[House Report 116-491]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 116-491
======================================================================
BUFFALO TRACT PROTECTION ACT
_______
September 8, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2640]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2640) to withdraw certain Bureau of Land
Management land from mineral development, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Buffalo Tract Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL.
(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal land
described in subsection (b) is withdrawn from all forms of--
(1) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(2) disposition under the mineral leasing, mineral materials,
and geothermal leasing laws.
(b) Description.--The Federal land referred to in subsections (a) and
(c) is the approximately 4,288 acres of land administered by the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management and generally depicted as
``Tract A'', ``Tract B'', ``Tract C'', and ``Tract D'' on the map
entitled ``Placitas, New Mexico Area Map'' and dated November 13, 2019.
(c) Surface Estate.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the reservation of the mineral
estate under paragraph (2), nothing in this Act prohibits the
Secretary of the Interior from conveying the surface estate of
the Federal land described in subsection (b) in accordance
with--
(A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); or
(B) the Act of June 14, 1926 (commonly known as the
``Recreation and Public Purposes Act'') (43 U.S.C. 869
et seq.).
(2) Mineral estate.--Any conveyance of the surface estate of
the Federal land described in subsection (b) shall require a
reservation of the mineral estate to the United States.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 2640 is to withdraw four specified
parcels of Bureau of Land Management land near Placitas, New
Mexico, from all forms of mineral development under all laws
pertaining to mineral leasing or mineral materials, including
locatable minerals.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees more than 247
million acres of land and 700 million acres of subsurface
mineral estate across the United States. BLM's mandate in the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires the agency to
manage public domain lands for multiple uses, but numerous
court cases have affirmed that not all uses are suitable, or
need to be considered, for all multiple-use lands.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See generally Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Zinke, 877 F.3d 845 (9th
Cir. 2017) and references therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM's Resource Management Plans (RMPs) serve as region-
specific blueprints for land use planning. The Rio Puerco RMP
in development will review and update BLM's management of
public lands in Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, Sandoval,
Torrance, and Valencia counties of central New Mexico. When
approved, the RMP will replace the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP and its
1992 amendments and will provide updated management decisions
for a variety of uses and resources in the area for 15 to 20
years.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Rio Puerco Resource Management Plan, BLM, https://www.blm.gov/
programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/new-mexico/rio-puerco-
rmp (last visited on Sept. 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, the Rio Puerco BLM Field Office released its Draft
RMP.\3\ In the draft plan, BLM proposed allowing additional
mineral development, including gravel mining, on the Buffalo
Tract--named for the shape of the northwestern parcel--in
southern Sandoval County.\4\ This area of Sandoval County
already has six gravel mines, four of them being among New
Mexico's largest.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Available at BLM National NEPA Register, BLM, https://
eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/64954/570 (last updated on July
16, 2020).
\4\ See 1 BLM, Rio Puerco Resource Management Draft Plan &
Environmental Impact Statement (2012), https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-
front-office/projects/lup/64954/78493/89458/RPFO-Vol1_Draft_RMP.pdf.
\5\See GIS, Maps and Mine Data, N.M. Energy, Mins. & Nat. Res.
Dep't (EMNRD), http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/MMD/gismapminedata.html
(last visited on Sept. 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the release of the draft plan, residents have
expressed deep concerns about the impacts to public health,
cultural heritage, and wildlife that could result from
additional gravel mining near their community.
The community is already disproportionately burdened by
this intense concentration of mines. The separate and
cumulative adverse impacts of gravel mining have had negative
effects on economic development as well as public health.
Another mine on the Buffalo Tract would not only exacerbate
these impacts but also irreparably damage cultural heritage and
a key wildlife corridor between the Sandia Mountain Range and
the Sangre de Cristo Mountains.
