Thanks to Rebecca Watson for clearing this up.. indeed the BLM has extended the time period for comments.  There’s a great deal that can be said about this regulation, so I’m very glad they did this.

From E&E News..I’m sure there is partisan disagreement, but as I said in the previous post,the renewable energy industry also has concerns. And aren’t we all for “robust public involvement”?

At the end there’s a quote from Kathleen Sgamma saying it should’ve been an ANPR… Let’s see, what Department put out an ANPR AND extended their comment period for 30 days?  I suppose they’ll also have a better array of public meetings when it comes time for the actual rulemaking.  Way to go, USDA!!!

BLM offers extra comment time on public lands rule

E&E NEWS PM | The Bureau of Land Management has agreed to give the public until next month to weigh in on a hotly debated draft public lands rule that has sparked fierce partisan debate over the proposal’s emphasis on conservation in the face of increasing threats from climate warming.

BLM announced Thursday it is extending the 75-day public comment period, set to run through June 20, by 15 days, or until July 5.

The draft rule, which BLM unveiled in March, is designed to protect and restore rangelands so that they are able to be used in the future for multiple purposes in the face of a warming climate that has sparked drought conditions and extreme wildfires across the West.

But the proposed rule has stirred concern among various stakeholders, particularly congressional Republicans, who say it is a veiled attempt by the Biden administration to remove potentially millions of acres from public use in the name of conservation.

To date, more than 121,000 comments have been submitted to BLM, according to Regulations.gov.

“The proposed Public Lands Rule is essential to our work, to ensuring we can respond to changes on the landscape,” said BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning.

“We appreciate the useful public input we’ve already received through five public meetings and the first 75 days of the comment period,” Stone-Manning added. “This extension will allow us to continue to work with the public to make sure that the final rule is durable and effective.”

Interested parties, including the ranching industry and congressional Republicans, pressed Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and BLM to extend the deadline, and to hold additional public hearings in more rural areas to allow more landowners to comment on the draft rule.

But some were disappointed Interior extended the comment period just 15 days.

The Public Lands Council, a ranching industry trade group, requested a much longer extension.

“While we appreciate the additional 15 days, it seems unlikely that two extra weeks over a holiday will give BLM time to facilitate the kind of dialogue needed to address the mountain of concerns that have already been expressed on the rule,” said Kaitlynn Glover, PLC’s executive director. “We are disappointed that BLM doesn’t appear to have taken our request for more meetings and a full 180 days to comment seriously, but we remain committed to leading the conversation to ensure this rule doesn’t destroy federal land management in the West.”

BLM is working to finalize the rule by the end of the year, according to the spring Unified Agenda the White House released Wednesday.

The announcement that BLM would extend the public comment deadline came just hours after a contentious, hourslong House Natural Resources Committee hearing during which Republicans sharply criticized the rule.

The legislative hearing Thursday featured only Utah Republican Rep. John Curtis’ H.R. 3397, which would require BLM to withdraw the rule and “not take any action to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule.”

Congressional Republicans, who had previously asked Haaland for a 75-day public comment period extension, weren’t enthusiastic about the extension either.

“Given the level of resounding opposition we heard at our hearing today and for weeks prior, extending a comment period by only 15 days does not even begin to address our concerns,” according to a statement from Natural Resources Republicans.

Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, an oil and gas industry trade group, said the extension “is helpful for finishing up our comments, but this shouldn’t even have been a proposed rule at this time.”

Sgamma testified at Thursday’s Natural Resources legislative hearing against the proposal.

“As I said in my testimony, there are so many nebulous concepts and more questions than answers that this should have been an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking or request for information at this stage,” she said. “This rule is in no way going to be ready to be finalized as the next stage.”

As far as I’m concerned, abstractions are hatchways to hokum.. and portals to privilege- because you can be pretty sure you won’t be in the room when the details of who benefits and who loses from the definition is hashed out. There’s a common concept of “over-thinking” something; perhaps there should also be a concept of “over-wording.” It would include

1. Making up new words when all the concepts already exist,

2. Using plain English words to mean something else,

And for feds in particular

3. Making up new meanings for words already used by other federal agencies.

In this rule, a few abstractions that raise red flags:

“FLPMA’s (Fip-ma) declaration of policy and definitions of “multiple use” and “sustained yield” reveal that conservation is a use on par with other uses under FLPMA.” Hmm.. somehow this revelation.. that “conservation” is a “use” lay unrevealed for lo these 47 or so years. So let’s start with the definition of conservation:

Conservation

The proposed rule would define “conservation” in the context of these regulations to mean maintaining resilient, functioning ecosystems by protecting or restoring natural habitats and ecological functions…. Within the framework of the proposed rule, “protection” and “restoration” together constitute conservation.

