16

DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
William Perry PendleyT

he U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees, manages, and protects
the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientificand other information about those resources; and honors the nation’s trust
responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, andaffiliated island communities.

AGENCY OVERVIEW

DOI’s purview encompasses more than 500 million acres of federal lands,
including national parks and national wildlife refuges; 700 million acres of subsurface minerals; 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); 23 percentof the nation’s energy; water in 17 western states; and trust responsibilities for 566
Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. DOI’s 2024 budget request totals $18.9 billion, an
increase of $2 billion, or 12 percent, more than the 2023 enacted level. The budget
also provides an estimated $12.6 billion in permanent funding in 2024. In 2024,
DOI will generate receipts of $19.6 billion.
A “Home Department” had been considered in 1789 and urged by Presidents
over the decades until DOI’s creation in 1849. The variety of its early responsibilities—the Indian Bureau, the General Land Office, the Bureau of Pensions, and
the Patent Office, among others—earned it various nicknames, including “Great
Miscellany,” “hydra-headed monster,” and “Mother of Departments.”1 Its mission
became more focused on natural resources with the rise of the conservation movement in the early 20th century; however, it kept its historic (since the days of theFounding Fathers) role as overseer of vast working landscapes involving grazing,— 517 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

logging, mining, oil, and gas and, with the Bureau of Reclamation in 1902, as thenation’s dam builder. Today, DOI has 70,000 employees in approximately 2,400
locations with offices across the United States, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Territories
and Freely Associated States.
Historically, DOI operated in a bipartisan manner consistent with the laws
enacted by Congress pursuant to its powers under the Property Clause.2 Thus,
DOI fulfilled its statutory responsibilities in a manner that ensured the ability ofwestern states, counties, and communities to be sustained by both economic andrecreational activities on neighboring federal lands, especially given that in somerural western counties, federal lands constituted 50, 60, 70, 80—even 90 percentof the county’s landmass.3
That ended with the Administration of President Jimmy Carter, who, beholden
to environmental groups that supported his election, adopted DOI policies consistent with their demands, much to the horror of western governors, most of whomwere Democrats. President Ronald Reagan campaigned against this “War on theWest,” declared himself a “Sagebrush Rebel,” and, on taking office,4 quelled therebellion by reversing Carter Administration policies. President George H. W.
Bush distanced himself from Reagan’s western policies, committed to a “kinderand gentler America,” and proclaimed his desire to be “the environmental President,” which resulted in changes at the his Administration’s DOI—again, muchto the dismay of westerners.5 President Bill Clinton resumed Carter’s “War on
the West,” epitomized by his DOI’s deploying of wolves into the states bordering
Yellowstone National Park; the decreed death of a world-class mine in Montana;and the designation of a vast national monument in Utah over the objections of
Utah leaders—but with the support of the Hollywood elite.6
Although Texas Governor George W. Bush and former Wyoming Representative
Dick Cheney (R–WY) campaigned in 2000 against Clinton’s worst outrages, including the Utah monument, there was no significant ratcheting back of DOI policies
that were either objected to by westerners or contrary to the express provisions offederal statutes. President Barack Obama’s DOI resumed the anti-economic federal lands policies activated by Carter and amplified by Clinton; however, Obama’s
DOI’s antipathy to oil and gas activity on federal lands as mandated by Congress
could not have come at a worse time.
After the demonstrated success of fracking on Bureau of Land Management(BLM) acreage in Wyoming in 1993, the fracking revolution soon swept the nation,7yielding massive discoveries on state and private land from coast to coast, but not,thanks to Obama, on western federal lands.8 President Donald Trump, on the other
hand, immediately ordered his DOI to comply with federal law, conduct congressionally mandated lease sales, and seek to achieve energy dominance or independence.
Thanks in part to the success of oil and gas operations on federal land in the West,the United States achieved energy security for the first time since 1957 in 2019.9— 518 —

Department of the Interior

President Joe Biden’s DOI, as is well documented, abandoned all pretense ofcomplying with federal law regarding federally owned oil and gas resources. Not
since the Administration of President Harry S. Truman—prior to creation of the
OCS oil and gas program—have fewer federal leases been issued.10
At DOI, not since the Reagan Administration was the radical environmental agenda (first implemented by Carter, resumed by Clinton, and revitalized
by Obama) rolled back as substantially as it was by President Trump. Trump’s
DOI change affected not only oil and gas leasing, as noted above, but all statutory
responsibilities of its various agencies, bureaus, and offices. Thus, whether the
statutory mandate was to promote economic activity, to ensure and expand recreational opportunities, or to protect valuable natural resources, including, forexample, parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, and wild and scenic areas,
efforts were expended, barriers were removed, and career employees were aided
in the accomplishment of those missions.
Unfortunately, Biden’s DOI is at war with the department’s mission, not only
when it comes to DOI’s obligation to develop the vast oil and gas and coal resources
for which it is responsible, but also as to its statutory mandate, for example, tomanage much of federal land overseen by the BLM pursuant to “multiple use” and“sustained yield” principles.11 Instead, Biden’s DOI believes most BLM land shouldbe placed off-limits to all economic and most recreational uses. Worse yet, Biden’s
DOI not only refuses to adhere to the statutes enacted by Congress as to how thelands under its jurisdiction are managed, but it also insists on implementing a vast
regulatory regime (for which Congress has not granted authority) and overturning,by unilateral regulatory action, congressional acts that set forth the productive
economic uses permitted on DOI-managed federal land.
BUDGET STRUCTURE

At $18.9 billion, DOI’s 2024 proposed budget is small relative to many otherfederal agencies. On the other side of the ledger, the DOI forecasts it will generate
more than $19.6 billion in “offsetting receipts” from oil and gas royalties, timberand grazing fees, park user fees, and land sales, among other sources. Most of the
proposed allocations are divided among nine bureaus.
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Fulfills Indian trust responsibilities on behalf of
566 Indian tribes; supports natural resource education, law enforcement, andsocial service programs delivered by tribes; operates 182 elementary and secondary
schools and dormitories and 29 tribally controlled community colleges, universities, and post-secondary schools.
Bureau of Land Management. Manages and conserves resources for 245
million acres of public land and 700 million acres of subsurface federal mineralestate, including energy and mineral development, forest management, timberand biomass production, and wild horse and burro management.

