from Oregon. My 
district is three-quarters of the state. Three-quarters of a 
100-square-mile state, almost, is in my district. The county I 
live in is about 164 miles north-south, and it is about 60 
miles wide, and there has been a constant battle against a 
monument that was suggested 15 years ago. And, fortunately, we 
avoided it, and it is now back on the table, and we hope not 
very close to being acted upon.
    But instead what has happened is the BLM has come in with 
an RMP that, frankly, does almost everything the monument would 
have done. It doesn't do it all at once, it simply comes in and 
says this is the part of the land that is going to be subjected 
to a new rulemaking.
    One of the things I wanted to mention, though, I am going 
to mention it to Commissioner Poschman, and I am going to 
mention it just because it reflects so many things that are 
incorrect when one thinks about a monument.
    On the second page of your testimony, you say polling has 
consistently demonstrated public support for national 
monuments, the supermajority of Westerners love national 
monuments and support the protections. In my county, which has 
a very small population of about 30,000 people, we had a vote 
some time ago, and the vote was 20-to-1 against the monument.
    And it has to do with the nature of the activities. It is 
not like Colorado, with big, sharp, pokey mountains and all 
kinds of extremely wealthy movie stars moving in. We don't have 
any of those. What we have is an immense space that is 
incredibly flat and incredibly empty. I grew up in the middle 
of it on a ranch. And we would drive 60 or 70 miles to go to 
church on Sunday, and 20 of that was over a gravel road, so it 
is empty. And to suggest that somehow that space is going to be 
the better for robbing the people there of their opportunity to 
make a living is ridiculous. And I know, I have lived it, and 
many of my clients in my law practice are currently living it.
    So, I am irked when I see that because, of course, it may 
well be the supermajority of Westerners, of people in LA, 
Seattle, Portland, yes, of San Francisco. They may want 
monuments, but the people that actually try to live out on that 
land, and do their very, very best to put out the fires when 
they start that otherwise would destroy the sage grouse that we 
are trying to protect, or make a living on the cutting edge of 
marginal existence, no.
    And to suggest that somehow there will be billions of 
dollars of people coming in to hunt and fish, no, I don't think 
so, because the areas that are being identified inside the 
RMPs, the management plans put together by the BLM, they are 
roadless. So, if you want to get to water, good luck finding 
water to begin with, and second, you are going to walk 20 or 30 
miles. That isn't going to happen. There are not going to be 
huge sales of fishing gear up in the northern part of the 
county for activities that are never going to occur 100 miles 
to the south.
    So, I am just irked. It is so removed from the reality of 
people trying to make a living on the land. And, of course, Mr. 
Garrett, I think my family is on the fifth or sixth generation 
also in that part of the world, ekeing out a living after all 
these years trying to make a cow pay for the mortgage. I get 
it. So, my question to you is, what would you say or say again, 
if you will, why it is so bad for absentee owners to try to 
take care of the land that you have lived on all these years, 
you know what I mean by absentee owners?
    Mr. Garrett. Yes. If you are not an absentee owner, you are 
there day to day, operations of what happens on that land. And 
it becomes priority, how that land is managed, for my 
generation to carry on.
    As I mentioned, I would like my son to be the next 
generation. And if I don't manage that in such a way that he 
can be that next generation, it ends with me, and that weighs 
heavily on me in so many ways. And an absentee owner doesn't 
have that concern. It is the bottom line, or the dollar that 
comes to them, not the whole overall picture of making that 
land productive for generations to come.
    Mr. Bentz. And more to the point, they are not there to 
protect the land when the fires start.
    Mr. Garrett. They are not.
    Mr. Bentz. They are not there to try to make it better, 
because it lends itself, your activities on the land, to do 
that. And I know this. I mean, I have been raised on a ranch.
    I am out of time. I am very, very happy for the panel. And 
with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Garrett. I guess I will add one thing. My son also 
loves to hunt wildlife. Part of making sure wildlife is there, 
as well, is you have to manage the ranching piece of it 
correctly, too, to have all the above there, and I think that 
is so important.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. I ask unanimous consent the following letter 
and attached comments from three different organizations 
representing stakeholders involved in the power sports industry 
and related recreational pursuits be added to the record for 
today's hearing.
    The letter expresses support for H.R. 6085, sponsored by 
Representative Hageman. The letter states concern with the lack 
of public support for the draft Resource Management Plan. They 
also address how multiple uses can and does exist with 
conservation in mind by stating the public does not support the 
designation of more than 1.5 million acres as ACECs and that 
lands in the field office can be sustainably managed for 
multiple uses while providing for conservation of the lands.
    Specifically, these groups include Motorcycle Industry 
Council, Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, and 
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association.
    And without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                                           January 17, 2024    

Project Manager, RSFO RMP
BLM Rock Springs Field Office
280 Highway 191 North
Rock Springs, WY 82901

    To Whom It May Concern:

    On behalf of the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), Specialty 
Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA), and Recreational Off-Highway 
Vehicle Association (ROHVA)--together referenced as the Associations, 
thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on The Rock Springs 
RMP Revision Draft EIS.
    The powersports industry (motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), 
and recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs or side-by-sides) are a 
$47.7 billion/year industry in the United States with a significant 
majority of the vehicles being utilized off-road. This includes dual 
sport and adventure touring motorcycles which are the quickest growing 
segment of motorcycle sales.
    The Associations, off-highway vehicle enthusiasts, and other 
recreationists strive to support collaborative processes to develop 
consensus on management of shared public lands. This holds true in 
Wyoming where public lands provide significant recreation 
opportunities. We were pleased that following the release of the Draft 
RMP, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon ``. . . assembled a task force 
representing diverse Wyoming interests--Wyoming House of 
Representatives, Wyoming Senate, conservation, economic development and 
tourism, livestock, local government, mining, motorized access, oil and 
gas, renewable energy and utilities, and sportsmen and hunting--and 
charged the task force with developing consensus recommendations for 
revising the Draft RMP to meet the needs of Wyoming stakeholders.''

    The Task Force noted that ``Because the task force needed to 
finalize its recommendation before the end of the public comment period 
on January 17, 2024, the collaborative process was greatly accelerated 
and the task force did not address every issue that they deemed 
important.'' Despite that rush we are encouraged by the progress the 
Task Force made and strongly support many of its findings including 
number 22 of its Agreements in principle:

        22: The majority of the task force has grave concerns about the 
        adoption of new or expanded ACECs in Alternative B, because of 
        the potential negative impacts these ACECs could have on the 
        economy, customs, and culture in SW Wyoming. The task force did 
        not have time to develop nuanced approaches to the management 
        in these proposed ACECs or propose different management 
        designations.

    A major concern with the Draft EIS is the nebulous nature of ACEC 
designations--particularly sweeping and unprecedentedly large 
designations of ACECs in an RMP for a single Field Office (FO). 
Alternative B would designate more than 1.5 million acres of Rock 
Springs FO as ACEC potentially impacting access and usage of the public 
lands. Consider that ACEC areas currently comprise 286,000 acres of 
Rock Springs. Alternative B would be a massive increase--quintupling 
the ACEC area in Rock Springs and more than doubling the 688,491 acres 
of ACECs currently designated in all of Wyoming's 10 Field Offices.