That’s not what partner agency on intermingled private lands, the Natural Resources CONSERVATION Service might mean by conservation.

Let’s check out what USDA means by the word “conservation”.

The protection, preservation, management, or restoration of natural environments and the ecological communities that inhabit them. Conservation is generally held to include the management of human use of natural resources for current public benefit and sustainable social and economic utilization.

Whoa! Major #3 (other federal agency) foul. Yes, says the BLM,  we want to work as partners, yes we want the public to be involved, but we can’t help but define commonly used words differently. Our behavior does not seem to match our words.  Our behavior seems to say “we want people to be confused about what we are trying to do.”

So a “conservation lease” is a protect and restore lease, not at all like the Conservation Stewardship Program at USDA..nor the Forest Service Conservation Finance Program (which is pretty interesting to check out).

Intact Landscape

means an unfragmented ecosystem that is free of local conditions that could permanently or significantly disrupt, impair, or degrade the landscape’s structure or ecosystem resilience, and that is large enough to maintain native biological diversity, including viable populations of wide-ranging species. Intact landscapes have high conservation value, provide critical ecosystem functions, and support ecosystem resilience.

That seems like any large tract of federal land.. “Permanently or significantly disrupt” it could be argued, I suppose that while oil and gas rigs are not permanent, they could be  “significant” and solar arrays and wind turbines could be decided to be permanent, but not “significant.”  So what’s a landscape?

Landscape

means a network of contiguous or adjacent ecosystems characterized by a set of common management concerns or conditions. The landscape is not defined by the size of the area, but rather by the interacting elements that are relevant and meaningful in a management context. Areas described in terms of aquatic conditions, such as watersheds or ecoregions, may also be “landscapes.”

So an entire ecoregion might be an intact landscape depending on judgments of “permanent” and “significant.” People might wonder who exactly will be making those judgments..

Land health: The idea is to take land health- a concept from the grazing program and apply it to renewable resources (should meet at the watershed scale). They want comments on how it will interact with non-renewable resources.

§ 4180.1 Fundamentals of rangeland health.

Standards and guidelines developed or revised by a Bureau of Land Management State Director under § 4180.2(b) must be consistent with the following fundamentals of rangeland health:

a) Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward, properly functioning physical condition, including their upland, riparian-wetland, and aquatic components; soil and plant conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the release of water that are in balance with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, water quantity, and timing and duration of flow.

(b) Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow, are maintained, or there is significant progress toward their attainment, in order to support healthy biotic populations and communities.

(c) Water quality complies with State water quality standards and achieves, or is making significant progress toward achieving, established BLM management objectives such as meeting wildlife needs.

(d) Habitats are, or are making significant progress toward being, restored or maintained for Federal threatened and endangered species, Federal proposed or candidate threatened and endangered species, and other special status species.

and related standards and guidelines to all renewable-resource management, instead of just to public-lands grazing. Broadening the applicability of the fundamentals of land health would ensure BLM programs will more formally and consistently consider the condition of public lands during decisionmaking processes. Renewable resources on public lands should meet the fundamentals of land health overall at the watershed scale. The proposed rule recognizes, however, that in determining which actions are required to achieve the land health standards and guidelines, the BLM must take into account current land uses, such as mining, energy production and transmission, and transportation, as well as other applicable law. The BLM welcomes comments on how applying the fundamentals of land health beyond lands allocated to grazing will interact with BLM’s management of non-renewable resources.

To implement the fundamentals of land health, the proposed rule directs BLM programs to use high-quality information to prepare land health assessments and evaluations and make determinations about the causes of failing to achieve land health. Such information is derived largely from assessing, inventorying, and monitoring renewable resources, as well as Indigenous Knowledge. The resulting data provides the means for detecting trends in land health and can be used to make management decisions, implement adaptive strategies, and support conservation efforts to build ecosystem resilience.

I’m not exactly sure what “renewable resources” are in this context, maybe someone from BLM could help out?

Look at all the BLM land across the West. The meetings are in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, and yet Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and eastern Oregon also have large chunks of BLM.  What do the States of NM CO and NV have in common that aren’t shared by WY UT and ID? Let me think…

Anyway, thanks, Greg Beardslee, for this link!

Burr: Bureau of Land Management has it wrong with new conservation rule

Landscape Health and Conservation Rule would allow conservation leases on potentially all of the 247 million acres of land managed by BLM.

