Many thanks to a TSW reader who supplied this Scott Streater story in E&E News, which is quite comprehensive.  In addition to an oligarchy vibe, I now get a “separation of powers” vibe about this regulation and its implementation.  It seems like kind of a sharp stick in the eye to the Governors and others who did not support these elements of the proposed rule; in fact, in Streater’s reporting, they “doubled down” on policies people disagreed with.  Feature or bug? I’m so not a politician.   Anyway, in the interests of fair use, I excerpted the two areas of most interest (to me). Feel free to excerpt other sections in the comments.

Stone-Manning and others promised the rule will be implemented in a deliberate fashion when it goes into effect on June 10. This will include a “preliminary suite of implementation guidance” developed by “interdisciplinary and intra-organizational teams” to help guide staff, said Brian St. George, BLM’s deputy assistant director of resources and planning.

***************

But Thursday’s webinar also provided key details about some of the policy and regulatory changes associated with the rule’s overarching goal to elevate conservation as a formal use of BLM lands, on par with energy development, mining, recreation and livestock grazing.

But let’s not forget that BLM “conservation” is not the same as USDA “conservation”.

And it underscored just how much work will be required. The webinar included a chart outlining the work of three “implementation teams” that will assist staff in executing key components of the rule, including conservation leasing, land health standards and the designation of “areas of critical environmental concern,” which the new rule makes an agency priority. For example, a “Restoration and Mitigation Team” has been working for months to develop procedures for one of the most contentious provisions in the rule — the creation of a restoration and mitigation leasing system that energy developers, mining companies and others will be able to use as as part of doing mitigation to offset project impacts on other lands.

I don’t know if this means “other” BLM lands, federal lands, or any lands.

The team is developing a “lease application worksheet” for staff, according to the slide, as well as instruction memorandums to field offices set to be issued soon detailing what project applications should be prioritized for restoration leasing.  Critics have argued that environmental groups, among others, could purchase the leases and lock up public lands from energy development and mining for years. While the rule allows for nongovernmental groups to buy these leases and pay to conduct restoration work on the land, this should not be interpreted by staff as conveying “exclusive rights to the use of the public lands” under a 10-year lease, said Deblyn Mead, a BLM national mitigation specialist.

I just don’t get it.  If they are paying for good things to happen, and that doesn’t preclude other things from happening, then they don’t really need leases.  I don’t see that the BLM has had trouble administering outside money to do good things, while maintaining the option of allowing other things on site.

What’s more, criticism by congressional Republicans that private entities or individuals associated with “foreign adversaries” such as Russia could purchase a restoration or mitigation lease is unfounded, said Mark Ames, a BLM realty specialist. “Foreign persons may not be granted a restoration lease,” Ames said.

I don’t want to be overly skeptical here, but when organizations, including “conservation groups” aren’t required to show who is funding them (as in the various c3s and c4s I’ve been following) how is anyone to know? Take Hans Wyss for example; for sure, Switzerland is not Russia, but he is a foreign national who seems to be funding many some ENGO’s.

Temporary ACEC protections

BLM doubled down on a potentially contentious aspect of the rule that would allow the agency to implement “temporary management” procedures for some parcels nominated for designation as areas of critical environmental concern, or ACECs, that would block energy development and other uses on sensitive rangelands, potentially for years at a time.

Brenda Lincoln-Wojtanik, a senior planning and environmental analyst, outlined to staff the process of applying these temporary measures to nominated parcels. BLM state directors are authorized under federal law to implement these temporary management measures on nominated parcels, with few restrictions. Directors can take this step before parcels go through the lengthy land-use revision process required before the designation of an ACEC — which are managed primarily to protect their environmental, cultural, historic or scientific values, restricting activities that conflict with that priority.

To qualify for these temporary management measures, the nominated parcels must be determined to have “relevant and important values,” and that “special management attention” is needed to protect the resource values.

As a former bureaucratic writer, I could probably write such such a rationalization for any BLM acre as requested :).

The Information Bulletin sent to staff late Thursday says the new rule establishes “a presumption” that all potential ACECs that meet these three requirements “will be designated” as such. It also includes a chart stating that BLM staff should “immediately” begin to consider ACEC nominations “and implement interim management as appropriate.”
The temporary management measures would be lifted once BLM makes a determination about the ACEC as part of a larger resource management plan (RMP).
But some land-use plans can wait decades to be revised.

I don’t get it, I thought this Admin was all about NEPA, public involvement and addressing the views of marginalized communities (which RMPs do and this does not). Another idea, if RMPs are too hard to do.. maybe change those regs?  Ask Congress for help amending the statute? I don’t actually see “three” requirements in the story, I just see “values” and “attention”??

House Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) highlighted this aspect of the rule on the House floor last month prior to the approval of H.R. 3397, which would require BLM to withdraw the rule. Even though this has been used by BLM only a handful of times in the past 25 years,  it’s an option that the bureau may use more frequently now. “If we decide that we’re going to evaluate that nomination and we find that it meets all three criteria, we are required then to protect those values” through temporarily protective measures, or the start of a new resource management process to evaluate the ACEC nomination, Lincoln-Wojtanik said.

In addition to vibes of oligarchy, separation of powers issues, I get a strong vibe of hornswogglery with this one.

This is an interesting story from Wyofile on the Rock Springs RMP.  Turns out that the Governor got together a panel to review the draft.

Despite representing disparate interests, the 11 members of a governor-appointed task force reached consensus on more than 100 recommendations for the Bureau of Land Management’s controversial draft plan for managing some 3.6 million acres in southwestern Wyoming.

The guidance, released in a report late Wednesday, represents a cool-headed note in a public process defined by furor at the federal agency. Many of the packed meetings convened last fall to discuss the plan unfolded with anger and misinformation — including misinformation the BLM itself disseminated by mistake.

Gov. Mark Gordon held the recommendations up as an example of how Wyoming knowledge can inform a better Rock Springs land management plan.

“This particular effort was initiated out of necessity,” he said in a statement. “It was critical we amplified the public’s involvement in this important BLM planning document, and shared with BLM how Wyoming, through collaboration, creates durable and quality land management policy.”

The final recommendations include conserving landscapes around the prized hunting grounds of the Greater Little Mountain Area, protecting development of the trona assets contained within the Known Sodium Leasing Area as well as proposals for managing the “checkerboard” area of the field office that recognize access needs and wildlife migration. They support continued motorized use and continued grazing. They also urge protections for key cultural features and natural resources, but advise special designations in just a few limited areas.

***********

Though many Wyoming denizens came out forcefully against the agency’s preferred alternative, which prioritizes conservation and gives large zones new designations of “areas of critical environmental concern,” Stone-Manning stands by the draft.

“The BLM believes there are a lot of shared values and goals in this plan that strike a balance with conservation and multiple uses,” Stone-Manning said.

*********

“We look forward to carefully considering [the task force’s] thoughts and the public’s comments as we finalize the plan,” Stone-Manning said.

***************

Critics decried the closure of large acreage to energy leasing, the roughly 2.5 million acres that would be excluded for new right-of-way consideration and the transference of lands into “areas of critical environmental concern,” a designation used to protect important historic, cultural and scenic values. Designated ACECs would swell from current acreage of 286,000 to more than 1.5 million acres under B.

Conservationists, however, have championed the vision outlined in the preferred alternative, saying the area is ecologically valuable enough to warrant a conservation-forward approach.

******************

One major source of consternation spawned from a typo. The BLM mistakenly left in a provision saying it would close 4,505 miles of routes and eliminate another 10,006 miles of undesignated, illegal routes under Alternative B. BLM officials assured that mistake would be fixed.

But claims of the agency shutting down traditional activities like hunting, camping and recreating were unfounded, agency officials maintain.

“For whatever reason, people latched on very quickly that any ACEC designation was going to automatically restrict public use,” Rock Springs Field Office Manager Kimberlee Foster told WyoFile during a September open house. “And none of that is true.”

*********

The agency has battled misinformation through the process, Stone-Manning said. “One significant area of misinformation has revolved around access to our public lands,” she said in the email. “For example, there have been rumors about no longer being able to walk your dog on public lands, roads closing, and hunting no longer being allowed. None of this is true and we are taking every opportunity to separate fact from fiction. Public lands are open to the public and there are no decisions to open or close roads being made as part of updating this resource management plan.”

***************

Not to be unnecessarily skeptical (not being a BLM expert), but is this a case of carefully worded “sleight of planning”?  Decisions to restrict access would  not be in the plan itself, but the plan would set the context for follow-on decisions.  I note the qualifiers “automatically” restrict public use, “no decisions.. being made as part of updating.”

I also wonder if Director Stone-Manning meant this:

The BLM’s approach to defusing the hot situation, Stone-Manning said, is to start with what’s universally important about the land. “One starting place for us is always that clean water, abundant wildlife and the sustainable use of natural resources on our public lands is something that everyone cares about,” Stone-Manning said. “From this place, we are working to engage in grounded conversations and dialogue on how alternatives and details in the plan support and balance that.”

Perhaps they could have not developed the “hot situation” in the first place by talking to local folks and elected officials; or rather talking to them and following through on what they said.  If the Biden Admin is carefully watching its two land management agencies (which I don’t think it is.. but still) it might notice that many forest plan revisions have stakeholder groups that work together to develop recommendations.  Why does this RMP effort seem so relatively top-down in comparison? My BLM retiree friends would probably tell me its because FLPMA has political appointees as leading the agency.  Whether this is good governance or unnecessarily drama and ill-will-provoking is another question.