    This even though nobody knows what the designation of over 1.5 
million acres of FO lands as ACEC will mean in practice. Consider a 
common complaint about ACEC as described by Senator Barasso and his 
colleagues in a letter to Director Stone-Manning:

        . . . this designation creates more ambiguity around the BLM's 
        use of ACECs. The BLM national office has no accurate database 
        of ACECs. There is no standard format for reporting information 
        about ACECs within the agency or to the public. The BLM in 
        recent years has used ACECs to restrict recreational demands, 
        obliterate grazing rights, and hinder economic development in 
        lower-income communities. The absence of a standardized format 
        of ACEC data, while the BLM pushes for more land to be 
        designated as ACECs, is already leading to a growing delta of 
        distrust of what this draft RMP could mean for future BLM land 
        decisions.

    Further concerns are raised when it is understood that BLM is in 
the process of implementing a rule that may dramatically redefine what 
an ACEC is and does. From the Conservation Health Rule (emphasis 
added):

        As part of this rulemaking, the BLM proposes establishing 
        procedures that require consideration of ecosystem resilience, 
        landscape-level needs, and rapidly changing landscape 
        conditions in designating and managing ACECs. The BLM may also 
        revise the ACEC manual and develop an ACEC handbook to 
        integrate the existing rule as well as the changes proposed in 
        this rulemaking, if finalized, into policy. The BLM would thus 
        provide additional guidance for how to incorporate ACECs into 
        resource management decisions in a way that considers trade-
        offs among environmental, social, and economic values during 
        land use planning.

    Since the release of the Draft EIS BLM officials have maintained 
that the designation of 1.5 million acres as ACEC would not impact any 
existing recreational opportunities. A September 9, 2023, article in 
the Cowboy State Daily includes a quote from Kimberlee Foster, field 
manager for the BLM's Rock Springs office that captures this sentiment, 
``The most frustrating thing for us is all of the misinformation out 
there. We're not closing any areas to all hunters or people walking 
their dogs or some of the other nonsense that has been out there.''
    We submit that while it may be the intention (however unlikely) 
that implementation of Alternative B will not limit recreational 
opportunities at this time, nobody, including BLM officials, can know 
what the designation of an area as an ACEC will mean in the coming 
years given that BLM plans to ``. . . provide additional guidance for 
how to incorporate ACECs into resource management decisions in a way 
that considers trade-offs . . .'' We know that BLM intends to rework 
which lands can be designated as ACEC and how those lands will be 
managed. What we don't know is what the outcomes will mean for 
recreation, or other multiple uses, as the proposed Conservation and 
Landscape Health Rule has received heavy pushback from the public and 
has yet to be finalized. We believe it would be an error to designate 
more than 1.5 million acres in the FO as ACEC when it is unknown what 
that designation will entail.

    We also support the Task Force's agreement in principle number 20:

        20: The task force supports responsible recreational use across 
        the field office. Motorized and non-motorized access should be 
        continued for both dispersed and developed recreation. We 
        request that the field office invest more staffing and funding 
        resources to support recreational use, wise management, 
        monitoring, and mitigation as needed to address appropriate 
        areas for expanded or concentrated use, necessary 
        infrastructure improvements, and areas that need special 
        protections. These efforts are necessary for both conservation 
        special areas and special recreational places. The agency 
        should work with local stakeholders, including state and local 
        governments, to develop place-based plans that can address 
        recreational needs while maintaining traditional uses within 
        the Field Office area.

    We support this agreement in principle both because BLM has a 
multiple use mission that includes providing for recreation and because 
we believe it better captures the current sentiment of the local public 
and the opinions of the people who live, work, and recreate in the area 
than Alternative B.

    The Draft EIS describes the scoping process for the development of 
the RMP revision:

        The initial public scoping meetings for the Rock Springs RMP 
        revision were held in Lander, Rock Springs, Lyman, and Farson, 
        Wyoming, on February 28, and March 1, 2, and 3, 2011 
        respectively. During the four scoping meetings, 85 people 
        registered their attendance. The public meetings for the CTTMP 
        were held in Rock Springs, Lyman, and Farson, Wyoming on 
        November 13, 14, and 15, 2012, respectively. During the three 
        public meetings, 44 people registered their attendance. The 
        public meetings for the consent decree for wild horses were 
        held in Rock Springs and Rawlins, Wyoming on September 11 and 
        12, 2013, respectively.

    Since the vast majority of public input took place nearly 10 years 
before the BLM issued its Conservation and Landscape Health proposed 
rule which indicates that dramatic changes are forthcoming to the 
management of ACECs, we ask--how could the Draft EIS adequately reflect 
the current comments and sentiment of the public? Even in the extremely 
unlikely event that comments urged the FO to designate more than 1.5 
million acres as ACEC, they couldn't have known that the BLM would seek 
to change how ACEC are managed a decade later. Designation of the land 
as ACEC today may not come with an intent to close the lands to 
recreational access, but future field managers or Presidential 
Administrations may feel otherwise. Having the land in ACEC designation 
would only expedite efforts to close lands in the future.
    In conclusion, the Associations urge BLM to rescind the Draft EIS 
and seek to develop consensus through the collaborative process that 
has been established by the Task Force assembled by Governor Gordon. It 
is clear that the effected public does not support the designation of 
more than 1.5 million acres as ACEC, and that lands in the FO can be 
sustainably managed for multiple uses, while providing for conservation 
of the lands for posterity.
    Thank you for your consideration.

            Sincerely,

                                              Duane Taylor,
                      Director of Safe and Responsible Use Programs

                                 ______
                                 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 
                                             March 18, 2024    

The Honorable Harriet Hageman
U.S. House of Representatives
1531 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Representative Hageman:

    On behalf of the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), Specialty 
Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA), and Recreational Off-Highway 
Vehicle Association (ROHVA)--together referenced as the Associations, I 
write in support of H.R. 6085, To prohibit the implementation of the 
Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for 
the Rock Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming, and for other purposes. As you 
know, H.R. 6085 would bar the Secretary of Interior from allowing BLM 
to ``finalize, implement, administer, or enforce'' the draft plan.

    This is consistent with the Associations' comments to the BLM on 
the draft RMP, which concluded:

        . . . the Associations urge BLM to rescind the Draft EIS and 
        seek to develop consensus through the collaborative process 
        that has been established by the Task Force assembled by 
        Governor Gordon. It is clear that the effected public does not 
        support the designation of more than 1.5 million acres as ACEC, 
        and that lands in the FO can be sustainably managed for 
        multiple uses, while providing for conservation of the lands 
        for posterity.

    Please see the attached full comments from the Associations, which 
outline our concerns regarding the proposal in more detail.

    Thank you for your consideration.