Ben Burr is Executive Director of BlueRibbon Coalition

This rule is problematic and should be withdrawn. At the BlueRibbon Coalition we are working to unite public land users of all types to oppose this rule for the following reasons:

• First, the Bureau of Land Management doesn’t have the authority to create this rule out of administrative thin air. FLPMA doesn’t contemplate a conservation lease scheme, and if Congress wanted the BLM to administer such a program, they would have expressly authorized it. This scheme would also likely raise revenue for the government, which again, is something BLM doesn’t have authority to do. Only Congress, can authorize a new program like this that raises revenue for the government.

• Second, this rule won’t work. I have reviewed BLM project files where the agency and high-minded conservation organizations have entered into agreements to manage land towards conservation priorities. In these cases, all parties to the agreement flagrantly neglected to uphold the terms and conditions of the agreement. If the conservation leases don’t have any teeth for non-compliance, then they could cede management control of public lands to 3rd parties at the same time the public will have few if any tools to hold the 3rd parties accountable for non-compliance.

• Third, this rule is unnecessary. The BLM is already required to comply with dozens of other laws and executive orders to prioritize conservation on public lands. Scores of environmental lawsuits that get filed every year ensure that the compliance with these laws is taken seriously. Despite the statutory requirement the BLM has to manage public lands for multiple use, conservation is prioritized above all other uses on a regular basis.

• Fourth, this rule could easily lead to unintended intervention into public land management by foreign governments. If the government of Brazil wanted to further monopolize the American beef industry, it could funnel dark money to organizations that oppose public land grazing that could use the funds to acquire conservation leases on public grazing allotments to interfere with those grazing operations. If China wanted to kill an American lithium industry in its infancy, it could fund wildlife protection organizations to acquire conservation leases in areas rich with lithium.

As a leading national non-profit that works to protect recreation access to public land, at the BlueRibbon Coalition we are worried that this rule will be used to limit motorized recreation, dispersed camping, and all other forms of outdoor recreation on public lands. This rule will be a way for conservation organizations to create de facto wilderness, where they have failed to get Congress to make such restrictive designations. The $800 billion outdoor recreation industry thrives because of BLM’s careful efforts to balance conservation with other uses. By prioritizing conservation even more than it already is, we will undermine an industry that is fueling the livelihoods of many who live in the West.

We are grateful for the leadership of Representative John Curtis, who has introduced HR 3997. This legislation instructs the BLM to withdraw this rule. The rest of the Utah delegation has supported this legislation with Senators Lee and Romney supporting a Senate companion bill. We are encouraging everyone who supports public access to public land and a strong American economy to join Utah’s congressional delegation in telling the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw this rule by visiting sharetrails.org/withdraw-the-rule/.

Benjamin Burr is the Executive Director of the BlueRibbon Coalition – a national nonprofit that has been working since 1987 to protect public access to public land

Note from Sharon- this seems a little light on public meetings compared to national FS efforts like Roadless and Planning Rules. They are in three cities, Denver, Albuquerque and Reno (not Salt Lake?). Plus two virtual meetings.

Proposed Public Lands Rule

Rule would protect healthy public lands, promote habitat conservation and restoration and further thoughtful development

WASHINGTON — The Bureau of Land Management has updated its schedule for five public meetings that will provide forums across the country for the public to learn more about the proposed Public Lands Rule and have questions answered.

The proposed Public Lands Rule, which was announced in late March, would provide tools for the BLM to protect healthy public lands in the face of increasing drought, wildfire and climate impacts; conserve important wildlife habitat and intact landscapes; better use science and data in decision-making; plan for thoughtful development; and better recognize unique cultural and natural resources on public lands.

The BLM intends to host two virtual and three in-person meetings to provide detailed information about the proposal. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions that facilitate a deeper understanding of the proposal. The dates and cities of the meetings are:

Virtual meeting on Monday, May 15, 2023, from 5-7 p.m. MT
Register at https://swca.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_S4-EBLxqRHa-yikYQQUNQw)
Denver, Colorado, on Thursday, May 25, 2023, from 5-7 p.m. MT
Denver West Marriott, 1717 Denver West Blvd, Golden, Colorado
Albuquerque, New Mexico on Tuesday, May 30, 2023, from 5-7 p.m. MT
Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, 2401 12th Street NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Reno, Nevada on Thursday, June 1, 2023, from 5-7 p.m. PT
Reno-Sparks Convention Center, 4950 S Virginia Street, Reno, Nevada
Virtual meeting on Monday, June 5, 2023, from 9:30-11:30 a.m. MT
Register at https://swca.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_QwRH6XZeS6amUDI70FzriA

The proposal would help the BLM fulfill its mission, ensuring public lands and the resources they provide are available now and in the future. The proposed rule would build on the historic investments in public lands and waters, restoration and resilience, and clean energy deployment provided by President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act. It would not prevent new or continuing recreational or commercial uses of our public lands, such as grazing, energy development, camping, climbing, and more.

