In a hearing Thursday morning, the House Natural Resources Committee heard testimony about the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed Public Lands Rule that would allow land managers to treat conservation as one of the multiple uses of BLM land.
The four-hour long hearing was filled with bombastic predictions of doom from some members of the committee and witnesses, including South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, who unleashed a torrent of conspiracy theories while making it clear she didn’t understand the proposal itself or even which lands in her state it would apply to.
In response, BLM Deputy Director for Policy Nada Wolff Culver calmly took question after question and provided clear answers straight from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the text of the proposed rule.
Here are a few of the highlights and lowlights from the hearing.
Rhetoric: The rule allows BLM to establish de facto national monuments or wilderness areas.
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (California): “Do we pretty much have a de facto national monument or wilderness area by a designation?”
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem: “It gives them the authority to. This proposed rule absolutely allows them to look at large landscapes and shut the public out of them, from accessing it, from utilizing it, from no longer being able to hunt and fish, from engaging in outdoor recreation, from mining, from grazing.”
Reality: Conservation leases would not interfere with existing rights or recreational use of lands.
According to the BLM, conservation leases would “be consistent with, and not override, valid existing rights,” and would “require land management to protect the goals of the leases but not interfere with casual use or other consistent uses.”
These valid existing rights include grazing, mining, and drilling, while casual use includes most forms of outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing. In fact, the rule gives grazing allottees, extractive industries, and recreationists a new optional opportunity to engage in responsible stewardship by proposing conservation leases to offset their impacts and restore lands.
Rhetoric: The rule lets BLM avoid environmental reviews.
Noem: “[The rule] also allows BLM to go around the NEPA process.”
Reality: The proposed rule doesn’t touch NEPA at all. Environmental reviews would still be required for all land use planning, just as they are today.
“The proposed Public Lands Rule would not change that or create new laws; it is consistent with the current laws that apply to BLM’s management of public lands,” according to the BLM.
Rhetoric: The rule takes authority from local BLM offices.
Noem: “What’s interesting to me is watching how they allow bureaucrats in DC to make these decisions under this proposed rule, and taking that authority away from local BLM offices.”
Reality: The rule gives local land managers more tools to do their job.
According to the BLM, “The proposed rule would also help facilitate responsible development by providing specific tools to authorize appropriately tailored and durable compensatory mitigation. The conservation leasing tool proposed in the rule responds, in part, to comments from state and industry partners on the need for a reliable path to pursue compensatory mitigation on public lands to facilitate development projects.”
Also according to the BLM, “A conservation lease is a land use authorization that the BLM can issue to an external entity to help achieve restoration or mitigation outcomes on public lands. The proposed rule treats it as a tool, not a requirement. The conservation lease would be proposed by a third-party and the BLM has discretion to decide whether and how a lease would be an appropriate tool to achieve restoration or mitigation.”
Nada Wolff Culver, BLM Deputy Director of Policy and Programs: “I want to just re-emphasize that the rule sets out a framework, it doesn’t make any decisions. Any on the ground decisions will be made by local land managers. I would encourage everyone to search the word local in the rule, if you’re looking at it online. We really emphasize that that process will not change.”
Ironically, the solar industry has raised the exact opposite objection to Noem’s, worrying that the proposed rule would delegate too many decisions to local field offices.
Rhetoric: The rule would drastically affect South Dakota’s economy.
Rep. Peter Stauber (Minnesota): “As you mentioned in your testimony, entire facets of your economy are built both figuratively and literally on our precious public lands. If this rule is finalized and the BLM uses this tool to weaponize federal lands, what effect will it have on your state’s economy?”
Noem: “It’ll be dramatic.”
Reality: For better or worse, this rule will have almost no effect in South Dakota.
BLM manages less than 1% of the land in South Dakota — around 300,000 acres out of a total of 49.4 million acres.
Rhetoric: The rule will affect the management of national forests.
Res. Cmmsr. Jenniffer González-Colon (Puerto Rico): “You were saying in your testimony in your statement, that the proposal will also impact in a negative way public safety in your state. Can you elaborate on that?”
Noem: “Well, it’s going to risk people’s lives because it will not allow us to manage the Black Hills National Forest and Forest Service lands throughout that area in a way that protects our communities and homes that are there.”
Reality: The rule only applies to BLM-managed lands. National forests are managed by the Forest Service.
Black Hills National Forest isn’t managed by the BLM. The U.S. Forest Service is part of the Department of Agriculture, not the Interior department, and the proposed rule wouldn’t apply to national forests at all.
Rhetoric: The rule would prevent grazing on lands where ranchers currently hold a permit.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (Colorado): “Just this week I heard from one of my constituents who is a farmer and rancher in Mesa county that this unconstitutional rule could prevent her livestock from grazing on BLM land where they currently graze and where she has an active permit. Ranchers and farmers across the West still don’t have clear answers as to what the impact of this rule will be on their current grazing leases…. Will this rule lock up more land and prevent other multiple-use activities under the guise of conservation?”
Reality: The rule does not override any existing uses, including grazing.
Wolff Culver: “No it will not, Congresswoman.”
According to the BLM, the rule will “be consistent with, and not override, valid existing rights.”
Also according to the BLM, the rule “provides opportunities for permittees to enter into a conservation lease to improve land health,” and “conservation leases would generally be a compatible use with grazing allotments meeting land health standards.”
Wolff Culver: “In terms of day-to-day decisions on managing grazing, that will not change. That will continue to be managed at the local level. The rule itself, again, doesn’t change the Taylor Grazing Act, it doesn’t affect any existing authorizations in the context of conservation leasing.”
Reality: Congress explicitly tasked the BLM with preserving and protecting public lands in the Federal Land and Policy and Management Act.
Wolff Culver: “Absolutely it is. The definition of multiple use is very clear. It includes, for example, natural, scenic, scientific, and historical values. Those are certainly aspects of conservation, as are management of habitat. I think the quote that I’ve read a few times lately comes from former governor of Idaho, Mr. Andrus, who was the secretary of the Interior when FLPMA passed in 1976. And he talked about the importance of public lands to all Americans. And said in response to the passage of FLPMA, ‘Conservation is no longer a pious idea, it is an element of our survival.’”
According to the BLM, “FLPMA expressly states that public lands should be managed to protect environmental and water resources, fish and wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation, among other values, all of which benefit from the conservation of intact habitat and the restoration of degraded lands. FLPMA also requires the BLM to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation; the proposed rule includes additional tools to help meet this congressional mandate.”
Rhetoric: “Oil and gas companies are always reclaiming and restoring the land.”
Sgamma: “We’re always conserving, we’re restoring, we’re reclaiming. Oil and gas companies are always reclaiming the land and restoring it in agreement with the BLM.”
Reality: The oil and gas industry has abandoned thousands of oil and gas wells on federal lands without reclaiming them, leaving taxpayers with the bill.
According to the Government Accountability Office, BLM identified 89 new orphaned wells between July 2017 and April 2019, and BLM offices identified to GAO about $46 million in estimated potential reclamation costs associated with orphaned wells and with inactive wells that officials deemed to be at risk of becoming orphaned in 2018.
The Inflation Reduction Act included $1.15 billion to clean up orphaned wells, according to the Interior Department.