Conservation lease

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Going to put this out here to see the wild rumpus shitblizzard commence.

A Sweeping Proposal Would Hand Conservationists A Big Win

Biden’s Interior wants to give conservationists equal power to oil companies on public lands in order to protect them — rather than exploit them.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Ben Lamb]

Fun fact: Wild Rumpus Shitblizzard is my bowling league name.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

 

[Oak]

View attachment 274415

There was a short conversation on this topic earlier.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

There was a short conversation on this topic earlier.

Thank you, didn’t realize that thread was about the same thing. So, here’s a question, could extraction efforts be protected in a way? Take natural gas, it’s vulnerable to adjacent mines as they’re tapping the same gas. Should a company find a productive pocket, they could then create a moat of conserved land around them.

 

[Oak]

I think there are a lot of unanswered questions at this point.

 

[nrpate05]

Thank you, didn’t realize that thread was about the same thing. So, here’s a question, could extraction efforts be protected in a way? Take natural gas, it’s vulnerable to adjacent mines as they’re tapping the same gas. Should a company find a productive pocket, they could then create a moat of conserved land around them.

Perhaps, as Oak said there are a lot of unanswered questions. One of the stipulations with the conservation lease is that they have to allow public access, so hunting, etc would still be allowed. Also, an org can't just 'protect' land, they actively have to have a restoration/mitigation project going on that has to get approved. I think it is also a max 10 year lease.

My concern is what constitutes a restoration or mitigation activity. For example, could a renewable energy developer argue that he is restoring the land by working to address climate change? Or that he is mitigating the impacts of oil and gas use? I also wonder if the BLM would be more willing to permit potentially harmful projects now that they have a formal method of mitigation.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Perhaps, as Oak said there are a lot of unanswered questions. One of the stipulations with the conservation lease is that they have to allow public access, so hunting, etc would still be allowed. Also, an org can't just 'protect' land, they actively have to have a restoration/mitigation project going on that has to get approved. I think it is also a max 10 year lease.

My concern is what constitutes a restoration or mitigation activity. For example, could a renewable energy developer argue that he is restoring the land by working to address climate change? Or that he is mitigating the impacts of oil and gas use? I also wonder if the BLM would be more willing to permit potentially harmful projects now that they have a formal method of mitigation.

I’d venture to say installing solar panels or turbines itself does not constitute conservation on that parcel. Though if said company would also ten-year lease other parcels, eradicate invasive weeds and supplant with buffalo grass, chokecherry, this is good. Though these other parcels are also off limits to competition solar projects too, it’s something the company couldn’t have done previous to this new rule.