*****************

Here’s a note I received from Pew today: (Take Action Now!). The RMP has the potential to “chart a new course for public lands management here and across the country.” Why Rock Springs though, of all places?  And the “best possible policy for the region’s wildlife and people.” Because those people..who live there.. don’t actually know what’s best for them, I guess.

Here’s a link to the Agenda

Here’s a screenshot of the BLM section:

Looks like the “Conservation and Landscape Health” CLH rule will be out soon.
Here’s a screenshot of the FS section:

Looks like MOG is not on the list for now. Many of these are unknown to me… if any of you are familiar with them or have links to reporting, please put in the comments (that’s also true for the BLM regs other than the CLH reg.

Polarization seems a bit like the weather.. everyone talks about it, but no one does anything about it.  I can think of a variety of Big Ideas to reduce it, but the people who have gained political power via riding the polarization horse have little interest in putting it out to pasture.  So I’d propose simpler and tinier solutions which might ultimately add up to something larger.

We have two multiple-use agencies at this time, the BLM and the Forest Service.  FLPMA has the BLM Director be a political appointee.  The Forest Service Chief is not (although certainly approved by the Admin).  Folks I know who have worked in both agencies say that the policy pendulum in the Forest Service does not swing as far as with BLM.

As Governor Freudenthal (D) of Wyoming noted  in 2010 for the BLM:

Unfortunately, Washington, D.C. seems to go from pillar to post to placate what is perceived as a key constituency. I only half-heartedly joke with those in industry that, during the prior administration, their names were chiseled above the chairs outside the office of the Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals. With the changes announced yesterday, I fear that we are merely swapping the names above those same chairs to environmental interests, giving them a stranglehold on an already cumbersome process.

Suppose just a tiny tweak.. suppose FLPMA was amended to require the BLM Director to be a career employee? (This could also be done for all the Director roles at Interior, NPS, USFWS, BOR and BIA).   The Assistant Secretaries, Deputy Secretary and Secretary would then, similar to the FS, be politicals to develop the President’s policy as the result of the election. Career Directors should have expertise and agency management experience (preferably in the field, and in the case of BLM, in the West) and work to implement the policy as developed by the politicals. At BLM currently there is the Director (PAS) and one of two Deputy Directors as politicals and some lower level schedule C’s politicals.   If you have too many politicals around in positions of power, it is likely that everything is seem through a partisan lens.  And they don’t always hear different views.  First, it’s easy to discount voices from the other party (they are not worth listening to) and people from their own party who disagree don’t always feel comfortable telling them (you’re either with us or against us; or fear of ticking off powerful people in their own party and possibly future retaliation).  So it’s easy (especially with no career feds around who have western field experience) to be in an echo chamber and rely on people from your past life (ENGOs or industry) for info.  It leads to a situation in which people closer to the ground could come to agreement, but the politicals  in DC  cannot.

Fundamentally, to my mind, the best land solutions are developed locally by local people with local knowledge and local research.

One thing that struck me about Governor Gordon’s letter was the contrast between how this decision was made and the idea  of environmental justice.

EPA defines “environmental justice” as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision‐making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

My bold. Perhaps EJ does not include “all people regardless of whom they vote for”?

Why throw out all that work, and throw the BLM employees under the bus?  For indeed, they and the State and the local folks have put a great deal of work into these plans. Fpr twelve years.

Our political friends come in to Interior and spend a few years making decisions (without having direct experience of these places and people; often without natural resources backgrounds at all). They are just passing through on their way to their next law firm, ENGO or industry post.  Meanwhile,  BLM employees have to live with the mistrust and the bad decisions that the politicals generate, in the grocery store, in the bleachers at the high school basketball game, and so on, for their entire 30 year ish career.   I’d rather that public involvement was not an elaborate hoax, and that politicals put a finger (tip?) on the scale rather than ignoring it.  For some westerners, picking a surprise alternative seems like an intentional sharp stick in the eye, and if we question it,  we are incipient Bundys (not people seeking environmental justice), and so the unproductive cycle continues.   Our access to federal land, our recreation and in some cases, our livelihoods, are pawns in the R/D chess game, effectively without agency.   Not exactly EJ, to my mind, nor any justice at all.

If Congressfolk asked me “why do this FLPMA amendment now?” I’d say it’s a tiny step towards reducing polarization.  If we are in a climate emergency, we need BLM employees (who, we remember, are down in numbers to the extent that the Admin is concerned) to not waste their time on doing and redoing plans based on the predilections of people in each Administration.  We think that the stakeholders and people who work on developing agreements and those who give public comment need to be fairly and meaningfully involved- just like the definition of EJ.. which would mean that the people in the room making the decision would be immersed in those views and agreements.  We want to build trust and the foundation for States, feds, Tribes and locals to work better together.  Things apparently haven’t changed much between Freudenthal’s and Gordon’s concerns- in the last 10 years.  If we want to build a national effort to decarbonize and to adapt to climate change (the Wildfire Commission says wildfire is an emergency).  We need to work together better across federal, state and local governments.