            Sincerely,

                                              Duane Taylor,
                      Director of Safe and Responsible Use Programs

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. I am going to take a few minutes for 
questioning, then.
    Mr. Poschman, one of the goals of the Pitkin County Climate 
Action Plan is to electrify Pitkin County's vehicle fleet. 
Where should we get those minerals, the United States or 
somewhere else in the world?
    Mr. Poschman. Thank you. That is an excellent question. I 
think we have a climate crisis here. A lot of people believe 
that. Whatever it takes would be my personal response to that.
    But I have to say, I am not against mineral extraction. It 
has to be done properly, and it has to be done in the right 
places. What we have seen is----
    Mr. Tiffany. So, if doing whatever it takes, does that 
include having minerals mined by children overseas?
    Mr. Poschman. That is a controversial issue, and we all 
think it is repugnant that it happens. I also know that the 
battery industry is moving away from cobalt, so that may be a 
non-issue in the near future.
    It is unfortunate that people are exploited around the 
world, but it is a reality. And as industries change, you will 
find them doing whatever, as the free markets allow access.
    Mr. Tiffany. What if they don't change?
    Mr. Poschman. I think it is going to change.
    Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Sgamma, same question.
    Ms. Sgamma. I can strongly state that child labor, slave 
labor in China for solar panels is wrong and that seems pretty 
obvious.
    The thing is that, if we do it responsibly, we do oil and 
natural gas development responsibly, we could do mining in the 
United States. But there are those who want absolutely nothing 
mined absolutely anywhere. So, we continue to see people say 
there is a climate crisis----
    Mr. Tiffany. The banana----
    Ms. Sgamma [continuing]. But then they don't want to mine 
for those minerals.
    Mr. Tiffany. Excuse me a minute.
    Ms. Sgamma. Sorry.
    Mr. Tiffany. The banana principle, right? Build absolutely 
nothing anywhere near anyone.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tiffany. Sorry to interrupt, go ahead.
    Ms. Sgamma. No, I was wrapping up.
    Mr. Tiffany. Oh, sorry to interrupt.
    Director Bingham, in this latest iteration that they are 
putting forward to you guys, did the BLM fulfill their 
coordination responsibilities?
    Mr. Bingham. They did not. That has been the major issue 
with this whole process. It dates back into 2011, when it all 
started with Alternatives B and C just as placeholders and 
bookends that I have stated.
    And then there was a break for 2 years, and then in 2015 we 
worked on Alternative D, all the way up until 2022. There was a 
lack of meetings in between, even from 2019 on. So, there was 
little coordination or no coordination on Alternatives B and C 
since 2015.
    Mr. Tiffany. Director Bingham, if they continue in this 
direction, are you going to be forced to take legal action to 
get them to the table to coordinate?
    Mr. Bingham. I think that is where we are heading, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. Director McConkie, same question. Are they 
coordinating with the state of Utah? Are the Federal agencies, 
in this case, the Bureau of Land Management, are they 
coordinating with the state of Utah?
    Ms. McConkie. I think, with the monument designations, that 
has been severely lacking, and we have also had some 
difficulties politically between our state and the Federal 
Government as far as management of the Bears Ears Monument.
    Mr. Tiffany. Will Utah be forced to take legal action to 
get them to the table to coordinate?
    Ms. McConkie. Utah actually already is in litigation over 
the Bears Ears National Monument designation. They have been 
for about a year and a half now.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is part of that litigation surrounding the 
responsibility of coordination contained in FLPMA?
    Ms. McConkie. I am not an expert on that. I assume it 
probably does.
    Mr. Tiffany. Sure. And from what I understand from Mr. 
Curtis, Utah public schools are losing revenue as a result of 
continuing to shut down lands in Utah. Is that correct?
    Ms. McConkie. When Federal lands are shut down, it 
certainly affects state trust lands and the money we can 
generate from those lands, which does affect public education.
    Mr. Tiffany. And Mr. Bingham, is the same thing going to 
happen if the Federal Government gets their way at this point, 
if the Bureau of Land Management gets their way, that it will 
reduce revenues for schools in Sweetwater County?
    Mr. Bingham. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. That is the 
prediction, and that is based on the revenue predictions in the 
RMP.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, think about it. We have a Federal 
Government, via the Bureau of Land Management, that wants to 
starve schools in America, starve public schools in America. It 
is astounding that that type of stuff is happening, where under 
the guise of the green fantasy, they will do anything. They 
will allow children to mine in the Congo. They will allow 
schools to be starved of revenue, all in the name of this green 
fantasy. It is incredible to watch it happen.
    Ms. Sgamma, I am going to come back to you with just one 
final question here. It almost seems like it is a goal of the 
current Administration to shut down natural resource use in 
America. Generally speaking, is that what we are witnessing?
    I know my colleague, who just stepped in the room here, has 
said that there is a war on people in America. I mean, is that 
what we are seeing here?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, we certainly see President Biden has 
pledged to get rid of Federal oil. He stated that. We have seen 
mineral withdrawals, for example, in Minnesota that would shut 
off mining to the very minerals necessary for batteries and 
renewable energy. So, yes, there is absolutely a banana 
mentality in the United States.
    Mr. Tiffany. I will yield, and I will turn now to the 
gentlelady from Wyoming for 5 minutes for questioning, if you 
are ready.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I am ready, and thank you all for 
being here. I am sorry I was not able to be here for the 
remainder of the hearing. I was over in a hearing in the 
Judiciary Committee, focusing on regulatory reform and what it 
is that we need to do in terms of addressing the agency 
overreach that we have seen, especially in the last 30 years. 
And I don't think that there is a better example of that than 
what has been happening in Wyoming recently with the Rock 
Springs District Office Resource Management Plan.
    It is very apparent to me that that particular document and 
the Alternative B that was chosen recently by the BLM last fall 
is a test case, and it is an effort by the BLM to determine 
whether they can turn our BLM lands essentially into National 
Park Service lands, and to exclude all of us not only in terms 
of oil and gas development, but mining, grazing, and anything 
that produces revenue or generates revenue.
    Coming from Wyoming, 48 percent of our surface estate is 
owned by the Federal Government, 65 percent of our mineral 
estate is also owned by the Federal Government. And what is 
very apparent when you live in the West is that there are only 
certain uses that can generate revenue on vast swaths of land. 
It may not be that you always have oil and gas in a particular 
area, or coal in a particular area, or uranium or grazing. But 
together, when you look at the way that our lands are situated, 
and you look at the nature of our vegetation, this 
precipitation that we receive and those sorts of things, if you 
block grazing, if you block oil and gas development, if you 
block mining, there is no other way to generate revenue off of 
literally tens of millions of acres of land. And as a result, 
it not only is going to affect Wyoming and the western United 
States, it will affect the country as a whole.
    Director Bingham, I appreciate you being here today. We 
appreciate all that you do both for Sweetwater County and for 
the state of Wyoming. And you highlighted in your testimony 
many of the grievances regarding the process by which the 
preferred alternative, Alternative B, came about from the BLM. 
You are not the first one to bring this to my attention, and I 
want to highlight some testimony that I listened to from a 
former BLM staffer given to Wyoming's joint Federal Natural 
Resources Management Committee.
    James Evans, who is a Rock Springs Field Office employee 
while the draft RMP was being developed, testified that the 
BLM's preferred alternative received very little time and 
effort in its development. In his own words, he said, ``The 
science and the work was all done on D,'' Alternative D. ``We 
sat down, and in 1 week we did Alternatives B and C together. 
After that was done, and we sat down with the cooperative 
agencies, we spent the next 5 or 6 years developing Alternative 
D.'' So, the BLM spent 1 week on Alternatives B and C and 5 to 
6 years on Alternative D.
    Director Bingham, can you expound on what you know about 
the length of time that the BLM took to create what is now the 
preferred alternative in a 3.6-million-acre Resource Management 
Plan?
    Mr. Bingham. Thank you, Congressman Hageman. Yes.
    Back in 2012, when the cooperative meeting started, there 
were just a few meetings related to Alternatives B and C. And 
also during that time, there were a little bit of discussions 
on Alternative D. So, there was a small amount of time in that 
there were a few co-operator meetings, and then there was a 
meeting at the end of the year, just one comment period for 
those Alternatives B and C.
    I did hear Mr. Evans' testimony. I was there, actually, at 
the meeting via Zoom, where he was testifying in front of the 
legislature, where it doesn't surprise me that it was done in 
that time period. Just when you look at all the implications of 
it, and that it was described to co-operators as a bookend, or 
a placeholder, and then Alternative D was the compromise to 
come in between.
    So, from 2015 on, there was a break because of the sage 
grouse issue. It was all focused on Alternative D, and we were 
actually directed to only focus on Alternative D for the 
remainder of that 5 to 6 years that you mentioned.
    Ms. Hageman. So, the entire process for FLPMA and the way 
that we manage our Federal lands, the stakeholders that are in 
the communities themselves, this entire process is to ensure 
that the people who are actually affected by the decisions are 
engaged and able to participate, and that we are able to manage 
these lands in the best interest of everybody involved, and 
that is why you talk about things such as balance.
    We look at recreation, we look at access for oil and gas, 
we look at grazing. And not every single acre is used for all 
of those different types of activities. But you do a balance, 
and you do a mosaic, and you do a quilt, and you figure out how 
we are going to manage these resources, really, ultimately, in 
the best interests of the people of the United States of 
America. Because they belong to us. They don't belong to Joe 
Biden. They don't belong to the BLM. They belong to us. We are 
the ones who have the right to access them.
    And what is very apparent to me by what happened with this 
particular RMP is this is the sign of the future for this 
Administration and the folks on the other side of the aisle. 
They are going to do everything in their power to deny us 
access management and use to over 600 million acres of Federal 
lands if they have the ability to do that. And this is just the 
first step.
    I thank you for the work that you have done. I thank 
everybody for being here and the work that you do making our 
lives better.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields, and we are going to 
close up shop here.
    I want to thank all of you for your testimony and taking 
the time to travel here. I would like to thank all the 
witnesses for their testimony and Members for their questions.
    Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for our witnesses, and we will ask that you respond 
to those in writing, please.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Subcommittee must 
submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Monday, 
March 25, 2024. The hearing record will be held open for 10 
business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Tiffany

