{"id":33155,"date":"2023-06-22T18:30:34","date_gmt":"2023-06-23T00:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/biden-wants-to-make-conservation-equal-to-ranching-and-mining-the-gop-wont-have-it\/"},"modified":"2026-03-31T02:06:20","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T08:06:20","slug":"biden-wants-to-make-conservation-equal-to-ranching-and-mining-the-gop-wont-have-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/biden-wants-to-make-conservation-equal-to-ranching-and-mining-the-gop-wont-have-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Biden wants to make conservation equal to ranching and mining. The GOP won\u2019t have it"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\"People
People walk on the public lands Sept. 14 at the Upper Colorado River District outside Gypsum. (Hugh Carey\/The Colorado Sun file)<\/span>cca<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

Members of the Republican-controlled U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources advanced a bill Wednesday seeking to block a new rule by the Bureau of Land Management that would put conservation on equal footing with energy development, livestock grazing and recreation. But the measure is unlikely to go anywhere given that Democrats control the U.S. Senate.<\/p>\n

If the rule passes, it would elevate conservation during a time when officials say it is gravely needed amid mounting evidence of the effects of global warming on natural landscapes. The BLM says it will \u201callow managers to better respond to the growing need for oversight on public lands, waters and wildlife in the face of devastating wildfires, historic droughts, and severe storms across the West.\u201d And it will \u201cdeepen the agency\u2019s collaborative work with communities to support responsible development of critical minerals, energy and other resources.\u201d<\/p>\n

The rule is of particular interest in Colorado, where the BLM manages 8.3 million acres of public lands as well as 27 million acres of mineral estate with multiple programs generating nearly $9 billion in economic output and 41,000 jobs. In Colorado, oil and gas development on the BLM\u2019s mineral estate generates $6.1 billion, compared with $1.4 billion from recreation. Coal mining on mineral estate contributes about $577 million to the state\u2019s economy, while grazing rolls in at $74 million.<\/p>\n

But nationwide between 2012 and 2022, over 81 million acres of federal land have been torched by a whopping 681,511 fires, including four of Colorado\u2019s most destructive fires. Colorado currently is experiencing higher than normal precipitation in most of the state. But with adequate rain comes ample vegetation, and already fire managers are starting to warn that once drier periods return, vegetation will dry out, creating increased potential for large fires.<\/p>\n

The BLM says its new rule will help combat fires and other climate-related degradation by pouring Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act funds into its lands, water and clean energy. It says it will use the funds to \u201cidentify and prioritize lands and waters that require habitat restoration work, such as removing invasive species or restoring streambanks.\u201d And it says the proposed rule will help BLM protect and restore lands and habitat by applying rangeland health standards and guidelines, typically used to rate and restore grazing allotments during critical growth periods, to all BLM-managed lands.<\/p>\n

\"Bureau
Bureau of Land Management lands near Gypsum. The BLM has proposed a rule that would elevate conservation on public lands in the West. (Hugh Carey\/The Colorado Sun file)<\/span>cca<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

But the rule is already drawing ire from the House Natural Resources Committee, which held a hearing June 15 to discuss a bill that would delay BLM from taking it to the next step.<\/p>\n

Some committee members, mostly from Western states, contend the rule \u201cis a seismic shift in public land management that will fundamentally upend the agency\u2019s multiple use mandate.\u201d They believe the rule threatens a \u201cWestern way of life\u201d embodied in thousands of rural economies that depend on access to BLM lands for energy, mineral development, recreation, grazing, timber production and recreation. And they say the Biden administration is using the rule \u201cto further its preservationist agenda\u201d to lock up more lands and \u201cadvance radical goals\u201d like the administration\u2019s 30\u00d730 executive order establishing a first-of-its-kind national goal of conserving 30% of U.S. lands and oceans by 2030.<\/p>\n

The four-hour hearing saw most committee members present agreeing the rule should be withdrawn. Many complained rural communities were left out of the BLM\u2019s public information sessions. Some members said the rule could devastate rural economies, \u201cwhen ranchers, industries and sportsmen are already conservation-minded,\u201d as Republican Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon said in his testimony before the committee. Lawmakers said the rule could tie the hands of states that want to make public lands conservation decisions without interference from the federal government.<\/p>\n

Of particular interest to the committee is the rule\u2019s introduction of conservation leases, which the BLM wants to use in its protection and resilience strategy. These could allow third parties to directly support restoration efforts to build and maintain the resilience of public lands regardless of where the parties live.<\/p>\n

Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who grew up ranching and farming in her home state, testified before the committee. She said the stipulation would threaten \u201cnot just those people working the land, but our economy, energy dependence and food supply to America\u201d by giving \u201cthird parties, not even necessarily people in our own country, access and authority over these lands.\u201d<\/p>\n

But U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman of California, one of the few Democrats in the room, chided the committee for pushing \u201cconspiracy theories\u201d about the rule. \u201cI hate to interrupt this hyperpartisan performance masquerading as a legislative hearing,\u201d he said, \u201cbut \u2026 I would like anyone who happens to be watching this from home to know that not every Western state is hyped up on anti-government conspiracy politics. In fact, California opposes HR 3397 and thinks the BLM\u2019s public lands rule is a good idea.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Nature Conservancy and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers support the rule, with TNC praising the bureau for using its \u201cample authority\u201d to protect habitat, and BHA thanking BLM and the Department of the Interior for emphasizing \u201cpractical, results-oriented management and a commitment to soliciting and heeding input from the public.\u201d<\/p>\n

