US wants to lease public lands for conservation, Interior Dept says

[Jwill]

US wants to lease public lands for conservation, Interior Dept says

The U.S. Interior Department on Thursday proposed a new program that would allow it to offer leases of public land for conservation purposes, in much the same way as it currently offers acreage for drilling, mining, and grazing.

www.reuters.com

Anybody got a read on whether or not this is a good idea?

 

[pyrotechnic]

My jaded and rather uneducated read. Instead of managing properties with habitat and conservation in mind, we can now justify trashing some prime mule deer habitat with a solar panel array as long as once purchases a conservation lease on some barren pile of rocks somewhere else.

I might very well be mistaken, but that is what comes to mind when words like "carbon credits" are thrown around. Just another way for people to make money off of destroying the environment in one place while getting to feel good about it.

 

[SAJ-99]

That is certainly a jaded take given the article states the goal is the exact opposite.

I don’t have a problem with the principle, but there is a lot of other better places to put a solar array than BLM land. Developers like doing it because it is easy. I want to see how it gets implemented. The devil is in the details.

 

[pyrotechnic]

That is certainly a jaded take given the article states the goal is the exact opposite.

I don’t have a problem with the principle, but there is a lot of other better places to put a solar array than BLM land. Developers like doing it because it is easy. I want to see how it gets implemented. The devil is in the details.

"For instance, a solar energy project on public lands could compensate for the loss of wildlife habitat by restoring habitat in another area."

Like most things and as you say, I imagine the devil will be in the details

 

[SAJ-99]

"For instance, a solar energy project on public lands could compensate for the loss of wildlife habitat by restoring habitat in another area."

Like most things and as you say, I imagine the devil will be in the details

Whole paragraph quote is a little more optimistic. All I can say is that this approach was never done for O&G, so it is an improvement on the current views. If you want me to agree with your view, I don’t like “restoring” promises, because they rarely get done.

“For instance, a solar energy project on public lands could compensate for the loss of wildlife habitat by restoring habitat in another area. Leases could also be used to restore migration corridors for big game or to generate tradable offsets for carbon markets by preserving forests.”

 

[pyrotechnic]

Whole paragraph quote is a little more optimistic. All I can say is that this approach was never done for O&G, so it is an improvement on the current views. If you want me to agree with your view, I don’t like “restoring” promises, because they rarely get done.

“For instance, a solar energy project on public lands could compensate for the loss of wildlife habitat by restoring habitat in another area. Leases could also be used to restore migration corridors for big game or to generate tradable offsets for carbon markets by preserving forests.”

I'm probably just being a negative ass. I can imagine that this could be useful for managing impact at a large scale. Whether it is a plus will depend on implementation and I am unfortunately woefully ignorant of how our current system works/doesn't work.

 

[Oak]

Could I be permitted for a domestic sheep allotment for conservation rather than grazing?

 

[WildWill]

Could I be permitted for a domestic sheep allotment for conservation rather than grazing?

Good question. If permitted would hunting or public access be allowed within said conservation allotment? I see the potential for a lot of good and/or the loss of a lot of access.

 

[Sytes]

I'd prefer the stretch armstrong definition of "conservation" lobbyists whisper for party favors stay out of leasing public land beyond it's current setting.

The political chit storm that currently brews from R & D drama "fixing the other's f-ups", leaves this ripe for adaptation of the definition.

Hell, R & D already defined/redefined the "National Park"... Whichever side one sits on, Bears Ears ring a bell?

 

[Oak]

A scoping notice for the proposed rule was published in the FR today. Comment deadline is June 20.

 

[Oak]

A HCN article about the proposed rule.

 

[BoulderBulls]

Public meetings tomorrow in golden

BLM’s new ‘Public Lands Rule’ could increase access to outdoor recreation

The Bureau of Land Management will host a meeting on Thursday in Golden for members of the public to learn more about its proposed “Public Lands Rule,” a new effort to recognize conservation as a...

www.vaildaily.com

 

[elkduds]

A scoping notice for the proposed rule was published in the FR today. Comment deadline is June 20.

Here is the latest public comment:

Thank you for proposing the public lands rule, which provides an incredible opportunity to rebalance the BLMs management priorities to focus on conservation and healthy communities. For far too long, the agency has favored resource extraction and other uses, and it is critical that the BLM modernizes its policies to include cultural land protection, conservation, recreation, wildlife, and potential climate impacts.

The draft rule is a crucial step toward a new management framework, but I believe it could still be strengthened before finalization. The updated policies must ensure that local land managers have clear direction, up-to-date data on current land conditions, and the best science to support communities in the West to build a sustainable future. The final rule should also require the BLM to consult with Tribes to solicit priority areas for conservation and seek opportunities for co-stewardship of these traditional homelands. Lastly, the final rule should include binding provisions that will strengthen and expand the BLMs designation of areas of critical environmental concern, which is a vital tool for the protection of tribal cultural sites and other important landscapes.