I’ll end with another quote from Governor Gordon’s letter, that talks about fostering relationships that lead ultimately to better governance:

Until very recently, the BLM has been a major partner, along with state and local entities, in bringing about consensus-based Wyoming solutions to major land management questions. Wyoming is a national leader on Greater Sage Grouse, migration corridor management, and responsible development. We did that with local support, stakeholder buy-in, and rigorous on the ground work. That work was not simple or easy, but it showed a respect for the resources and the people of the area. The BLM’s RMP and Preferred Alternative threaten to eliminate all the hard work accomplished by bulldozing over state executive orders, stakeholder engagement, and interagency agreements. Simply put, existing and future partnerships are in jeopardy. A federal fiat won’t run efficiently or well over such a bumpy road.

There is a substantial amount of trust placed in our federal government to manage our public lands effectively and according to law. That trust is fragile and should never be abused. One of the BLM’s Guiding Principles is, “To cultivate community-based conservation, citizen-centered stewardship, and partnership through consultation, cooperation, and communication.”

I think a simple FLPMA amendment would go a long way in that direction.

Many thanks to Jon for bringing up the Rock Springs RMP.  There are many interesting things about it. In this post, I’ll focus on what appears to be a breakdown in the FLPMA and associated regulations for coordination with the State.  In the next post, I’ll focus on impacts to communities and employees. I don’t know a bunch about the BLM but did participate in a Governor’s Office Review (with Harris Sherman, then DNR Director in Colorado) of the ill-fated joint BLM/FS San Juan plan.  It seemed to me that it indeed was a useful exercise.  So I was surprised when I took a look at the Governor’s letter on the proposed RMP:

in this case, Governor Gordon of Wyoming seems to have been blindsided:

More to the point, this draft does not accurately reflect the 12-year cooperative process undertaken during my entire time in office as Governor and as State Treasurer, three presidential administrations, a multitude of public meetings, cooperating agency input, technological and scientific advancements, and millions of taxpayer dollars. So, it is completely incomprehensible that the BLM selected for its Agency Preferred Alternative, Alternative B, one considered an outlier in previous attempts at issuing an RMP one that was meant to serve initially as a bookend – an alternative with the most resource use restrictions and concomitantly with the largest socioeconomic impacts. Over a decade’s worth of contributions from local stakeholders, cooperators, counties, and state agencies are either falling on deaf ears or disingenuously being thrown by the wayside with this decision.

And

The Agency’s actions here are contrary to that intent. One is left to assume that that partnership was found to be less valuable than playing to some other audience than those most affected by the people and the ecology these decisions would most impact. It is a shame that evidently little heed was paid to the wishes of local communities. The release of this draft is the first instance the public has to review the BLM’s proposal, and it has completely blindsided those involved, those who care most about the place. The release of this draft places a 90-day burden on the shoulders of those who live, work, and recreate here to understand and respond to this outlandish Preferred Alternative. The trust that has so painstakingly been earned over years of cooperation has been tested severely.

Why did that happen?  According to a source.

FLPMA is replete with directions to BLM to cooperate with states. See e.g. 43 U.S.C.  § 1712 (a)(9) (planning), § 1716 (exchanges) and § 1720 (conveyances).  FLPMA also provides an opportunity before the Final RMP for the Governor’s Consistency Review – is the RMP consistent with state and local land use plans. The late Governor Richardson was successful in redirecting a BLM plan through that process and a lawsuit.

And..

The existing BLM regulation requires cooperating agency status to be offered to State, Tribal and local governments during land use planning and current Department NEPA rules require the same for all Department Environmental Impact Statements. See BLM, Cooperating Agency Deskbook (2012) p. 2 (“The BLM amended its planning regulations in 2005 to ensure that it engages its government partners consistently and effectively through the CA relationship whenever land use plans are prepared or revised. In 2008, the Department of the Interior (DOI) applied this policy to the preparation of all EISs.

So all those requirements were .. ignored?  And  a trusted source reported that they had spoken with an ENGO who said that they were “shocked and delighted” that they had been given whatever they wanted on the RMP.  Perhaps this is less about rewarding your friend NGO’s than punishing your enemy States who don’t vote the way the Admin prefers… despite legal requirements to work with them.  I am not a fan of the ship of federalism, which has served us well, foundering on the shoals of political partisanship.

Next post: Concerns for EJ, communities and employees.