The whistleblower group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility says it questions the BLM\u2019s ability to apply land health standards on all lands, not just grazing lands, particularly when \u201capproximately one-third of the grazing lands, nearly 41 million acres, are unassessed,\u201d it says.<\/p>\n

Chandra Rosenthal, PEER\u2019s Rocky Mountain director, said BLM\u2019s data shows grazing allotments make up 72% of the land it identifies as failing and in need of restoration, \u201cyet BLM says grazing is absolutely compatible with conservation and could be a use on a conservation lease.\u201d<\/p>\n

The group also wonders if BLM will \u201cactually manage the lands\u201d or \u201cjust maintain the status quo.\u201d<\/p>\n

And members of the ranching community have criticized the BLM\u2019s communication about the rule.<\/p>\n

\u201cRanchers have a reasonable expectation of transparency and predictability with dealing with the BLM, and this proposed rule falls short on both accounts,\u201d Kaitlynn Glover, an official with the National Cattlemen\u2019s Beef Association and Public Lands Council, said. \u201cThe covert manner in which the rule was developed and announced has left permittees feeling like the rule is either a capitulation to the extremist environmental groups who want to eradicate grazing from the landscape, or a concerted effort to develop rules that preclude ranchers\u2019 input.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Kristy
Kristy Wallner, a rangeland conservationist for the Bureau of Land Management, leads a talk about fencing technology on Sept. 14 in the public lands of the Upper Colorado River District outside Gypsum. (Hugh Carey\/The Colorado Sun file)<\/span>cca<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

But Bailey Brennan, the National Wildlife Federation\u2019s public attorney, says, \u201cBLM has demonstrated a clear interest in hearing from all members of the public, including the ranching community. The agency provided a 75-day comment period \u2013 which is long for a procedural rule such as this \u2013 and hosted five public meetings, in person and virtual.\u201d<\/p>\n

In comparison, the Trump administration in 2021 offered a 60-day comment period for its revisions to the National Environmental Policy Act, during a roll back of 100 rules related to protecting clean air and water amid the threat of human-caused climate change.<\/p>\n

\u201cMoreover, any decisions about land use changes would be made through the resource management planning process, which is subject to NEPA review and involves extensive public engagement,\u201d Brennan says.<\/p>\n

It was clear most of the Republican committee members gathered at the hearing wanted more transparency.<\/p>\n

Near the end of the hearing, Nada Wolff Culver, the BLM\u2019s deputy director of policy and programs, fielded questions from some of the members. She reiterated the BLM\u2019s position that the rule has \u201ca very specific line of reasoning\u201d and that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 directs the BLM to manage multiple uses, including grazing, mining, hunting, fishing and recreation. The new rule simply adds conservation to this list.<\/p>\n

A prominent voice against the bill is Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert. The Garfield County Republican pushed Culver to answer why BLM held its Colorado-based in-person informational meeting \u201cin Denver, away from where most rural stakeholders actually live.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe held three meetings where we felt a lot of people would attend (in Denver, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Reno, Nevada),\u201d Culver responded.<\/p>\n

\u201cWill this rule lock up more land and prevent other multiple use activities under the guise of conservation?\u201d Boebert asked.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo, it will not,\u201d Culver said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIs this an attempt to further the administration\u2019s 30\u00d730 agenda and potentially go into the 50\/50 agenda we hear so much of?\u201d asked Boebert, referencing the term used by some to explain the White House\u2019s plan to put the United States on a path to achieve net-zero emissions, economywide, by 2050.<\/p>\n

Culver maintained what the BLM has said all along, that the rule would further the agency\u2019s mission under FLPMA.<\/p>\n

Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn, who also is on the committee, opposes the rule, while Colorado Democratic senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, along with Rep. Joe Neguse, who is on the House committee, support it. Neither Lamborn nor Neguse attended the hearing in person.<\/p>\n

In a news release after the hearing, the BLM answered a prior request by the committee to extend the public comment period on the proposal, moving it from 75 days to 90. It now ends July 5.<\/p>\n

The Colorado Sun is a reader-supported, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to covering Colorado issues. To learn more, go to coloradosun.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Republican-led House committee voted to withdraw a BLM rule it links to \u2018Biden\u2019s preservationist agenda\u2019<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":33156,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[233,529,221,28,194,193,195,367],"naviga_topic":[],"class_list":["post-33155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-coloradosun-com","tag-conservation","tag-gas-and-oil","tag-headlines","tag-land-resources","tag-land-use","tag-u-s-bureau-of-land-management","tag-u-s-rep-lauren-boebert"],"acf":[],"author_name":"dh_admin","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33155","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33155"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33155\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":82079,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33155\/revisions\/82079"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33156"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33155"},{"taxonomy":"naviga_topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/naviga_topic?post=33155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}