                        Statement for the Record
                            Kristen Brengel
               Senior Vice President, Government Affairs
                National Parks Conservation Association

NPCA position on H.R. 5499: Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities 
                                  Act

    Since 1919, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been 
the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing 
our National Park System. On behalf of our 1.6 million members and 
supporters nationwide, I wanted to share our position on H.R. 5499--
Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities Act ahead of a hearing in 
the House Natural Resources Federal Lands Subcommittee hearing 
scheduled for March 20, 2024.

H.R. 5499--Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities Act

    NPCA is opposed to this legislation, which would fundamentally 
undermine the Antiquities Act of 1906. The Antiquities Act is one of 
our nation's most important conservation laws; it allows the president 
of the United States to proclaim lands or waters under federal 
jurisdiction as national monuments to maintain the integrity of natural 
and cultural resources. Used to safeguard and preserve federal lands 
and historical sites for all Americans to enjoy, 18 presidents 
representing both political parties, have used this authority to 
designate 163 national monuments. This accounts for about one-quarter 
of the current sites within the National Park System. Congress has the 
power to designate a national park or historic site. Congress can also 
re-designate a presidentially proclaimed monument to become a national 
park, as it has done with parks like the Grand Canyon and Acadia.

    The Antiquities Act was passed by Congress with the understanding 
that some nationally significant sites need urgent protection and 
should not be subject to the lengthy path a bill can take. What was 
true for the 59th Congress in 1906 is still true today: Congress can be 
too inactive to act expeditiously and protect cultural or natural 
resources. For example, Congress had four terms where it could have 
designated the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park. Bipartisan and 
bicameral legislation sat for years in committee with no substantive 
action. It took a designation through the Antiquities Act to ensure the 
first site was designated which later prompted Congress to act.

    H.R. 5499 would mandate that any site designated by the Antiquities 
Act would require Congressional approval within six months, or the end 
of the current congress, or else the designation would be nullified. In 
effect, Congress would only have to be inactive to strip a newly 
designated site of its protections. Congress simply should not be the 
sole guarantor of protecting America's natural and cultural heritage.

    H.R. 5499 further undermines the intent of the Antiquities Act by 
mandating that any sites that do not get Congressional approval as 
monuments may not be included in any future monument designation for 25 
years. The very point of the Antiquities Act is allowing a branch of 
the federal government to move quickly to protect resources that are 
under direct threat. H.R. 5499 creates an arbitrary timeline that 
stipulates irreplaceable resources or significant historical sites be 
potentially unprotected for a quarter century.

    Both Presidents Trump and Biden recently used the Antiquities Act 
to preserve historically significant sites, designating Camp Nelson and 
the Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monuments respectively. 
These sites, which both could have been protected by Congress and were 
not, allow Americans to learn about our diverse national history. 
President Obama protected Harriet Tubman National Historical Park 
(formerly national monument) while President George W. Bush designated 
the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. For the last 118 years 
presidents, regardless of political party, have chosen to protect 
American cultural and natural resources for the betterment of all. From 
the Statue of Liberty to Zion National Park, the Antiquities Act has 
been used to guarantee our most treasured places can be enjoyed and 
learned from for generations to come. The protection and interpretation 
of these sites represents the very best of American values. H.R. 5499 
critically endangers that shared interest and we urge Congress to 
reconsider this damaging legislation.
    Thank you for considering our views.

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Neguse

                     BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS & ANGLERS

                                                 March 19, 2024    

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

    Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

    On behalf of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA), the voice for our 
wild public lands, waters and wildlife, I write to express our 
opposition to the Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities Act (H.R. 
5499). This legislation aims to undermine the Antiquities Act which has 
been used for more than a century to conserve our nation's public lands 
and waters with benefits for hunters and anglers.
    The Antiquities Act is a critical tool to conserve large 
landscapes, secure important fish and wildlife habitat and safeguard 
traditional hunting and angling opportunities on our public lands and 
waters. National monuments have a long history of being designated 
through the Antiquities Act with bipartisan support. Together, nine 
Democratic and nine Republican presidents have established 161 national 
monuments through their authority under the Antiquities Act.
    By exerting congressional review over the Antiquities Act, H.R. 
5499 threatens the use of an important administrative authority that 
has conserved wild public lands and waters at risk from development. 
This legislation would erode the foundation for more than a century of 
conservation success and is wholly unnecessary as Congress already has 
the authority to establish, modify or abolish national monuments in 
addition to their authority to manage federal public lands through 
other designations.
    Landscapes conserved through the Antiquities Act have sustained 
cherished opportunities for hunters and anglers, from the Upper 
Missouri River Breaks National Monument in Montana which provides 
opportunities for hunters to pursue iconic species like bighorn sheep 
and sharp tailed grouse, to the Rio Grande Del Norte National Monument 
in New Mexico where anglers can throw a line to Rio Grande cutthroat 
trout.