The population of the region has grown significantly since
the 1992 RMP amendments. The population in the region covered
by the Rio Puerco Field Office has doubled since 1992 from
500,000 to 1,000,000. In Placitas, New Mexico, an
unincorporated area of Sandoval County immediately adjacent to
the proposed mineral development, the population has grown from
less than 1,000 in 1980 to more than 5,000.\6\ Placitas is a
retirement community of seniors who moved to the region for its
beauty and clean air. Gravel mining generates large amounts of
particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) that
pose significant health risks. New Mexico Environment
Department (NMED) particulate monitoring in 2016-17 showed
Placitas as the only ``orange dot,'' indicating unhealthy air
quality for sensitive groups, on the state map.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Sandoval Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, Placitas Area Plan 10 (2009),
http://www.sandovalcountynm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/
papfinal.pdf.
\7\See generally Envista--Air Resources Manager, NMED, http://
nmaqinow.net/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandoval County, the Town of Bernalillo, the Merced De
Comunidad De San Antonio De Las Huertas, the Pueblo of San
Felipe, the Pueblo of Santa Ana, and Placitas residents are all
opposed to gravel mining at this location.
H.R. 2640 seeks to address the concerns of the community
immediately affected by the proposed mines by withdrawing four
parcels of land near Placitas from mineral development. This
bill maintains the authority of BLM to sell, lease, or exchange
the surface rights to the parcels, and ensures that if rights
are sold, leased, or exchanged, the mineral rights will remain
withdrawn from development.
Opponents of the bill suggest that it is not in the
country's interest to put resources off-limits in perpetuity.
However, some areas are suitable for mining, while others are
not. As residential development in Placitas has grown, gravel
mining has become increasingly incompatible with the area's
character and zoning restrictions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\See, e.g., Letter from Sandoval Bd. Of Cnty. Comm'rs, to Alan
Lowenthal, Chair, Subcomm. on Energy & Mineral Res., Paul Gosar,
Ranking Member, Subcomm. on Energy & Mineral Res. (Aug. 22, 2019),
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20190919/109957/HHRG-116-II06-
20190919-SD005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While sand and gravel are important resources to
infrastructure and construction, BLM's own mineral resource
studies indicate that there are ample gravel supplies from
existing mines in the area that could be used for decades of
regional development.\9\ There are other potential sites for
new gravel mines elsewhere in Sandoval and neighboring
counties, away from wildlife corridors and at a safe distance
from population centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\INTERA, Inc. (prepared for BLM Rio Puerco Field Off.), Mineral
Resource Potential and Reasonably Foreseeable Development for Planning
Units 1-5 (2010), https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/64954/
78492/89454/Mineral_Resource_Potential_and_
Reasonably_Foreseeable_Development_Report_01-11-10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents also cite job creation and other economic
benefits of additional gravel mines as a reason to oppose this
legislation. Sandoval County maintains it would stand to lose
more tax revenue than it would gain with new mineral
development.\10\ Minerals are not taxed at the point of origin,
but at the point of sale, and most gravel would likely be sold
outside the county. Residents and leaders have strong concerns
about public health, heritage, and wildlife--concerns that
could be costly and deter people from moving into the growing
community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Letter, supra note 8, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The local advocates for the bill claim they have been
deceived by mining companies before regarding lease extensions
and argue that legislation is the only way to bring certainty
to the affected and at-risk communities in Sandoval County. The
Committee agrees.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 2640 was introduced on May 9, 2019, by Representative
Deb Haaland (D-NM). The bill was referred solely to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. On September 19,
2019, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On January
15, 2020, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the
bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent.
Rep. Haaland offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, which was agreed to by voice vote. The bill, as
amended, was adopted and ordered favorably reported to the
House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 20 yeas and 13
nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HEARINGS
For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the
116th Congress--the following hearing was used to develop or
consider H.R. 2640: legislative hearing by the Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources held on September 19, 2019.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 4, 2020.
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2640, the Buffalo
Tract Protection Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Janani
Shankaran.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Enclosure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Bill summary: H.R. 2640 would withdraw roughly 4,300 acres
of federal land in New Mexico from entry under hardrock mining
laws, disposal under mineral materials laws, and from mineral
and geothermal leasing, subject to valid existing rights. That
is, the bill would not allow new extraction of materials from
that land, which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM).
Estimated Federal cost: The costs of the legislation fall
within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
legislation will be enacted in 2020.