— 519 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Manages access to renewable andconventional energy resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, including more than
6,400 fluid mineral leases on approximately 35 million OCS acres; issues leases
for 24 percent of domestic crude oil and 8 percent of domestic natural gas supply;
oversees lease and grant issuance for offshore renewable energy projects.
Bureau of Reclamation. Manages, develops, and protects water and relatedresources, including 476 dams and 337 reservoirs; delivers water to one in every
five western farmers and more than 31 million people; is America’s second-largest
producer of hydroelectric power.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Regulates offshore oiland gas facilities on 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf; oversees oil
spill response; supports research on technology for oil spill response.
National Park Service. Maintains and manages 401 natural, cultural, andrecreational sites, 26,000 historic structures, and more than 44 million acres of
wilderness; provides outdoor recreation; provides technical assistance and support
to state and local programs.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Regulates coalmining and site reclamation; provides grants to states and tribes for mining oversight; mitigates the effects of past mining.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Manages the 150-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System; manages 70 fish hatcheries and other related facilities forendangered species recovery; protects migratory birds and some marine mammals.
U.S. Geological Survey. Conducts scientific research in ecosystems, climate,
and land-use change, mineral assessments, environmental health, and water
resources; produces information about natural hazards (earthquakes, volcanoes,
and landslides); leads climate change research for the department.
RESTORING AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE

Given the dire adverse national impact of Biden’s war on fossil fuels, no otherinitiative is as important for the DOI under a conservative President than therestoration of the department’s historic role managing the nation’s vast storehouse of hydrocarbons, much of which is yet to be discovered. The U.S. depends
on reliable and cheap energy resources to ensure the economic well-being of its
citizens, the vitality of its economy, and its geopolitical standing in an uncertainand dangerous world. Not only are valuable natural resources owned generally
by the American people involved, so too are those owned separately by American
Indian tribes and individual American Indians, both of which have been injured
by Biden’s illegal actions.
The federal government owns 61 percent of the onshore and offshore mineral estate of the U.S., but only 22 percent of the nation’s oil and 12 percent of U.S.
natural gas comes from those federal lands and waters—and even that amount is— 520 —

Department of the Interior

declining. Additionally, 42 percent of coal production takes place on federal lands
in 11 states.12 DOI manages a subsurface mineral estate of 700 million acres onshore
and 1.76 billion acres offshore, for a total of 2.46 billion acres.
The total land area of the U.S. is 2.263 billion acres. Private and state lands,
at 1.563 billion acres, make up only 39 percent of the total onshore and offshore
subsurface area of the United States. Oil, natural gas, coal, and other minerals on
federal lands and waters are managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Bureauof Ocean Energy Management, and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement; these agencies’ responsibilities frequently overlap with resource
management by the U.S. Forest Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state
governments, and private property owners.
Biden is “aligning the management of…public lands and waters…to support
robust climate action,” as envisioned in Executive Orders 14008 and 13990.13 One of
his first actions was to ban federal coal, oil, and natural gas leasing on federal lands
and waters to fulfill his campaign promise of “no federal oil,” followed by actions
from Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to rescind the Trump Administration’s
Energy Dominance Agenda. To this end, DOI unilaterally overhauled resource
management plans, lease sales, fees, rents, royalty rates, bonding requirements,
and permitting processes to prevent new production of coal, oil, and natural gas
on federal lands and waters; to dramatically increase production of solar and windenergy; and to accomplish its “30 by 30,” “America the Beautiful” agenda to remove
federal lands from “multiple”—that is, productive—use.
DOI is abusing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)14 processes, theAntiquities Act,15 and bureaucratic procedures to advance a radical climate agenda,
ostensibly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for which DOI has no statutory
responsibility or authority.16 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act(FLPMA), Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OSCLA), General Mining Law,17and other congressional acts clearly set forth multiple-use principles and processes
that include production of coal, oil, natural gas, and other minerals, as legitimate
activities consistent with the welfare of all Americans and of environmental
stewardship.
Biden’s DOI is hoarding supplies of energy and keeping them from Americans
whose lives could be improved with cheaper and more abundant energy while
making the economy stronger and providing job opportunities for Americans.
DOI is a bad manager of the public trust and has operated lawlessly in defiance ofcongressional statute and federal court orders.
ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES

Rollbacks. A new Administration must immediately roll back Biden’s orders,reinstate the Trump-era Energy Dominance Agenda, rescind Secretarial Order(SO) 3398, and review all regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and— 521 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

similar agency actions made in compliance with that order. 18 Meanwhile, the
new Administration must immediately reinstate the following Trump DOI secretarial orders:lSO 3348: Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium;19l

SO 3349: American Energy Independence;20l

SO 3350: America-First Offshore Energy Strategy;21l

SO 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy Portfolio;22l

SO 3352: National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska;23

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

SO 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas
Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program;24
SO 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and
Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline andAccountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for
Infrastructure Projects”;25
SO 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting;26
SO 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349,“American Energy Independence;”27
SO 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Departmentof the Interior Publications and Similar Documents;28
SO 3385: Enforcement Priorities;29 andSO 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 Reviews.30
Actions. At the same time, the new Administration must:l

Reinstate quarterly onshore lease sales in all producing states according to
the model of BLM’s IM 2018–034, with the slight adjustment of including
expanded public notice and comment.31 The new Administration should
work with Congress on legislation, such as the Lease Now Act32 and— 522 —

Department of the Interior

ONSHORE Act,33 to increase state participation and federal accountability
for energy production on the federal estate.
l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Conduct offshore oil and natural gas lease sales to the maximum extent
permitted under the 2023–2028 lease program,34 with the possibility tomove forward under a previously studied but unselected plan alternative.35
Develop immediately and finalize a new five-year plan, while working with
Congress to reform the OCSLA by eliminating five-year plans in favor ofrolling or quarterly lease sales.
Review all resource management plans finalized in the previous four years
and, when necessary, select studied alternatives to restore the multi-use
concept enshrined in FLPMA and to eliminate management decisions that
advance the 30 by 30 agenda.
Set rents, royalty rates, and bonding requirements to no higher than what isrequired under the Inflation Reduction Act.36
Comply with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act(ANILCA) and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to establish a competitive
leasing and development program in the Coastal Plain, an area of Alaska
that was set aside by Congress specifically for future oil and gas explorationand development. It is often referred to as the “Section 1002 Area” after
the section of ANILCA that excludes the area from Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge’s wilderness designation.37
Conclude the programmatic review of the coal leasing program, and workwith the congressional delegations and governors of Wyoming and Montana
to restart the program immediately.38
Abandon withdrawals of lands from leasing in the Thompson Divide of theWhite River National Forest, Colorado; the 10-mile buffer around Chaco
Cultural Historic National Park in New Mexico (restoring the compromise
forged in the Arizona Wilderness Act39); and the Boundary Waters area
in northern Minnesota if those withdrawals have not been completed.40
Meanwhile, revisit associated leases and permits for energy and mineralproduction in these areas in consultation with state elected officials.
Require regional offices to complete right-of-way and drilling permits
within the average time it takes states in the region to complete them.