“Our public lands are remarkable places that provide clean water, homes for wildlife, food, energy, and lifetime memories,” said Bureau of Land Management Director Tracy Stone-Manning. “We want to hear from our permittees as well as the millions of visitors who hunt, fish and recreate on our public lands on how to keep them healthy and available for generations to come.”

In addition to these informational public meetings, the BLM wants to hear from the public on the proposed Public Lands Rule. To learn more about this proposed rule, or to provide comment, please visit the Conservation and Landscape Health rule on https://www.regulations.gov. The public comment period is open until June 20, 2023.

-BLM-

An alert TSW reader sent me the new BLM reg which is full of interesting stuff- today, April Fool’s Day.

It’s to be released Monday.

What is Monday? Well, we’re coming into the week of Passover for Jews and Holy Week for Christians.  If you are in either of those groups,  your eyes tend to be focused on history, the spiritual and family. So no, not good timing for something very complex. Although to be fair, the press release had one version was posted on the 30th.

There is indeed MOG stuff in there..and the FS is coming out with their MOG maps soon. I think political scientists would be fascinated by the differences in approaches between the FS and the BLM. I am still a fan of the Service First concept. In my experience, the public liked it a lot (local human beings with direct experience). Is it in the interests of good government for these two agencies to be pushed apart by certain groups with current political power? Should it be a Good Government priority to manage any policy and procedural drift between the two multiple-use agencies carefully?

I thought of our old TSW friend David Beebe, who used to say that the FS was a “captured agency”. (We miss you, David!) When I looked up “regulatory capture” on Wikipedia.. I realized that agencies could be captured by ideological forces..

In politics, regulatory capture (also agency capture and client politics) is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group.[1][2]

When regulatory capture occurs, a special interest is prioritized over the general interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. The theory of client politics is related to that of rent-seeking and political failure; client politics “occurs when most or all of the benefits of a program go to some single, reasonably small interest (e.g., industry, profession, or locality) but most or all of the costs will be borne by a large number of people (for example, all taxpayers)”.[3]

(my bold)

I’m sure we may disagree about what “the general interests of the public” are.. whether processes or outcomes, and how these might best be determined. Nevertheless, I would say that the “general interests of the public”  is to have the two agencies attempt to harmonize as much as possible.

Anyway, I’m sure there’s lots of interesting stuff in there to talk about. Let me know in the comments, and we can set up separate posts/discussion threads for different topics of interest.

Sometimes on TSW I’ve heard negative things about PERC. Certainly they are fans of things some people here disagree with (as per Jonathan Wood’s House testimony last week on the Cottonwood fix).

They have long touted conservation leasing . Here’s their March 31 post, with links to other of their articles on the subject. I am not necessarily a fan of conservation leasing, but I do like it when the government takes ideas from all comers, regardless of ideological orientation.

Though more work remains to advance conservation leasing, this announcement represents a positive step forward toward that goal.

“The Bureau’s proposed rule is a big step in the right direction toward putting conservation on equal footing with other uses like drilling, mining, and ranching. Empowering conservationists to channel their interests through a market mechanism is more effective than zero-sum political warfare.”—Brian Yablonski, CEO, PERC

PERC believes that creating markets for conservation on public lands would allow resources to be managed for their highest-valued uses, whether that means consumption or conservation. Open markets that give everyone a seat at the table would be a cooperative way to make trade-offs in land use decisions and reduce conflict through voluntary exchange.

Perhaps a proposed Rule will drop in the Federal Register tomorrow. But I received this email today. It was so different from the DOI announcement that Steve posted, that at first I didn’t think they were talking about the same thing. But maybe there are two? Anyway it sounds like some groups were given advance copies so they could respond quickly.. but maybe they are guessing, or engaging in wishful thinking. From what I’ve heard, the FS will have some information on their OG initiative within the month. Hopefully the agencies are aligned. I think the theme of these two weeks is “are agencies aligned? And how does that occur? And who is calling the shots?”