    BHA has consistently advocated for America's national monuments 
system and the judicious use of the Antiquities Act as a way to 
permanently conserve important large landscapes. Key to achieving this 
outcome is a process that adheres to the following specific tenets:

     Important fish and wildlife habitat must be conserved.

     The monument proclamation must clearly stipulate that 
            management authority over fish and wildlife populations 
            will be retained by state fish and wildlife agencies.

     Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands 
            must remain under the authority and jurisdiction of these 
            multiple-use focused land management agencies.

     The monument proclamation must direct reasonable access 
            for fishing, hunting, and wildlife management, including 
            allowances for terrestrial habitat improvement and water 
            developments.

     The input and guidance of hunters and anglers must be 
            included in management plans for national monuments.
     The monument proposal must be developed through a public 
            process--one that includes hunters and anglers, as well as 
            appropriate state, Tribal, and local governments.

     The monument proposal must gain support from local hunters 
            and anglers.

     Hunting and fishing opportunities must be upheld and the 
            historical and cultural significance of our outdoor 
            traditions explicitly acknowledged in the monument 
            proclamation.


    Once again, BHA reiterates our opposition to H.R. 5499 as this 
legislation would undermine a bedrock conservation law, inhibiting 
future opportunities to thoughtfully protect public resources with 
unique values for the benefit of hunters and anglers.

            Sincerely,

                                            Kaden McArthur,
                                       Government Relations Manager

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                             Jocelyn Torres
      Chief Conservation Officer and Interim Co-Executive Director
                     Conservation Lands Foundation

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on 
legislation being considered in today's hearing of the Subcommittee on 
Federal Lands.
    The Conservation Lands Foundation is a national non-profit 
organization headquartered in Durango, Colorado with staff in New 
Mexico, Nevada, California, Utah, Idaho, and Washington, DC. We were 
established in 2007 on the belief that public lands are best protected 
when there is a national network of local advocates working to advance 
a common conservation vision. Our mission is to protect, restore, and 
expand the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Conservation 
Lands through education, advocacy, and partnerships. We advance this 
mission through our support for more than 80 grassroots organizations 
who steward and protect the BLM National Conservation Lands in their 
communities.
    With that mission in mind, Conservation Lands Foundation expresses 
strong support for H.R. 6209, Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral 
Pipeline Act, introduced by Rep. Dina Titus of Nevada, which ensures a 
water pipeline project by Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) may be 
constructed underground through Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area 
and adds over 9,000 acres to the NCA as important mitigation.
    As the Bureau of Land Management does not have the authority to 
grant right-of-way access to SNWA in a permanently protected area, this 
project must first seek Congressional authority. The Horizon Lateral 
project is an example of how infrastructure projects on National 
Conservation Lands can have minimal ground disturbance, mitigate 
anticipated impacts, and address community needs while ensuring the 
objects and values for which the area was protected remain protected.
    Conservation Lands Foundation previously testified in support of 
this effort to construct the water pipeline project to ensure a million 
Nevadans have access to the water system, and expand the NCA as part of 
the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act 
introduced last Congressional session. We look forward to working with 
Congresswoman Titus to advance this legislation and with SNWA to find 
other partnership opportunities that improve habitat and recreation 
opportunities in the NCA.
    While this legislation is a positive example of a bill that strikes 
a balance between conservation and development with input from local 
advocates, unfortunately, many of the bills being considered in today's 
hearing seek to undermine the ability of local advocates to engage in 
the management of public lands, as well as weaken bedrock laws and 
regulations that ensure our most cherished landscapes are protected.
    Conservation Lands Foundation expresses strong opposition to the 
following bills being considered in today's hearing:
H.R. 5499, Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities Act

    This legislation, introduced by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks of 
Iowa, represents a direct assault on the bedrock law that has been used 
by 18 presidents, nine Democrats and nine Republicans, to protect our 
nation's most critical public lands and waters. Since its enactment, 
the Antiquities Act has been an essential tool for presidents to ensure 
America's most iconic natural, cultural, and historic places are 
protected for generations to come. Some of those iconic places include 
the Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, Fort Monroe, the Pacific 
Remote Islands, and Acadia, Zion, and Olympic National Parks, among 
many others.
    Imposing restrictive measures that undermine the Act's fundamental 
principles and jeopardize its effectiveness to ensure our most 
cherished landscapes and cultural resources are protected serves the 
interests of no one who cares about the public's access to and the 
future of America's public lands. According to the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, the outdoor recreation economy increased 4.8 percent in 2022, 
compared with a 1.9 increase for the overall U.S. economy. Considering 
that, such an effort to undermine the Antiquities Act only benefits 
those who seek to exploit the land without any regard for its 
recreational value in the marketplace, without any concern for its 
importance to communities that have called it their home since time 
immemorial, and without any interest in ensuring future generations can 
continue to access and benefit from it.
    Congress already has this power to make changes to how our nation's 
public lands are managed. This bill is an attempt to restrict the tools 
available to the American public, in particular Tribal governments and 
underrepresented communities, to advocate for designations important to 
the health and wellbeing of their communities, and the natural land 
around them.
    We strongly oppose this legislation and urge the Committee to vote 
``no'' on this harmful legislation if and when it comes up for a vote.
H.R. 6085, To prohibit the implementation of the Draft Resource 
        Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock 
        Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming

    This harmful bill introduced by Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming 
would undermine years of community-based work by her constituents to 
produce a resource management plan revision for the public lands 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management's Rock Springs Field Office.
    Pursuant to Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976, this resource management plan represents a necessary 
update to the 1997 Rock Springs Resource Management Plan. Section 202 
of FLPMA mandates that the ``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.'' The draft proposes 
balanced management across 3.6 million acres of public lands in 
southwest Wyoming, conserving critical wildlife migration routes, 
protecting sensitive cultural resources, and maintaining recreational 
access for locals and visitors alike. It also leaves over half of the 
planning area open to one or more types of industrial activities, such 
as oil and gas drilling, mining, or renewable energy.
    BLM's Rock Springs Field Office is in the middle of a robust public 
process, which began in 2011, to revise the resource management plan. 
Since the inception of the revision, BLM has hosted four scoping 
meetings and three public meetings in response to the draft plan 
release. In addition, the most recent public comment period was 
extended to allow for comprehensive participation from local 
stakeholders and the Wyoming Governor's office. Prohibiting the 
implementation of the draft resource management plan revision runs 
counter to FLPMA and the will of the tens of thousands of people who 
submitted public comment in response to the draft plan. We strongly 
oppose H.R. 6085.
H.R. 6547, Colorado Energy Prosperity Act