Background: Businesses interested in extracting materials,
including sand, gravel, crushed rock, and other materials
typically used in construction, from land managed by BLM may
execute contracts with the agency for disposal of those
materials. Under those contracts, operators pay BLM the in-
place value, a royalty equal to the value of the material in
the ground before it is extracted, as determined by an analysis
of its fair market value. Those payments are classified in the
budget as offsetting receipts, or reductions in direct
spending. Counties where any such production is located receive
5 percent of those receipts. In 2018, BLM collected roughly $2
million in gross receipts from mineral materials produced in
New Mexico, mostly from calcium.
The agency also issues free-use permits to government
entities and nonprofit organizations for the extraction of
mineral materials; however, such permits do not generate any
income to the federal government.
Using information from BLM, CBO expects that the affected
land has high potential for sand and gravel extraction and
minimal potential, if any, for extraction of all other
minerals. According to the agency, the affected land contains
an estimated 36 million cubic yards of sand and gravel. Based
on the typical timeframe for processing expressions of interest
and contracts, we expect that production of those materials
could commence in 2024.
In recent years, operators on BLM land in New Mexico have
produced, on average, 370,000 cubic yards annually of sand and
gravel.\1\ CBO estimates that annual production on the affected
land will average between 60 percent and 80 percent of that
amount. Using information from BLM, and based on the in-place
values for sand and gravel in recent years, we estimate that
the federal government will collect about $1.50 per cubic yard
in royalties. That amount is equal to roughly 10 percent of the
market value of processed sand and gravel. Gross receipts will
total less than $3 million under current law, CBO estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See Bureau of Land Management, Public Land Statistics (issues
2014 to 2018), accessed February 12, 2020, www.blm.gov/about/data/
public-land-statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct spending: CBO has no basis to estimate whether or
how many contracts BLM would execute for the affected land. In
the absence of specific information, CBO uses a 50 percent
probability that such contracts will be executed under current
law. On that basis, and accounting for payments to counties of
5 percent, we estimate that net federal receipts from sand and
gravel production on the affected land will total $1 million
over the 2020-2030 period. Under the bill, the federal
government would forgo those receipts. Thus, CBO estimates that
enacting H.R. 2640 would increase direct spending by $1 million
over the 2020-2030 period.
Spending subject to appropriation: Based on the costs of
similar activities, CBO estimates that any administrative costs
incurred by BLM to implement the withdrawal would be
insignificant; any spending would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
Uncertainty: The amount the government will collect from
mineral materials contracts in the proposed withdrawal area is
uncertain and could be higher or lower than CBO estimates.
Specifically, CBO cannot predict with certainty whether or when
BLM will execute such contracts. CBO also cannot foresee with
certainty the volume or value of sand and gravel production on
the affected land.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1.--CBO's ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS OF H.R. 2640, THE BUFFALO TRACT PROTECTION ACT, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ON JANUARY 15, 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2020-2025 2020-2030
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase in the Deficit
Pay-As-You-Go Effect................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in long-term deficits: CBO estimates that enacting
H.R. 2640 would not increase on-budget deficits by more than $5
billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods
beginning in 2031.
Mandates: None.
Previous CBO estimate: On February 19, 2020, CBO
transmitted a cost estimate for S. 526, the Buffalo Tract
Protection Act, as reported by the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources on December 17, 2019. The two pieces of
legislation are similar, and CBO's estimates of their budgetary
effects are the same.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Janani Shankaran;
Mandates: Andrew Laughlin.