Contact:

Environment America Research & Policy Center,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Oregon Wild,
Sierra Club,
Standing Trees,
ReWilding Manager, WildEarth Guardians

Department of Interior moves to protect mature and old-growth trees and forests from logging

Wide-ranging rule will include Bureau of Land Management forest policies

WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) announced Thursday a wide-ranging conservation rule with a goal to “promote ecosystem resilience on public lands” and which includes an acknowledgment of the importance of mature and old-growth trees and forests. The DOI will launch a 75-day public comment period during which members of the public will weigh on forest protection and other policies being considered. Members of the Climate Forests Campaign, a coalition of more than 120 organizations working to protect mature and old-growth trees and forests on federal land from the threat of logging, praised this welcome recognition by DOI, and further called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to adopt rules that protect mature and old growth trees and forests as part of its work to restore U.S Forest Service lands and safeguard communities from fire.

Thursday’s announcements come nearly a year after President Biden issued an executive order acknowledging the critical roles that forests play in fighting climate change and protecting wildlife habitat and directing the DOI and USDA to “develop policies, with robust opportunity for public comment, to institutionalize climate-smart management and conservation strategies that address threats to mature and old-growth forests on Federal lands.”

Over 63 million acres of mature and old-growth forests safeguard carbon, clean water, and biodiversity across all federal public lands, including over 5 million acres managed by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and over 53 million acres managed by the U.S. Forest Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Of these, some 50 million acres are at risk from logging. The DOI’s announcement would begin a rulemaking process for forests managed by the BLM.

The Climate Forests Campaign has been working to raise awareness about the necessity of protecting these trees and forests from logging highlighting 22 logging projects targeting mature and old-growth trees in Forest Service and BLM forests. Yet, only one of those projects, Flat Country in the Willamette National Forest, has been withdrawn because it was incongruous with the Biden administration’s policies regarding protecting trees that are important for fighting climate change.

In response to the agencies’ announcements, advocates issued the following statements:

“This is a much welcomed, necessary step in the right direction for protecting mature and old-growth forests,” said Blaine Miller-McFeeley, senior legislative representative at Earthjustice. “President Biden made clear last Earth Day that he wants to incorporate the conservation of these vital trees as a part of the climate solution. We encourage the U.S. Forest Service to follow the lead of the Bureau of Land Management in progressing that vision.”

“These agencies face many challenges when it comes to protecting mature and old-growth forests on federal lands and they have enormous sway over whether logging takes down our mature forests,” said Environment America Research & Policy Center’s Public Lands Campaign Director, Ellen Montgomery. “Americans love our forests and want to see our oldest trees growing tall for decades and centuries to come. We’ll urge people to make these views known through the upcoming public comment process.”

“BLM manages some of America’s most climate-critical mature forests and trees,” said Garett Rose, Senior Attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “Logging them releases carbon, destroys habitat, and undermines recreational opportunities. Following today’s welcome announcement, the Agency must ensure that the final regulation includes robust protection for these magnificent forests and trees.”

“Recognizing the importance of mature and old-growth forests as a natural climate solution is a huge step forward for the Bureau of Land Management,” said Oregon Wild’s Conservation Director, Steve Pedery. “Now all eyes are on Secretary Haaland to see meaningful protections established that preserve these giants from logging and ensure they remain standing for generations to come.”

“The Department of the Interior manages some of the most important landscapes and ecosystems in the country, including portions of our last mature and old-growth forests,” said Alex Craven, Senior Campaign Representative with Sierra Club. “Today’s announcement shows important leadership from Secretary Haaland, and we look forward to working with the department to make sure it delivers long-awaited protections to these vital and precious forests.”

“We commend the US Department of Interior for taking an important step in the right direction for the protection of the Bureau of Land Management’s mature and old-growth forests,” said Zack Porter, Executive Director of Standing Trees, which advocates on behalf of New England’s public lands. “Now that the BLM is leading the way forward, we expect the U.S. Forest Service to quickly follow suit so that all mature and old-growth forests on federal public lands can be protected for the benefit of future generations, as directed by President Biden in his executive order from Earth Day 2022.”

“The BLM and President Biden recognize the crucial role mature and old-growth forests have in helping address the climate crisis, and we remain hopeful the government will safeguard them from harmful logging operations,” said Adam Rissien, WildEarth Guardians’ ReWilding Manager. “Halting the logging of older, fire-resistant trees is an immediate step the agency can take to stop exacerbating the many natural threats forest face under a changing climate.”

“BLM older forests are some of the most carbon dense on the planet that are essential to the Biden administration’s nature-based climate strategy. They should be protected from all forms of logging as part of BLM’s overall stewardship responsibilities and in compliance with the president’s executive orders to inventory older forests for conservation purposes and to protect 30% of the nation’s lands and waters by 2030” said Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph. D, Chief Scientist, Wild Heritage, Oregon.