— 523 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

Rulemaking. The following policy reversals require rulemaking:l

Rescind the Biden rules and reinstate the Trump rules regarding:1.

BLM waste prevention;

2. The Endangered Species Act rules defining Critical Habitat and Critical
Habitat Exclusions;41
3. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act;42 and4. CEQ reforms to NEPA.43
l

Reinstate President Trump’s plan for opening most of the National
Petroleum Reserve of Alaska to leasing and development.

Personnel Changes. The new Administration should be able to draw on theenormous expertise of state agency personnel throughout the country who arecapable and knowledgeable about land management and prove it daily. States are
better resource managers than the federal government because they must live withthe results. President Trump’s Schedule F proposal44 regarding accountability inhiring must be reinstituted to bring success to these reforms. Consistent with thetheme of bringing successful state resource management examples to the forefrontof federal policy, DOI should also look for opportunities to broaden state–federal
and tribal–federal cooperative agreements.
IMMEDIATE ACTIONSBLM Headquarters. BLM headquarters belongs in the American West. Afterall, the overwhelming majority of the 245 million surface acres (10 percent of thenation’s landmass) managed by the agency lies in the 11 western states and Alaska:
A mere 50,000 surface acres lie elsewhere. Moreover, 97 percent of BLM employees
are located in the American West.
Thus, the Trump Administration’s decision to relocate BLM headquarters from
Washington, D.C., to the West was the epitome of good governance: That is, it was
not only well-informed, but it was also implemented efficiently, effectively, andwith an eye toward affected career civil servants. Plus, despite overblown chatterfrom the inside-the-Beltway media, Congress, with bipartisan support, approved
funding the move.
Meanwhile, state, tribal, and local officials, the diverse collection of stakeholders who use public lands and western neighbors became accustomed to having
top BLM decision-makers in Grand Junction, Colorado, rather than up to four

— 524 —

Department of the Interior

time zones away. All of them also appreciated that the BLM’s top subject matter
experts were located not in the District of Columbia, but in the western statesthat most need their knowledge and expertise. Westerners no longer had to travelcross country to address BLM issues. Neither did officials in the West, closest to
the resources and people they manage.
On July 16, 2019, Secretary of the Interior David L. Bernhardt delivered to Congress the proposal for the relocation of nearly 600 BLM headquarters employees.
On August 10, 2020, Secretary Bernhardt formally established the Robert F. Burford
headquarters—named after the longest-serving BLM director, a Grand Junction
native—with a staff of 41 senior officials and assistants. Another 76 positions wereassigned to BLM state offices in western communities such as Billings, Montana;
Boise, Idaho; Reno, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Cheyenne, Wyoming, to meetcritical needs. Scores of other positions were assigned to the states that required
BLM expertise. For example, wild horse and burro professionals were relocatedto Nevada, home to nearly 60 percent of these western icons. Sixty-one positions
were retained in Washington, D.C., to address public, congressional, and regulatory
affairs, Freedom of Information Act compliance, and budget development.
Despite the dislocating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the BLM successfully filled hundreds of long-vacant positions, as well as those that opened becauseof the move West. The BLM saw notable numbers of applicants for these positions—so numerous that the BLM capped the number of eligible applicants to no morethan 50. Obviously, reduced commuting times (often from hours to mere minutes),
lower cost of living, and opportunity to access vast public lands for recreation madethese jobs attractive to potential employees. Many, if not most, applicants statedthey would not have applied had the positions been based in Washington, D.C. At
the same time, western positions attracted those with the skills needed to meetthe BLM’s multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate, disproving the claim that theBLM was suffering a “brain drain.”
The Trump Administration recognized that, despite its attractions, not everyone employed by BLM in Washington, D.C., could move West. The Administration
applied a hands-on approach, with all-employee briefing and question-and-answer
sessions, regular email communications, and a website devoted to frequently asked
questions. Two human resources teams aided employees wishing to remain infederal jobs in the D.C. area: All received new opportunities.
The BLM’s move West incurred no legal challenges, no formal Equal Employment Opportunity or U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board complaints, and noadverse union activity. It is hard to please everyone, but the Trump Administration’s BLM did just that, putting the lie to assertions, by some, that the BLM wastrying to “fire” federal employees.
The total cost of $17.9 million for relocation incentives, permanent change-ofstation moves, temporary labor, travel, printing, rent, supplies, equipment, and— 525 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

other contracts will save money for the American people. For example, in fiscal
2020, the BLM estimated $1.6 million in travel costs savings, which will growslightly over time, and $1.9 million in savings from its terminated lease in Washington, D.C. Furthermore, BLM estimated that, by October 2022, the BLM moveWest would generate a net savings of $3.5 million, which, the following fiscal year,
would increase to $10.3 million.
Those funds can be devoted to reducing the risk of wildfires, increasing recreational opportunities, conserving public lands, and addressing tough issues suchas wild horses and burros. Moreover, those funds will be used more wisely thanks
to the efficiency of senior, seasoned managers working closely with BLM field
employees in near daily contact with western officials, stakeholders, and neighbors.
In late 2022, Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland announced the return of
headquarters and scores of highly paid, senior employees to Washington, D.C. Subsequently, BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning revealed 56 BLM jobs in BLM’s“Western Headquarters” and 70 other BLM jobs will remain in Grand Junction,
an increase of 15 from the 41 announced by Trump’s BLM in 2019, and an increaseof 40 other jobs above the 16 first announced by Biden officials. Thus, the director,
the two deputy directors, six of seven assistant directors (ADs) and their staffs are
now or soon will be in Washington.
The Biden Administration failed to recognize the wisdom of having BLM’s leadership, including its director, deputy directors, and ADs in the West. That is why,
decades ago, the AD and staff in charge of BLM’s firefighters were relocated to Boise,
Idaho, where they remain. Not so the head of BLM law enforcement and security,
who supervises over 200 uniformed law enforcement rangers and 76 special agents
stationed mainly in 11 western states and Alaska. Haaland moved that official to
Washington, far from state troopers, county sheriffs and deputies, and city policewith whom BLM law enforcement officers keep the peace in the West’s wide-open
spaces. BLM’s “top cop” might as well be on the moon.
The AD in charge of oil, gas, and minerals was also moved to Washington, D.C.,
notwithstanding that most oil, gas, and minerals are in the West and Alaska; New
Mexico’s Permian Basin, for example, is second only to Alaska in petroleum potential, and Montana and Wyoming’s Powder River Basin contains the world’s best
low-sulfur coal. The AD responsible for wild horses and burros was moved east as
well, despite the fact that the uncontrolled growth of wild horses and burros poses
an existential threat to public lands; 60 percent of the nation’s wild horses are in
Nevada,45 but thousands are in nine other western states. There is no way theseand other ADs can professionally manage issues thousands of miles and multiple
time zones away.
It is not just effective and responsive management that has been lost; Colorado
lost its chance to become a must-visit destination for BLM’s stakeholders. Thoseseeking to develop world-class mineral deposits in Minnesota or another Prudhoe— 526 —