    Like the previous bill, this legislation, introduced by Rep. Lauren 
Boebert of Colorado, seeks to undermine years of community-based effort 
to produce a Resource Management Plan for the public lands managed by 
the Colorado River Valley Field Office and the Grand Junction Field 
Office of the Bureau of Land Management. This supplemental 
environmental impact statement is necessary in order to address the 
issues identified in the lawsuits in the Colorado River Valley RMP, 
described in settlement agreements, and in the Grand Junction RMP, 
described in BLM's motion for voluntary remand. In response to the 
court ruling and settlement agreements, the draft revisits oil and gas 
leasing availability and proposes balanced management for the 2 million 
acres in both field offices, which cover some of Colorado's most 
important wildlife habitat, recreational areas, spectacular scenery, 
cultural sites, and water resources. However, valid existing leases are 
not impacted by this plan.
    Like the Rock Springs Field Office above, the Colorado River Valley 
and Grand Junction Field Offices have conducted rigorous public 
outreach to inform this process. Over the past year and a half, BLM has 
held two scoping meetings and three public meetings in response to the 
release of the draft plan. Prohibiting the finalization, 
implementation, administration, and enforcement of the forthcoming plan 
would interrupt this robust public process and prevent BLM from 
fulfilling its obligations under the terms of the settlement 
agreements. We urgently request that the members of the Subcommittee 
and full Committee vote against H.R. 6547.
H.R. 7006, To prohibit natural asset companies from entering into any 
        agreement with respect to land in the State of Utah or natural 
        assets on or in such land

    This legislation, introduced by Rep. John Curtis of Utah, would 
prevent a natural asset company, which do not currently exist, from 
entering into any agreement with respect to land in the State of Utah 
or natural assets on or in such land.
    The proposal to create this new kind of corporation, which the 
Securities and Exchange Commission is no longer considering, was 
proposed as a way to invest money behind natural areas, working lands, 
and ecosystem restoration in order to put a fair market value on the 
land itself, not only the products and resources extracted from it.
    We oppose this legislation because, beyond the fact that natural 
asset companies do not exist and their creation is no longer being 
considered, it provides false legitimacy for a conspiracy theory that 
ties these non-existent companies with the Bureau of Land Management's 
Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. For this reason, we urge the 
Subcommittee and full Committee to vote no on H.R. 7006.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for the 
opportunity to share this testimony, and for your consideration of our 
views on the legislation being heard today.

                                 ______
                                 

                          ENVIRONMENT AMERICA

                                                 March 19, 2024    

Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse and members of the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands:

    We are writing in opposition to three of the bills on the agenda 
for the March 20, 2024 hearing. We need more nature and each of these 
bills undermines current efforts and future opportunities to protect 
special places for future generations.
    We oppose the Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities Act (H.R. 
5499) which would limit the effectiveness of the Antiquities Act. Since 
it was signed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, the Antiquities 
Act has been used by 18 Presidents to protect American treasures such 
as Chaco Canyon, the Grand Canyon, Dinosaur National Monument, Joshua 
Tree and Arches. We support the use of the Antiquities Act to protect 
special natural areas and we want to see it continue to function as a 
valuable tool for conservation as it has for the past 118 years. 
Passing H.R. 5499 would limit the establishment of future national 
monuments, potentially denying future generations the opportunity to 
enjoy even more beautiful and special places in our country.
    We oppose the Colorado Energy Prosperity Act (H.R. 6547), which 
would prevent the Bureau of Land Management from finalizing their 
supplemental EIS for the Colorado River Valley and Grand Junction Field 
Offices. The supplemental EIS could protect nearly 2 million acres of 
federal public land in western Colorado from future oil and gas leasing 
including parts of the Dolores River Canyon, Book Cliffs and Grand 
Hogback. These areas are critical for biodiversity and provide 
unparalleled outdoor recreational opportunities.
    Finally, we oppose the H.R. 6085, which would prohibit the 
implementation of the Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Rock Springs BLM Field Office. The BLM is 
proposing a more conservation-focused approach for managing 
approximately 3.6 million acres including prioritizing wildlife habitat 
and habitat connectivity by protecting parts of the area from mining 
and drilling. We support this approach and other efforts by the BLM to 
connect more fragmented habitats.

            Thank you,

        Ellen Montgomery,             Lisa Frank,
        Public Lands Campaign 
        Director                      Executive Director,
                                        Washington Legislative Office

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                           Shaaron Netherton
                           Executive Director
                      Friends of Nevada Wilderness

    Dear Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Federal Lands Subcommittee:

    On behalf of Friends of Nevada Wilderness and our 16,000 
supporters, please accept these comments in support of H.R. 6209, the 
Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act.

    Friends of Nevada Wilderness is dedicated to preserving all 
qualified Nevada public lands as wilderness, protecting all present and 
potential wilderness from ongoing threats, educating the public about 
the values of and need for wilderness, and improving the management and 
restoration of wild lands. Friends of Nevada Wilderness is celebrating 
our 40th anniversary this year.

    I would like to express appreciation for the Nevada delegation's 
continued support for local efforts to resolve issues on public lands. 
Nevadans know how to come to the table in good faith and work together 
to develop bills that enhance economic development, conserve public 
lands and improve recreation opportunities.

    The Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act would expand 
the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area by adding contiguous 
federal lands and provide for a right-of-way under the Sloan Canyon 
National Conservation Area and other public lands for the purpose 
securing water resources for Las Vegas Valley residents. Friends of 
Nevada Wilderness supports the 9,290-acre expansion of the national 
conservation area. This will help protect habitat corridors for bighorn 
sheep and other wildlife.

    We understand that putting the pipeline under the national 
conservation area is much less expensive than the alternative through 
Henderson. There will however, be impacts to public lands surrounds the 
national conservation area from waste rock storage, etc. We recommend 
that a mitigation and/or restoration fund be created with the cost 
savings of this alternative to be used to ensure all temporary impacts 
to the national conservation area and other public lands are restored 
and provide funding to manage the Sloan Canyon National Conservation 
Area for its intended purposes of protecting natural and cultural 
resources.

                                 ______
                                 

                        MULEY FANATIC FOUNDATION

                                                 March 19, 2024    

Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:

    On behalf of the Muley Fanatic Foundation, I write in strong 
opposition to H.R. 6085, offered by Rep. Hageman. This bill would have 
the effect of prematurely short-circuiting a land use planning process 
that has been ongoing for more than a decade and has the potential to 
provide critical, needed conservation measures for Wyoming's renowned 
mule deer populations that have declined more than 40% over the last 
three decades.
    The Muley Fanatic Foundation and many other stakeholders have been 
intimately involved in the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan (RMP) 
process. The notion that Rep. Hageman would propose a bill that ignores 
the efforts by so many that have been put forth in this very valued 
public process is unfortunate to say the least.
    This legislation undercuts more than a decade-long planning process 
for millions of acres of public land in southwestern Wyoming. 
Throughout this process, along with other stakeholders, I have 
personally participated in dozens of meetings with federal, state, and 
local officials, and have invested countless hours in drafting comments 
and providing testimony. Striking the right balance in these land use 
plans can be challenging at times, but I do not think that wasting all 
of the time and taxpayer resources that have gone into preparing the 
Rock Springs plan, which would be the end result of this bill, is the 
right course of action. Please show your support of the process as the 
BLM moves forward in their efforts to review more than 40,000 public 
comments that are submitted on the draft Rock Springs RMP and allow the 
BLM to share a revised plan incorporating many of these comments.
    I oppose H.R. 6085, and I urge you to oppose this legislation 
during committee consideration.

