Buffalo Tract Protection Act Withdraws 4,288 Acres in New Mexico from Mining, Keeps Mineral Rights Federal

The Buffalo Tract Protection Act designates about 4,288 acres of federal land near Placitas, New Mexico, making it off-limits for future mining, mineral leasing, mineral materials sales, and geothermal leasing activities. Essentially, this bill aims to prevent new resource extraction operations on this specific parcel, identified on a map dated November 13, 2019.

Ground Rules: What's Changing (and What Isn't)

This legislation puts a stop sign up for certain types of development below ground. Think new mining claims, oil and gas exploration, or tapping into geothermal energy – those are barred on this tract going forward. The bill specifically "withdraws" the land, which is government-speak for reserving it from these uses. However, it carves out an important exception: the surface of the land isn't locked away entirely. The Secretary of the Interior still has the authority to potentially sell or transfer the surface land under existing laws like the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) or the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926. This means the surface could potentially be used for other things down the line, maybe community facilities or parks, depending on how those older laws are applied. Crucially, even if the surface changes hands, the bill ensures the rights to any minerals underneath that surface remain owned by the United States.

The Local Look: Placitas and the Land

For folks living near the Buffalo Tract in Placitas, the most direct potential impact is the halt to new mining and similar resource extraction activities in that specific area. This could mean preserving the current landscape and avoiding the potential noise, traffic, and environmental changes often associated with such operations. The bill essentially prioritizes conservation over mineral development for these particular acres. While it restricts opportunities for mining and energy companies interested in the tract's resources, it aligns with potential local desires for land preservation. The bill is quite clear about which activities are restricted and on which land (Sec. 2), leaving little room for interpretation on the withdrawal itself.

Surface vs. Subsurface: A Split Decision

The key takeaway here is the split between surface and subsurface rights. While the ground beneath is protected from new mineral and geothermal development, the future of the surface land is less defined by this specific act. Its fate rests on potential future actions taken under the broader frameworks of FLPMA and the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The United States holding onto the mineral rights acts as a permanent backstop against future mining, regardless of who owns the surface. This focused approach protects specific resources while leaving pathways open for other potential land uses compatible with federal law.