Department of the Interior

Bay in Alaska; to expand recreation across BLM’s vast, diverse, and unique landscapes; or to manage timber and rangelands to prevent wildfires, would all journey
to Grand Junction. Convention opportunities on Colorado’s western slope would
abound for BLM’s disparate constituencies to congregate and meet with BLM
leadership. The Western States Sheriffs’ Association, for example, whose annual
gathering attracts hundreds of law enforcement officers from 17 western and plainsstates might have moved its event to Grand Junction.
Law Enforcement Officers. In 2002, at the direction of the Secretary of theInterior in the days following the 9/11 attack, the Inspector General (IG) for DOI
made a series of department-wide recommendations regarding law enforcement.
Then-Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton ordered adoption of those recommendations, which drew strong bipartisan support from Congress. Over the years,
most were implemented. One, however, remained undone: placing all BLM law
enforcement officers (LEOs), that is, its 212 Law Enforcement Rangers and 76
Special Agents, in an exclusively law enforcement chain of command.
This was not just the IG’s recommendation in 2002, but that of every IG who followed. It is also the strong recommendation of the department’s top LEO. Moreover,it has been the urgent recommendation of law enforcement professionals acrossthe country, especially in the West, for decades, including the Western States Sheriffs Association. Unfortunately, over time, BLM leadership stonewalled, adhering
to a haphazard system in which LEOs reported to non-LEO superiors, including
not only state directors, but also district and field managers with expertise in otherfields—range management or petroleum engineering, for example—with only 24hours of law enforcement study. Obviously, those managers lack a comprehensive
understanding of law enforcement issues—constitutional, legal, and tactical. In
addition, they do not uniformly apply or enforce rules of conduct or ethical standards for LEOs and special agents, leading to weakened esprit de corps and morale.
Worse yet, because of their duties as managers of the multiple-use lands under
their jurisdiction, they are exposed to conflicts of interests and may intentionallyor unintentionally prevent LEOs from investigating violations or applying the law.
In the final days of the Trump Administration, Secretary David L. Bernhardt
ordered, and Deputy Director William Perry Pendley implemented, the IG’s recommendation. Of course, leadership heads exploded; they were furious with their lossof authority, not to mention subordinates and budgets. Unfortunately, in the firstdays of the Biden Administration, BLM Deputy Director Mike Nedd suspended
Pendley’s order.
Nonetheless, LEOs, the BLM, and westerners want LEOs—who make life-anddeath decisions—to be as well-trained and well-equipped as possible. They shouldreport to a professional, expert, and knowledgeable chain of command. After all,they protect visitors to BLM lands and the natural and cultural resources of thoselands, as well as the employees who manage those lands.

— 527 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

BLM’s LEOs must keep in touch, work closely, and coordinate with fellow federal, state, and local law enforcement officers. In the Trump Administration, theyjoined state and local law enforcement in arresting dangerous suspects in Cortez,
Colorado; responded to a request from a rural sheriff in Arizona to rescue a family
stuck in freezing temperatures; and, teamed up in an all-hands-on-deck effort tolocate a missing American Indian teenager in rural Montana. More important,western LEOs need the assurance that the BLM LEOs with whom they work areprofessionals who report through a professional chain of command.
Wild Horses and Burros. In 1971, Congress ordered the BLM to manage wild
horses and burros to ensure their iconic presence never disappeared from thewestern landscape. For decades, Congress watched as these herds overwhelmed
the land’s ability to sustain them, crowded out indigenous plant and other animal
species, threatened the survival of species listed under the Endangered Species
Act, invaded private and permitted public land, disturbed private property rights,
and turned the sod into concrete. BLM experts said in 2019 that some affected land
will never recover from this unmitigated damage.
There are 95,000 wild horses and burros roaming nearly 32 million acres in the
West—triple what scientists and land management experts say the range can support. These animals face starvation and death from lack of forage and water. The
population has more than doubled in just the past 10 years and continues to growat a rate of 10 to 15 percent annually. This number includes the more than 47,000
animals the BLM has already gathered from public lands, at a cost to the American
taxpayer of nearly $50 million annually to care for them in off-range corrals.
This is not a new issue—it is not just a western issue—it is an American issue.
What is happening to these once-proud beasts of burden is neither compassionate
nor humane, and what these animals are doing to federal lands and fragile ecosystems is unacceptable. In 2019, the American Association of Equine Practitioners
and the American Veterinary Medication Association—two of the largest organizations of professional veterinarians in the world—issued a joint policy calling for
further reducing overpopulation to protect the health and well-being of wild horses
and burros on public lands. The National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board,a panel of nine experts and professionals convened to advise the BLM, endorsed
the joint policy. Furthermore, animal welfare organizations such as the American
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Humane Society of theUnited States recognize that the prosperity of wild horses and burros on public
lands is threatened if herds continue to grow unabated.
The BLM’s multi-pronged approach in its 2020 Report to Congress46 included
expanded adoptions and sales of horses gathered from overpopulated herds;
increased gathers and increased capacity for off-range holding facilities and pastures; more effective use of fertility control efforts; and improved research, inconcert with the academic and veterinary communities, to identify more effective— 528 —

Department of the Interior

contraceptive techniques and strategies. All of that will not be enough to solve
the problem, however. Congress must enact laws permitting the BLM to disposehumanely of these animals.
IMMEDIATE ACTIONS REGARDING ALASKA