            Sincerely,

                                       Joshua W.D. Coursey,
                                                      President/CEO

                                 ______
                                 

                         THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

                                                 March 20, 2024    

Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Federal Lands Subcommittee:

    On behalf of our more than one million members and supporters, The 
Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to express views on legislation being 
heard before the Subcommittee on March 20, 2024. We respectfully 
request that this letter be included in the hearing record.
H.R. 5499, Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities Act

    TWS opposes H.R. 5499, sponsored by Representative Miller-Meeks (R-
IA). Since it was signed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, the 
Antiquities Act has been used on a bipartisan basis by 18 Presidents to 
protect America's most significant natural, scientific, cultural, and 
historic places, including the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni-Ancestral 
Footprints of the Grand Canyon, Statue of Liberty, Fort Monroe, and 
Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monuments. This legislation 
represents a direct assault on this bedrock conservation law by seeking 
to impose restrictive measures that undermine the Act's fundamental 
principles and jeopardize its efficacy in preserving our nation's most 
cherished places.
    The legislation would forcibly sunset national monument 
designations while limiting future designations, which blatantly 
undercuts the original intent of the Antiquities Act to protect places 
at urgent risk. It would also undermine the meaningful Tribal 
engagement at the center of many modern designation efforts, 
disregarding the sovereignty and expertise of Indigenous communities 
whose cultural heritage and ancestral lands are often central to 
monument designations. Finally, Congress already has the power to pass 
legislation creating, revoking or modifying national monuments on a 
case-by-case basis. TWS therefore sees this additional layer of 
oversight completely unnecessary.
    Furthermore, national monuments poll very well with voters across 
party lines. Per the Colorado College's 2024 Conservation in the West 
Poll, 85% of westerners support creating new national parks and 
monuments to protect historic sites and areas for recreation.
    For these reasons, TWS opposes this legislation and urges members 
of the Subcommittee not to advance it.
H.R. 6085, To prohibit the implementation of the Draft Resource 
        Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock 
        Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming
    The Wilderness Society opposes H.R. 6085 sponsored by 
Representative Hageman. The bill would block implementation of the 
Bureau of Land Management's Rock Springs Resource Management Plan. 
Finalization of a new Rock Springs Resource Management Plan is long 
overdue and there is an urgent need to update management for this 
landscape according to new research and community values.
    This bill would undermine the extensive public process convened in 
Wyoming over the last decade to inform this plan. Among them have been 
many opportunities to discuss and provide input on the future 
management of these BLM lands for local stakeholders. Local 
governments, state agencies, and representatives from the Governor's 
Office regularly met with BLM to craft the plan components over the 
last decade. In 2023, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon convened a Rock 
Springs-focused taskforce with a variety of interest groups and elected 
officials, which successfully crafted multiple consensus-based 
management recommendations for BLM to consider. BLM also received 
comments from tens of thousands of individuals, elected officials, 
organizations, and businesses, which will inform adjustments for the 
final Rock Springs plan--unless this bill gets in the way.
    Blocking implementation of this plan disregards years of public 
input from Wyomingites and the collaborative task force convened by 
Governor Gordon. Delaying the much-needed updates to land management 
prescriptions will harm Wyoming communities and jeopardize areas of 
critical wildlife habitat, cultural resources and unique recreational 
opportunities--not to mention create uncertainty public lands users for 
years to come. For these reasons, TWS opposes this legislation and 
urges the Subcommittee not to advance it.
H.R. 6547, Colorado Energy Prosperity Act

    TWS opposes H.R. 6547, sponsored by Representative Boebert, which 
would circumvent a court-ordered public process to chart public land 
management in western Colorado for decades to come. The Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) is conducting a public process to update its resource 
management plans for the Colorado River Valley and Grand Junction field 
offices as the result of a U.S. District Court of Colorado ruling and 
subsequent settlement agreement. The court found that the BLM violated 
the law with respect to its environmental analysis during the previous 
planning process for the Colorado River Valley Field Office and ordered 
the BLM to broaden the range of alternatives for oil and gas leasing 
and conduct a more robust analysis of air quality impacts. The new plan 
also considers areas of Tribal significance for increased protection. 
The Grand Junction plan suffered from the same legal deficiencies, and 
a challenge to that plan was settled between the parties and combined 
with the Colorado River Valley plan for additional analysis.
    H.R. 6547 would prevent the BLM from completing its work on this 
public process and updating these two plans. If signed into law, this 
bill would force the BLM to disregard robust comments from the general 
public, including conservation stakeholders, municipalities, counties, 
and the State of Colorado on the draft plan, as well as feedback 
received through formal Tribal consultation. This landscape contains 
wilderness-quality lands, important wildlife habitat, cultural 
resources, recreation opportunities, and other natural resources. We 
are grateful for the work by the planning team at the BLM to improve 
management prescriptions throughout the field offices. We urge the 
Subcommittee to reject this legislation, and to instead allow the BLM 
to complete its public process, as required by the federal courts.
H.R. 7006, To prohibit natural asset companies from entering into any 
        agreement with respect to land in the State of Utah or natural 
        assets on or in such land

    TWS opposes Representative Curtis's legislation to prevent a 
natural asset company from entering into any agreement with respect to 
land in the State of Utah or natural assets on or in such land.
    The proposal for establishing natural asset companies was to 
facilitate investment in preserving natural areas, working lands, and 
ecosystem restoration. The objective was to assign monetary value to 
the land itself, rather than solely valuing the resources extracted 
from it.
    This legislation propagates a baseless conspiracy theory linking 
these non-existent companies (the proposal never advanced past the 
conceptual stage) with the Bureau of Land Management's Conservation and 
Landscape Health Rule. Claims suggesting that these companies would 
have been part of a plot to harness the rule to privatize public lands 
are unequivocally unfounded.
    This legislation is a red herring and TWS urges members of the 
Subcommittee not to advance it.
H.R. 6209, Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act

    The Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act would expand 
the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area by adding contiguous 
federal lands and provide for a right-of-way across federal public 
lands for the purpose securing water resources for Las Vegas valley 
residents. While the Wilderness Society is supportive of the NCA 
expansion, we have concerns with the current bill language and 
recommend that the Subcommittee make adjustments before reporting the 
bill.
    Specifically, The Wilderness Society supports the bill's provisions 
providing for the addition of 9,290 acres to the Sloan Canyon NCA. 
Protecting these lands is important to securing bighorn sheep habitat 
connectivity that allows movement to and from the NCA and the South 
McCullough Wilderness and Avi Kwa Ame National Monument to the south.
    We are concerned about the bill's provisions regarding the public 
land resources outside of the NCA, which will see the most impact from 
the Horizon Lateral project. While the bill explicitly states that the 
Secretary of the Interior may include reasonable terms and conditions 
under FLPMA to protect ``Conservation Area'' resources, it is critical 
that the Secretary retain authority to protect public land resources 
inside and outside of the NCA. We accordingly urge the Subcommittee to 
amend section 3(h)(3)(A) to include other public land resources.
    TWS generally believes the Secretary should retain discretion over 
when and where rights-of-way across public lands are granted, that 
industrial projects are not appropriate within units of the National 
Landscape Conservation System, and that grantees of rights-of-way 
should pay fair market value for the use of public lands. TWS also 
understands the unique geographic and public interest circumstances at 
issue here, and we appreciate the sponsor including provisions that 
ensure that the natural and cultural resources within the NCA will not 
be permanently adversely affected. We recommend that a mitigation and/
or restoration fund be created with the cost savings of this 
alternative to be used to ensure all temporary impacts to the NCA and 
other public lands are restored and provide BLM funding to manage the 
NCA for its intended purposes of protecting natural and cultural 
resources.

