A House Committee on Natural Resources hearing on a bill requiring the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to rescind a rule on conservation leases turned fractious as Republican lawmakers and governors cited the bill’s impact on grazing and energy leases.
According to BLM, the proposed rule would provide a framework to protect intact landscapes and restore degraded landscapes by identifying the best science and practices to manage lands to achieve the desired conditions.
BLM contends the proposed rule does not prioritize conservation over other uses but puts it on par with uses consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). FLPMA authorizes BLM lands for multiple uses, including renewal and conventional energy development, livestock grazing, timber production, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation and conservation.
The June 15 hearing on HR 3397, sponsored by Rep. John Curtis (R-UT-03), began with Govs. Kristi Noem (R-SD) and Mark Gordon (R-WY) criticizing BLM’s proposed rule for putting conservation on public lands at the same level as existing uses. Both cited the number of public lands within their respective states and said the rule would significantly impact the state’s economy and the industries that support agriculture and energy.
Each governor asserted the proposed rule will prioritize conservation leases over other land uses and those who currently use the lands already practice conservation and have demonstrated the ability to sequester carbon in the soil.
In her written remarks, Noem compared the proposed rule to previous actions taken by the Biden administration, including Waters of the U.S. and the rebranded “America the Beautiful” initiative, calling the proposed rule a “land grab” and overreach of the federal government.
Noem and Gordon criticized BLM’s decision to hold public hearings in urban cities such as Albuquerque, Denver and Reno rather than in the states and rural areas where people are affected the most.
“This proposed rule was rushed forward without material input from Wyoming or other states,” Gordon said in prepared remarks. “It did not have the benefit of the views of impacted public land users. The proposed rule mischaracterizes conservation, seeks to preempt wildlife management from the states and oversteps the Bureau’s statutory authority. The best solution is to rescind the rule.”
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA-02) spoke during the governors’ panel, calling the rule a “hyper-partisan performance masquerading as a legislative hearing.”
BLM testimony
Republican lawmakers also criticized Nada Wolff Culver, BLM principal deputy director, for the lack of hearings in rural areas and their representative districts.
Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-ID-01) called it “complete arrogance” that BLM did not hold meetings in areas where people’s livelihoods depend on public lands.
Culver said the agency has received close to 120,000 comments regarding the proposed rule and defended the public outreach that has occurred. The comment period has been extended from 75 to 90 days and will end on July 5.
Culver shared her opposition to HR 3397, saying it would “deprive the BLM of critical tools necessary to manage for the challenges facing public lands today.”
Culver said the proposed rule would help provide the “necessary direction to public land managers to work towards resilient, healthy landscapes that can support the full breadth of multiple uses now and into the future.” Culver said conservation is one type of multiple use that supports the resilience of public lands. She continued that with conservation the government “could leverage private investment” towards restoration and mitigation efforts on public lands.
Culver concluded the concepts of the proposed rule arise from experience in implementing FLPMA and working with public land users who depend on the lands’ resources.
Culver answered several questions regarding the Taylor Grazing Act and said the proposed rule sets the groundwork and any decisions will continue to be managed by local BLM officials. She said a conservation lease would have to be issued in a way that does not affect any existing grazing leases or any permitted authorized use. Culver told Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM-03) the proposed rule does not “take a position one way or another” at future leases, but grazing could be one aspect of conservation.
Kathleen Sgamma, president of Western Energy Alliance, called the proposed rule “nebulous,” and said it raises many questions.
Sgamma wrote in written remarks that establishing a conservation leasing program is completely at odds with the concept of leasing in FLPMA. “BLM simply does not have the authority to issue leases for conservation to the exclusion of FLPMA-specified land uses,” she wrote.
Sgamma said their organization has joined with the Public Lands Council, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, American Exploration and Mining Corporation and other organizations in opposition to the proposed rule and suggested BLM go through another iteration of comments because there are too many questions raised from the proposal. — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