Alaska is a special case and deserves immediate action.47 When Alaska wasadmitted to the Union in 1959, nearly its entire landmass was federally owned;
therefore, Alaska was granted the right to select 104 million acres (out of 375
million acres) to manage for the benefit of its residents.48 In less than eight years,
Alaska selected 26 million acres. Then-Interior Secretary Stewart Udall—who
served during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations—put a freeze on further
land selections to protect any claims that might be asserted by Native Alaskans.49
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in1968 made resolution of the issue by Congress a matter of urgency. As a result, in
1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), whichallowed the Native community to select 44 million acres.50
Environmentalists, upset that too much of the land they coveted would be selectedby the state and Native Alaskans for development, demanded the inclusion in the actof a provision—Section 17(d)(2)—that ordered the Interior Secretary to withdraw 80
million acres for future designation by Congress as parks, refuges, wild and scenic
rivers, and national forests.51 The deadline for this congressional action was 1978,
and as it neared, the Carter Administration, impatient and worried, decided to force
Congress’s hand. The Administration unilaterally withdrew 100 million acres fromany use by the state or Native Alaskans.52 Alaska promptly sued, charging that theAdministration had failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.53
In a lame duck session at the end of 1980, Congress passed (over the objections of the Alaskan delegation) the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act, which revoked all of the withdrawals of the Carter Administration and substituted congressional designations that put 100 million acres permanently infederal enclaves, doubled the acreage of national parks and refuges, and tripled theamount of land declared to be wilderness.54 Through all of this, Alaska pressed forthe DOI to convey the lands to which Alaska was entitled by federal law, but the
department grudgingly transferred only portions of that land.
By the time Ronald Reagan took office, Alaska had received less than half thelands to which it was entitled after its admission into the Union, and Native Alaskans had received only one-third of the land due to them.55 From January of 1981
through 1983, however, under Reagan, Alaska received 30 million acres and a commitment of land transfers at the rate of 13 million acres annually. In the same
period, Native Alaskans received 11 million acres, which constituted nearly 60
percent of their entitlement, and an additional 15 million acres were transferredby the end of 1988.56— 529 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

Despite the passage of nearly 40 years since the end of the Reagan Administration, the federal government has yet to fulfill its statutory obligation to Alaska
and Alaska Natives—specifically, each group has 5 million acres of entitlement
remaining. Standing in the way are Public Land Orders (PLOs) issued by the BLM
seizing that land for the agency. Those PLOs must be lifted to permit Alaska andAlaska Natives to select what was promised by Congress.
For example, revocation of PLO 515057 will provide the state of Alaska 1.3 million
acres of its remaining state entitlement. This revocation should be a top priority.
BLM recommended this revocation in the 2006 report to Congress based on the
Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, and the Interior Secretary has authority
to revoke based on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act under section d(1).58
All other remaining BLM PLOs—all of which are more than 50 years old—should
be revoked immediately.
Alaska has untapped potential for increased oil production, which is important
not just to the revitalization of the nation’s energy sector but is vital to the Alaskan
economy. One-quarter of Alaska’s jobs are in the oil industry, and half of its overall
economy depends on that industry. Without oil production, the Alaskan economy
would be half its size.
A new Administration must take the following actions immediately:lllApprove the 2020 National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Integrated Activity
Plan (NPRA-IAP) by resigning the Record of Decision. (Secretary Haaland’sorder reverted to the 2013 IAP, the science for which is out of date, unlike
the 2020 IAP.)
Reinstate the 2020 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) by secretarial order and lift the suspension of the leases.
Approve the 2020 Willow EIS, the largest pending oil and gas projection in
the United States in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and expand
approval from three to five drilling pads.59

Minerals. Alaska is not just blessed with an abundance of oil, it has vast
untapped mineral potential. Therefore, the new Administration must immediately approve the Ambler Road Project60 across BLM-managed lands, pursuant
to the Secretary’s authority under the ANILCA and based on the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the project.61 This will permit construction ofa new 211-mile roadway on the south side of the Brooks Range, west from the
Dalton Highway to the south bank of the Ambler River, and open the area only
to mining-related industrial uses, providing high-paying jobs in an area known
for unemployment.

— 530 —

Department of the Interior

Wildlife and Waters. Throughout Alaska’s history, the federal government
has treated Alaska as less than a sovereign state. This is especially the case whenit comes to two of Alaska’s most valued resources, its wildlife and its waters.
Immediate action is required to end, at least in part, this injustice. A new Administration should:
l

l

l

l

Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules
regarding predator control and bear baiting, which are matters for state
regulation. Such revocation is permitted under the 2017 Congressional
Review Act.62
Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands
in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, wheneach DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish
and wildlife management matters.63
Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be ownedby the state so that the lands beneath these waters belong to Alaska. This
will force the BLM to prove that water is not navigable, since in the case of
non-navigability, any submerged lands belong to the BLM. Currently, BLM
requires Alaska to prove navigability at its own expense—including the
BLM’s preposterous assertion that the mighty Yukon River is non-navigable.
Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule64 for the Tongass
National Forest in Alaska, which was replaced by a Biden Roadless Rulethat continues a 2001 Clinton rule affecting 9.37 million of the forest’s 16.7
million acres.65 The Clinton rule affects an area where communities are insmall islands with no road access. It has prevented multiple infrastructure
projects, including roads, electric transmission lines, and water and sewer
projects, and it forces residents to use a heavily subsidized ferry system.
Logging has been shut down to the extent that New York harvests moretimber than does all of Alaska.

OTHER ACTIONS

The 30 by 30 Plan.66 President Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (30 by 30
plan)67 requires that the federal government, which already owns one-third of
the country: (1) remove vast amounts of private property from productive use;and (2) end congressionally mandated uses of all federal land. The end result
will be “total federal control of an additional 440 million acres of land or oceansin the U.S. by 2030.”68— 531 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