    Thank you for considering our views.

            Sincerely,

                                               Lydia Weiss,
                              Senior Director, Government Relations

                                 ______
                                 
                                                 March 20, 2024    

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

Re: H.R. 5499, Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities Act

    Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

    On behalf of the undersigned organizations and our millions of 
members across the country, we are writing to express our unwavering 
support for the Antiquities Act of 1906 and our strong opposition to 
H.R. 5499, the ``Congressional Oversight of the Antiquities Act,'' 
which poses a significant threat to this bedrock conservation law.
    Since its enactment, the Antiquities Act has been one of our 
nation's most critical conservation tools for preserving public lands, 
waters and cultural sites. Our national parks and monuments and other 
protected public lands and waters unite all people in this country by 
protecting our shared heritage for future generations to enjoy. Since 
it was signed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, the Antiquities 
Act has been used on a bipartisan basis by 18 Presidents (nine 
Republicans and nine Democrats) to protect America's most iconic 
natural, scientific, cultural, and historic places, including the Grand 
Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, Fort Monroe, the Pacific Remote Islands, 
and Acadia, Zion and Olympic National Parks.
    Furthermore, national monuments poll very well with voters across 
party lines. Per the Colorado College's 2024 Conservation in the West 
Poll, 85% of westerners support creating new national parks and 
monuments to protect historic sites and areas for recreation. The sheer 
diversity of historic, cultural, and natural treasures that have been 
protected by the Antiquities Act is the reason why hundreds of groups 
representing sportsmen, cultural heritage organizations, evangelicals, 
conservation, recreation businesses, historic preservation, and many 
others all oppose efforts to undermine this vital law.
    H.R. 5499 represents a direct assault on the Antiquities Act. The 
legislation would forcibly sunset national monument designations while 
limiting future designations, which blatantly undercuts the original 
intent of the Antiquities Act to protect places at urgent risk. It 
would also undermine the meaningful Tribal engagement at the center of 
many modern designation efforts, disregarding the sovereignty and 
expertise of Indigenous communities whose cultural heritage and 
ancestral lands are often central to monument designations. Finally, 
Congress already has the power to pass legislation creating, revoking 
or modifying national monuments on a case-by-case basis.
    As organizations committed to conservation, environmental 
stewardship, and the preservation of our nation's heritage, we urge you 
to oppose H.R. 5499 and to uphold the Antiquities Act as a critical 
tool for protecting America's natural and cultural treasures.
    Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. We trust that 
you will consider the long-term implications of H.R. 5499 and stand in 
defense of the Antiquities Act.

            Sincerely,

        Accountable.US                Los Padres ForestWatch

        Alaska Wilderness League      Marine Conservation Institute

        Azul                          Mountain Mamas

        Californians for Western 
        Wilderness                    Mystic Aquarium

        CalWild                       National Marine Sanctuary 
                                      Foundation

        Center for Biological 
        Diversity                     National Ocean Protection 
                                      Coalition
        Coalition to Protect 
        America's National Parks      National Parks Conservation 
                                      Association

        Colorado Wildlands Project    National Trust for Historic 
                                      Preservation

        Conservation Colorado         National Wildlife Federation

        Conservation Lands 
        Foundation                    Native Voters Alliance Nevada

        Conservation Northwest        Natural Resources Defense Council

        Conservatives for 
        Responsible Stewardship       Nevada Wildlife Federation

        Continental Divide Trail 
        Coalition                     New Mexico Wild

        Defenders of Wildlife         Northeastern Minnesotans for 
                                      Wilderness

        Earthjustice                  Nuestra Tierra

        EarthKeepers 360              Ocean Defense Initiative

        Earthworks                    Oregon League of Conservation 
                                      Voters

        Endangered Species 
        Coalition                     Oregon Natural Desert Association

        Environment America           Plaquemines Rising Coastal 
                                      Restoration

        Environmental Protection 
        Information Center-EPIC       Progressive Leadership Alliance 
                                      of Nevada

        Friends of Organ Mountains-
        Desert Peaks                  Protect Our Winters

        Friends of the Earth US       Sierra Club

        Grand Canyon Trust            Silvix Resources

        Great Old Broads for 
        Wilderness                    Soda Mountain Wilderness Council

        GreenLatinos                  Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

        Healthy Ocean Coalition       The Mountain Pact

        Hispanic Access Foundation    The Wilderness Society

        HECHO                         Trust for Public Land

        Institute for a Progressive 
        Nevada                        Tuleyome

        John Muir Project             Union of Concerned Scientists

        Klamath Forest Alliance       Vet Voice Foundation

        Las Cruces Green Chamber of 
        Commerce                      Western Watersheds Project

        League of Conservation 
        Voters                        WildEarth Guardians

                                 ______
                                 
      Support for Alternative F and Conservation Management in the
         Colorado River Valley and Grand Junction Field Offices
        Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Castle Peak Wilderness Study Area in Eagle County, which is 
proposed for expansion in Alternative F of the draft SEIS. Photo 
credit: Jon Mullen/EcoStock

    Please find the below letters that have been submitted to the 
Bureau of Land Management in support of Alternative F and the 
conservation-based management considered in the draft Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Colorado River Valley and 
Grand Junction Field Offices.

    This packet contains supportive letters from the following entities 
and individuals:

     Representative Diana DeGette, Colorado's Congressional 
            District 1

     State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources and 
            Department of Public Health and Environment

     Eagle County

     Pitkin County

     Routt County

     City of Glenwood Springs

     Town of Palisade

     The Mountain Pact and over 25 individual local elected 
            officials

     Grand Valley Outdoor Recreation Coalition

     The Colorado Food and Farm Alliance and over 30 
            agricultural producers and related businesses

     Nearly 85 local business in Western Colorado

    In addition to what's in contained in the packet, the conservation 
community generated comments from nearly 6,000 community members and 
submitted technical comments on behalf of the following organizations: 
Audubon Rockies, Center for Biological Diversity, Citizens for a 
Healthy Community, Colorado Wildlands Project, Conservation Colorado, 
Conservation Lands Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, 
Great Old Broads for Wilderness-Grand Junction Broadband, Living Rivers 
& Colorado Riverkeeper, National Parks Conservation Association, Rocky 
Mountain Wild, Sheep Mountain Alliance, Sierra Club, The Wilderness 
Society, Waterkeeper Alliance, Western Colorado Alliance, Western 
Watersheds Project, Wilderness Workshop, and WildEarth Guardians.

                                 *****

Theese documents are part of the hearing record and are being 
retained in the Committee's official files:

The documents are available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20240320/116881/HHRG-
118-II10-20240320-SD008.pdf

                                 [all]