Estimate reviewed by: Kim P. Cawley, Chief, Natural and
Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goals and
objectives of this bill are to withdraw four specified parcels
of Bureau of Land Management land near Placitas, New Mexico,
from all forms of mineral development under all laws pertaining
to mineral leasing or mineral materials, including locatable
minerals.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
EXISTING PROGRAMS
This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of
the federal government known to be duplicative of another
program.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW
Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
H.R. 2640 will withdrawal four parcels of Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) lands totaling almost 4,200 acres near
Placitas, New Mexico, from mineral development, including
gravel mining.\1\ If enacted, this legislation would prevent
access to aggregates such as sand and gravel in a growing
community near Albuquerque in perpetuity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Statement of Michael Nedd, Deputy Director for Operations,
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, before the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
Public Lands, Forests, & Mining regarding S. 526, the Buffalo Tract
Protection Act. May 14, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saleable materials are critical for all building and
construction projects. In 2018, industrial materials production
including sand, gravel, and crushed stone had a total value of
$56.3 billion, a 7% increase from 2017.\2\ These materials have
low unit prices, yet their weight causes transportation costs
to run very high. For this reason, an adequate local supply of
these materials is critical for meeting the infrastructure and
economic development needs of any community. BLM makes these
materials available to the public and local governmental
agencies whenever possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\United States Geological Survey, ``Mineral Commodities Summaries
2019,'' February 28, 2019. https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/
assets/palladium/production/atoms/files/mcs2019_all.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the legislation acknowledges the valid and existing
rights of current gravel mines in the area, there could be
significant indirect and opportunity costs if the proposed
withdrawal were to be implemented. The estimated 36 million
cubic yards of sand and gravel in the withdrawal area could
result in significant loss to the local community and the
nation.\3\ Further, in the next 25-30 years, the population of
the Albuquerque metro area (including Placitas) is estimated to
almost double, creating increased demand for new infrastructure
and other construction projects.\4\ According to the Department
of the Interior, ``[f]ederal minerals will play an important
role in providing materials to meet the future population
demands for infrastructure in the area.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Statement of Michael Nedd, Deputy Director for Operations,
Bureau of Land Management, before the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources. May 14, 2019.
\4\Statement of Michael Nedd, Deputy Director for Operations,
Bureau of Land Management, before the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources. May 14, 2019.
\5\Statement of Michael Nedd, Deputy Director for Operations,
Bureau of Land Management, before the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources. May 14, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New infrastructure, buildings and public works projects
could become very costly if building materials need to be
sourced from other locations around the country to replace the
resources made off limits by this bill. Further, increased
transportation of resources into the region would yield
increased emissions, which could be avoided by local sourcing.
Additionally, BLM, other government agencies, and non-profit
organizations would no longer be able to receive free use
permits for the sand and gravel to maintain roads and trails in
the area.
Furthermore, this bill would circumvent the established
regulatory process for determining the appropriate usage of
publicly-owned lands by making these parcels off limits to
development in perpetuity. According to testimony provided by
BLM during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources on May 14, 2019, ``the BLM is in the process
of finalizing the Resource Management Plan (RMP) with the
associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for public
lands in six counties of central New Mexico, which include the
tracts affected by the legislation.'' While concerns have been
raised regarding the impact of a new gravel mine on nearby
property values, it should also be noted that the community has
seen healthy growth over the past two decades\6\ coexisting
with active mines. Any local concerns regarding the effect of a
new gravel mine on property values and continued population
growth can be expressed through the many opportunities for
public engagement in the environmental review process for the
forthcoming RMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Eastern Sandoval Citizens association & Las Placitas
Association, ``Land of Enchantment . . . or Gravel?'' September 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the markup of H.R. 2640, the bill sponsor discussed
ongoing negotiations at the local level to build consensus on a
future management plan that protects responsible development
and meets the needs of all stakeholders. The sponsor further
stated that if such an agreement is reached, the legislation
could become unnecessary. Specifically, Congresswoman Haaland
stated, ``If the company conducts a good faith outreach effort
and reaches an agreement with the community, that would be
great, and this bill might not need to become law.'' Republican
Members support ongoing discussions at the local level and
through public comment as the BLM finalizes the RMP. In the
meantime, Republicans oppose further action on H.R. 2640.
Finally, it should be noted that the title of this
legislation, the ``Buffalo Tract Protection Act,'' is
misleading, as mining in the region poses no threat to buffalo
populations. In fact, the withdrawal area is merely in the
shape of a buffalo. There are no actual buffalo impacted by
this legislation.
For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 2640.
Rob Bishop (UT).
Louie Gohmert.
Tom McClintock.
[all]