Although the new President should vacate that order, DOI under a conservative
President must take immediate action on the 30 by 30 plan by vacating a secretarial order issued by the Biden DOI69 that eliminated the Trump Administration’s
requirement for the approval of state and local governments before federal acquisition of private property with monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.70
National Monument Designations. As has every Democratic President before
him beginning with Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden has abused his authority under the
Antiquities Act of 1906. Like the outrageous, unilateral withdrawals from public useof multiple use federal land under the Carter, Clinton, and Obama Administrations,
Biden’s first national monument was one in Colorado—adopted over the objectionsof scores of local groups and at least one American Indian tribe.71 In the days before
the 2024 election, Biden will likely designate more western monuments.
Although President Trump courageously ordered a review of national monument designations, the result of that review was insufficient in that only two
national monuments in one state (Utah) were adjusted.72 Monuments in Maineand Oregon, for example, should have been adjusted downward given the findingof Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review that they were improperly designated. The new
Administration’s review will permit a fresh look at past monument decrees andnew ones by President Biden.
Furthermore, the new Administration must vigorously defend the downward
adjustments it makes to permit a ruling on a President’s authority to reduce thesize of national monuments by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Finally, the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906,
which permitted emergency action by a President long before the statutory authority existed for the protection of special federal lands, such as those with wild andscenic rivers, endangered specials, or other unique places. Moreover, in recent
years, Congress has designated as national monuments those areas deserving ofsuch congressional action.
Oregon and California Lands Act. One national monument worthy of downward adjustment is in Oregon, where its designation and subsequent expansion
interfere with the federal obligation to residents to harvest timber on its BLM
lands. A federal district court ruled in 2019 that land subject to the Oregon andCalifornia (O&C) Grant Lands Act of 193773 was set aside by Congress to be harvested for the benefit of the people of Oregon. Specifically, those federal lands areto be “managed…for permanent forest production” and its timber “sold, cut, andremoved in conformity with the princip[le] of sustained yield.”74
As the district court concluded,75 beginning in 1990, the federal government
erected a trifecta of illegal barriers to the accomplishment of the congressional
mandate, beginning with a response to the listing of the northern spotted owl,76
continuing a decade later with the designation of the Cascade–Siskiyou National
Monument,77 and concluding in 2017 with an expansion of that monument.78 In— 532 —

Department of the Interiororder to fulfill the yet-unaltered congressional mandate contained in federal law,
to provide for jobs and well-paying employment opportunities in rural Oregon,
and to ameliorate the effects of wildfires, the new Administration must immediately fulfill its responsibilities and manage the O&C lands for “permanent forest
production” to ensure that the timber is “sold, cut, and removed.”79
NEPA Reforms. Congress never intended for the National Environmental
Policy Act to grow into the tree-killing, project-dooming, decade-spanning monstrosity that it has become. Instead, in 1970, Congress intended a short, succinct,
timely presentation of information regarding major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment so that decisionmakers canmake informed decisions to benefit the American people.
The Trump Administration adopted common-sense NEPA reform that must
be restored immediately. Meanwhile, DOI should reinstate the secretarial orders
adopted by the Trump Administration, such as placing time and page limits on
NEPA documents and setting forth—on page one—the costs of the document itself.
Meanwhile, the new Administration should call upon Congress to reform NEPA
to meet its original goal. Consideration should be given, for example, to eliminating judicial review of the adequacy of NEPA documents or the rectitude of NEPA
decisions. This would allow Congress to engage in effective oversight of federal
agencies when prudent.
Settlement Transparency. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt required DOI
to prominently display and provide open access to any and all litigation settlements
into which DOI or its agencies entered, and any attorneys’ fees paid for ending
the litigation.80 Biden’s DOI, aware that the settlements into which it planned toenter and the attorneys’ fees it was likely to pay would cause controversy, ended
this policy.81 A new Administration should reinstate it.
The Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act was intended
to bring endangered and threatened species back from the brink of extinction
and, when appropriate, to restore real habitat critical to the survival of the species. The act’s success rate, however, is dismal. Its greatest deficiency, according
to one renowned expert, is “conflict of interest.”82 Specifically, the work of the
Fish and Wildlife Service is the product of “species cartels” afflicted with groupthink, confirmation bias, and a common desire to preserve the prestige, power,
and appropriations of the agency that pays or employs them. For example, in one
highly influential sage-grouse monograph, 41 percent of the authors were federal
workers. The editor, a federal bureaucrat, had authored one-third of the paper.83
Meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act requires that Congress
take action to restore its original purpose and end its use to seize private property, prevent economic development, and interfere with the rights of states overtheir wildlife populations. In the meantime, a new Administration should take thefollowing immediate action:— 533 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Delist the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern
Continental Divide Ecosystems and defend to the Supreme Court of theUnited States the agency’s fact-based decision to do so.84
Delist the gray wolf in the lower 48 states in light of its full recovery
under the ESA.85
Cede to western states jurisdiction over the greater sage-grouse,recognizing the on-the-ground expertise of states and preventing useof the sage-grouse to interfere with public access to public land andeconomic activity.
Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to end its abuse of Section 10( j) of the
ESA by re-introducing so-called “experiment species” populations into
areas that no longer qualify as habitat and lie outside the historic rangesof those species, which brings with it the full weight of the ESA in areas
previously without federal government oversight.86
Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to design and implement an impartial
conservation triage program by prioritizing the allocation of limited
resources to maximize conservation returns, relative to the conservation
goals, under a constrained budget.87
Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to make all data used in ESA decisions
available to the public, with limited or no exceptions, to fulfill the public’s
right to know and to prevent the agency’s previous opaque decision-making.
Abolish the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey
and obtain necessary scientific research about species of concern fromuniversities via competitive requests for proposals.
Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to: (1) design and implement an
Endangered Species Act program that ensures independent decisionmaking by ending reliance on so-called species specialists who haveobvious self-interest, ideological bias, and land-use agendas; and (2) ensure
conformity with the Information Quality Act.88

Office of Surface Mining. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM) was created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 (SMCRA)89 to administer programs for controlling the impacts of surface
coal mining operations. Although the coal industry is contracting, coal constitutes— 534 —

Department of the Interior

20 percent of the nation’s electricity and is a mainstay of many regional economies.
The following actions should ensure OSM’s ability to perform its mission while complying with SMCRA and without interfering with the production of high-quality
American coal:
l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Relocate the OSM Reclamation and Enforcement headquarters to
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to recognize that the agency is field-driven andshould be headquartered in the coal field.90
Reduce the number of field coal-reclamation inspectors to recognize theindustry is smaller.
Reissue Trump’s Schedule F executive order to permit discharge of
nonperforming employees.91
Permit coal company employees to benefit from the OSM Training
Program, which is currently restricted to state and federal employees.
Revise the Applicant Violator System, the nationwide database for thefederal and state programs, to permit federal and state regulators toconsider extenuating circumstances.
Maintain the current “Ten-Day Notice” rule, which requires OSM to workwith state regulators in determining if a SMCRA violation has taken place inrecognition of the fact that a coal mining state with primacy has the lead in
implementing state and federal law.
Preserve Directive INE-26, which relates to approximate original contour,
a critical factor in permitting efficient and environmentally sound surface
mining, especially in Appalachia.92

Western Water Issues. The American West, from the Great Plains to the Cascades Range, is arid, as recognized by John Wesley Powell during his famous trip
across a large part of its length. Pursuant to an Executive Order signed by President
Trump, and consistent with its authority along with other federal agencies, DOI’s
Bureau of Reclamation must take the following actions:lDevelop additional storage capacity across the arid west, including by:1.