I appreciate the Biden Administration's commitment to protecting our public lands and updating these out-of-date policies. Please quickly finalize a strong public lands rule, so a more balanced approach to land management can be implemented as soon as possible.



I agree that conservation and recreation priorities should be on a par with development for certain BLM lands, many of which are public because they were not originally attractive for agriculture or other commercial uses. Generating revenues by leasing public lands for any use inherently limits the public from accessing that land unless they are leasing. Which is. . .

 

[BoulderBulls]

Here is the latest public comment:

Thank you for proposing the public lands rule, which provides an incredible opportunity to rebalance the BLMs management priorities to focus on conservation and healthy communities. For far too long, the agency has favored resource extraction and other uses, and it is critical that the BLM modernizes its policies to include cultural land protection, conservation, recreation, wildlife, and potential climate impacts.

The draft rule is a crucial step toward a new management framework, but I believe it could still be strengthened before finalization. The updated policies must ensure that local land managers have clear direction, up-to-date data on current land conditions, and the best science to support communities in the West to build a sustainable future. The final rule should also require the BLM to consult with Tribes to solicit priority areas for conservation and seek opportunities for co-stewardship of these traditional homelands. Lastly, the final rule should include binding provisions that will strengthen and expand the BLMs designation of areas of critical environmental concern, which is a vital tool for the protection of tribal cultural sites and other important landscapes.

I appreciate the Biden Administration's commitment to protecting our public lands and updating these out-of-date policies. Please quickly finalize a strong public lands rule, so a more balanced approach to land management can be implemented as soon as possible.

Comment posted thanks for sharing

 

[rogerthat]

Seems like this would be a good thing to come from Congress rather than a rule since it seems like it’s an addition to FLPMA not necessarily an interpretation of FLPMA? Thoughts anyone? Seems the authority on this proposal could be on shaky ground

 

[44hunter45]

So let's say a big O&G outfit leases up 2.5 million acres of Nevada and then locks out recreationists because they feel that would cause impacts.
That is to say, I worry about the loss of access.

 

[nrpate05]

Seems like this would be a good thing to come from Congress rather than a rule since it seems like it’s an addition to FLPMA not necessarily an interpretation of FLPMA? Thoughts anyone? Seems the authority on this proposal could be on shaky ground

As far as I understand it, it isn't really an addition to FLPMA, more of clarification. BLM is supposed to manage for all uses and this codifies that.

So let's say a big O&G outfit leases up 2.5 million acres of Nevada and then locks out recreationists because they feel that would cause impacts.
That is to say, I worry about the loss of access.

They can already do that. Any conservation lease still allows public use.

 

[rogerthat]

As far as I understand it, it isn't really an addition to FLPMA, more of clarification. BLM is supposed to manage for all uses and this codifies that.

They can already do that. Any conservation lease still allows public use.

FLMA was passed in 1976. So it took 47 years to clarify it? Right now conservation leases don’t exist hence not a current “use” right now so it’s going to be controversial unquestionably if it gets added to the mix. It just seems like bipartisan legislation is a better route rather than the constant push of rules by one admin that then is rolled back when the admin changes. I’m all for conservation but it seems like conservation and historical use wouldn’t have to be mutually exclusive. Maybe that’s not the intention of this rule. I think that’s what has many up in arms over it however.

 

[Oak]

Seems like this would be a good thing to come from Congress rather than a rule since it seems like it’s an addition to FLPMA not necessarily an interpretation of FLPMA? Thoughts anyone? Seems the authority on this proposal could be on shaky ground

Sec. 102
a) The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that–
....
5) in administering public land statutes and exercising discretionary authority granted by them, the Secretary be required to establish comprehensive rules and regulations after considering the views of the general public; and to structure adjudication procedures to assure adequate third party participation, objective administrative review of initial decisions, and expeditious decisionmaking;

 

[bullbugle]

FLMA was passed in 1976. So it took 47 years to clarify it? Right now conservation leases don’t exist hence not a current “use” right now so it’s going to be controversial unquestionably if it gets added to the mix. It just seems like bipartisan legislation is a better route rather than the constant push of rules by one admin that then is rolled back when the admin changes. I’m all for conservation but it seems like conservation and historical use wouldn’t have to be mutually exclusive. Maybe that’s not the intention of this rule. I think that’s what has many up in arms over it however.

I would say it’s more like it took us 47 years to pull our heads out so to speak and make an effort to place conservation on more of an even keel with other multiple uses. If you’ve followed the history of FLPMA and the Wilderness Act and such, it’s rife with catering to moneyed interests over conservation. There’s a reason we have all these Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics. They purposefully left out a ton of lands that meet wilderness criteria in the early inventories. Some BLM districts still wouldn’t even inventory lands with wilderness characteristics properly per their own protocols when I worked in that realm. Pinedale for instance did a great job at that time. Rock Springs was a total joke.

So yeah, details are important, but in general I’m all for taking steps to shore up where we’ve fallen short on conservation in the past.