Updating dam water control manuals for existing facilities during
routine operations; and— 535 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

2. Engaging in real-time monitoring of operations.
llReduce bureaucratic inefficiencies by consolidating federal water
working groups.
Implement actions identified in the Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,93 especially by adopting improvements related to:1.

Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations; and2. Arial Snow Observation Systems.
llClarify the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act94 to ensure
consistent application with other federal infrastructure loan programs
under the Federal Credit Reform Act. This should be done to foster
opportunities for locally led investment in water infrastructure.
Reinstate Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply
and Delivery of Water in the West.95

AMERICAN INDIANS AND U.S. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY

The Biden Administration has breached its federal trust responsibilities to
American Indians. This is unconscionable. Specifically, the Biden Administration’s war on domestically available fossil fuels and mineral sources has been
devastating. To wit:ll

The ability of American Indians and tribal governments to develop theirabundant oil and gas resources has been severely hampered, depriving
them of the revenue and profits to which they are entitled during a time ofincreasing worldwide energy prices, forcing American Indians—who areamong the poorest Americans—to choose between food and fuel.
Indian nations with significant coal resources have some of thehighest quality and cleanest-burning coal in the world, but the Biden
Administration has sought to destroy the market for their coal byeliminating coal-fired electricity in the country and to prevent the transportof their coal for sale internationally. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration,
at great public expense, artificially boosted the demand for electricvehicles, which, because of their remote locations, the absence of increased
electricity demands for charging electric vehicles nearby, and the distances
to be traveled, are not a choice for Indian communities.

— 536 —

Department of the Interiorll

A significant percentage of critical minerals needed by the United Statesis on Indian lands, but the Biden Administration has actively discouraged
development of critical mineral mining projects on Indian lands rather thanassisting in their advancement.
Despite Indian nations having primary responsibility for their lands andenvironment and responsibility for the safety of their communities, theBiden Administration is reversing efforts to put Indian nations in charge ofenvironmental regulation on their own lands.

Moreover, Biden Administration policies, including those of the DOI, have disproportionately impacted American Indians and Indian nations.
lll

By its failure to secure the border, the Biden Administration has
robbed Indian nations on or near the Mexican border of safe and securecommunities while permitting them to be swamped by a tide of illegal drugs,
particularly fentanyl.
When ending COVID protocols at Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools,
Biden’s DOI failed to ensure an accurate accounting of students returningfrom school shutdowns, which presents a significant danger to the families
that trust their children to that federal agency.
The BIE is not reporting student academic assessment data to ensure
parents and the larger tribal communities know their children are learningand are receiving a quality education.

The new Administration must take the following actions to fulfill the nation’s
trust responsibilities to American Indians and Indian nations:
l

l

l

l

End the war on fossil fuels and domestically available minerals andfacilitate their development on lands owned by Indians and Indian nations.
End federal mandates and subsidies of electric vehicles.
Restore the right of tribal governments to enforce environmental
regulation on their lands.
Secure the nation’s border to protect the sovereignty and safety oftribal lands.

— 537 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative PromiselOverhaul BIE schools to put parents and their children first.

﻿Finally, the new Administration should seek congressional reauthorizationof the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,96 which provided a $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund to purchase fractional interests in trust or
restricted land from willing sellers at fair market value, but which sunsets November 24, 2022. New funds should come from the Great American Outdoors Act.97

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but somedeserve special mention. Kathleen Sgamma, Dan Kish, and Katie Tubb wrote the section on energy in its entirety. I
received thoughtful, knowledgeable, and swift assistance from Aubrey Bettencourt, Mark Cruz, Lanny Erdos, Aurelia
S. Giacometto, Casey Hammond, Jim Magagna, Jim Pond, Rob Roy Ramey II, Kyle E. Scherer, John Tahsuda, Rob
Wallace, and Gregory Zerzan. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter; no views
expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.

— 538 —

Department of the Interior
ENDNOTES

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.

9.
9.

10.
11.
12.
13.

14.
15.
16.

17.
18.

19.
20.

21.

22.

23.

See generally William Perry Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan’s Battle with Environmental Extremists and
Why It Matters Today (Regnery, 2013), preface, pp. xvi-xxii.
U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules andRegulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
In Wyoming, the federal government owns 48 percent of the land; in Wyoming’s Teton County, the federal
government owns 97 percent of the land.
Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel.
Keith Schneider, “The 1992 Campaign; Bush on the Environment: A Record of Contradictions,” New York Times,
July 4, 1992, https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/04/us/the-1992-campaign-bush-on-the-environment-arecord-of-contradictions.html (accessed March 15, 2023).
William Perry Pendley, War on the West: Government Tyranny on America’s Great Frontier (Regnery, 1995).
William Perry Pendley, “Bureau of Land Management Yesterday and Today: Energy Independence,” Cowboy
State Daily, April 5, 2022, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/04/05/bureau-of-land-managementyesterday-and-today-energy-independence/ (accessed March 15, 2023).
Ibid.
William Perry Pendley, “Perspective: Biden’s War on Western Energy,” The Gazette, November 6, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/perspective-biden-s-war-on-western-energy/article_3823a584-5bb2-11ed-a598235c22e34687.html (accessed March 15, 2023).
Ibid.
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, Public Law 86–517.
Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877.
Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 19 (February 1, 2021), pp. 7619–7633, and White House, “Executive Order on
Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” January
20, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-orderprotecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/ (accessed
March 16, 2023).
National Environmental Policy Act, Public Law 91–160.
Antiquities Act of 1906, Public Law 59–209.
“You know what there’s not is a shall for? ‘I shall manage the land to stop climate change,’ or somethingsimilar to that,” Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt testified. “You guys come up with the shalls.” Chris
D’Angelo, “Interior Secretary Blames Congress for His Inaction on Climate Change,” High Country News,May 9, 2019.
Federal Land Policy and Land Management Act of 1976, Public Law 94–579; Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act,
Public Law 95–372; and 30 U.S.C. § 21 et seq.
U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398: Revocation of Secretary’s Orders Inconsistent withProtecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” April
16, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed
March 16, 2023).
U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348: Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium,” March 29, 2017,https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3348_coal_moratorium.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3349: American Energy Independence,” March 29, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3349_-american_energy_independence.pdf (accessed
March 16, 2023).
U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3350: America First Offshore Energy Strategy,” May 1, 2017,https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3350-offshore-508.pdf (accessed
March 16, 2023).
U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy
Portfolio,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3351-energycounselor-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3352: National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska,” May 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so-3352.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

— 539 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas
Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/
files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and
Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental
Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/
files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_
and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_
expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order
3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/
documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_
independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing
Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed
March 16, 2023).
30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signedso-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel
Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023).
32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022).
33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senatebill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023).
34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863.
35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http://
thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20
comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263.
37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No.
3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating
to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/
documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-nationalwildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a
programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition andinconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted
the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021,
Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing
program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.
gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_
to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior,“Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159(August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877.

— 540 —

Department of the Interior
39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government
Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands,
Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress.
gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco
Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/
secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March
16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S.
Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administrationproposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes
Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October
20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundarywaters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on
Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Departmentof the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-actionmineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023).
41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18,2020), pp. 82376–82389.
42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.”
https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023).
43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law,
Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climateenvironment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023).
44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957,
October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creatingschedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023).
45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22,
2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrocketsto-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023).
46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achievinga Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023).
47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47.
48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain
Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/
uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public
Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June
1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed
March 16, 2023).
50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million
in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e).
51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated thelands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain
Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None:
Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain
Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979.
52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported
authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at
2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf(accessed March 16, 2023).

— 541 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
53. Alaska’s request for an injunction was denied. State of Alaska v. Carter, 462 F. Supp. 1155, 1156 (D. Alaska1978) (NEPA does not apply to presidential proclamations under the Antiquities Act). Alaska’s lawsuit was
similar to one filed by Wyoming challenging use of the Antiquities Act to designate the Grand Teton National
Monument. Wyoming v. Franke, 58 F. Supp. 890 (D. Wyo. 1945). See generally Carol Hardy Vincent andKristina Alexander, “National Monuments and the Antiquities Act,” Congressional Research Service Report forCongress, R41330, July 20, 2010, https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc813640/m2/1/high_res_d/
R41330_2011Aug22.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). In December 1980, President Carter signed the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservations Act; subsequently, during the Reagan Administration, Alaska dropped
its lawsuit.
54. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Public Law 96–487 (codified as amended in scatteredsections of 16 U.S.C., 43 U.S.C., 48 U.S.C.), and Joseph J. Perkins, Jr., The Great Land Divided But Not
Conquered: The Effects of Statehood, ANCSA, and ANILCA on Alaska, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute,Vol. 34, Ch. 6, 1988, § 6.02.
55. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983: A Year Of Enrichment: Improving The Quality Of Life For All Americans,
October 1983, p. 25, https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/public/digitallibrary/smof/publicliaison/blackwell/box006/40_047_7006969_006_022_2017.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
56. Ibid. The conveyances by the Reagan Administration to Alaska and Native Alaskans greatly exceeded theamount of land transferred to each during the Carter Administration. See U.S. Department of the Interior,
1983: A Year Of Enrichment, pp. 86–87.
57. Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 252 (December 31, 1971), pp. 25410–25412. “On December 28, 1971, ten days
after enactment of ANCSA, the Secretary of Interior through his Assistant Secretary issued Public Land Order(PLO) 5150 which withdrew and reserved various federal public lands, subject to valid existing rights, as autility and transportation corridor for the Alaska oil pipeline. 36 Fed. Reg. 25410 (December 31, 1971). The landorder was issued ‘by virtue of the authority vested in the President and pursuant to Executive Order 10355 of
May 26, 1952 (17 Fed. Reg. 4831)….PLO 5150 established a corridor extending from the North Slope of Alaska(Prudhoe Bay) south to Valdez on Prince William Sound.’” Wisenak, Inc. v. Andrus, 471 F. Supp. 1004, 1006 (D.
Alaska 1979).
58. Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, Public Law 108–452.
59. Philip Elliott, “Biden May Be About to Sign Off on a Huge Alaska Oil Drilling Project,” Time, December 13, 2022,
https://time.com/6240733/biden-alaska-oil-drilling-willow-project/ (accessed March 16, 2023). A Bidenapproval of the bare minimum three pads for ConocoPhillips disincentivized the ability of any other oil andgas company to make the huge investment necessary to operate in NPRA.
60. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, “Ambler Road Project,” https://
dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/ambler-road/ (accessed March 17, 2023).
61. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ambler Road: Environmental Impact Statement:
Vol. 1, March 2020, https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/57323/20015364/250020506/Ambler_
FEIS_Volume_1-_Chp_1-3_&__Appendices_A-F_.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023).
62. 5 U.S. Code § 801(a)(1)(A).
63. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Departmentof Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska and the U.S. National Park Service,” October 14, 1982; U.S. Departmentof the Interior, “Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Department of Fish andGame, Juneau, Alaska and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey,” March 13, 1982; and U.S. Department of theInterior, “Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau,
Alaska and the Bureau of Land Management,” August 3, 1983, https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/
lup/66967/84127/100727/Memorandum_of_Understanding_BLM_and_ADFG.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
64. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 210 (October 29, 2020), pp. 68668–68703.
65. Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 18 (January 27, 2023), pp. 5252–5272.
66. E. Dinerstein et al., “A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding Principles, Milestones, and Targets,” Science Advances,Vol. 5, No. 4 (April 19, 2019), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869 (accessed March 18, 2023).
67. Joseph R. Biden, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” Executive Order 14008, https://www.
whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climatecrisis-at-home-and-abroad/ (accessed March 17, 2023).

— 542 —

Department of the Interior
68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily,
April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-privateproperty-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023).
69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water
Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www.
doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021).
70. Ibid.
71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1,
October 13, 2022.
72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National
Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinkemonuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023).
73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43
U.S. Code § 2601.
74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019).
75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188.
76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194.
77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252.
78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150.
79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019).
80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/
solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023).
81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/
articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023).
82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97.
83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain
Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killingjobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023).
84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from
Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzlyendangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023).
85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States andTribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trumpadministration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023).
86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette,
June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_
d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023).
87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008.
pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014,
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).
89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87.
90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA.
91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635.
92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original
Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed
March 18, 2023).
93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,”
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/
legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20
Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023).

— 543 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52.
95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Waterin the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidentialmemorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023).
96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/
buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023).
97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.

— 544 —