Politics

Coverage of the Great American Outdoors Act- Giving Senator Gardner His Due (or Not)

by

Yesterday I posted this asking the question, why 15% of the total backlog $ to the Forest Service? But let’s not lose track that everyone worked together to achieve this, and it made its way through an otherwise divided Congress by amassing support through the work of a coalition and politicians of various stripes doing their legislative thing. So you would think that this would be a time to celebrate! And it is.. and I think the cosponsors in the Senate, Gardner and Manchin, especially deserve to be congratulated.

My favorite story was this one from Outsider Magazine by Frederick Reimers.. I think he got both the celebration for all of us, and the responsibility of Senator Gardner right.

Earlier today the Senate passed the Great American Outdoors Act, allocating billions to support outdoor recreation in two separate ways. The first is by providing $9.5 billion over the next five years to help the National Park Service and other federal land-management agencies address their maintenance backlogs. Federal public lands are suffering from $20 billion in deferred maintenance costs, with $12 billion of that accumulated by the National Park Service. The second is to mandate that the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), widely considered the nation’s single best funding tool for outdoor recreation, be permanently financed to its maximum allotment of $900 million annually. In March the president called for such a bill to land on his desk.

It’s a remarkable breakthrough at a time when the White House has been hostile to federal conservation and land-management agencies and to the LWCF; Trump’s proposed 2021 budget slashed the Park Service budget by $587 million and allocated just $15 million to the LWCF, a mere 1.6 percent of its allotment. The bill passed by a vote of 73 to 25. Proponents, including the bill’s sponsor, Republican Cory Gardner of Colorado, tout the Great American Outdoors Act as a way to get people back to work after millions have been laid off in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Years of bipartisan work have led to this moment and this historic opportunity for conservation,” says Gardner. “Today the Senate passed not only the single greatest conservation achievement in generations but also a lifeline to mountain towns and recreation communities hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

(Sharon’s note: Colorado is full of “mountain towns and recreation communities.”)

A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced their version of the legislation in the House of Representatives on June 4, and passage of that version is expected in the coming weeks, clearing the way for the president to sign the bill into law.

“We are going to have to rebuild the economy, and this can be a really big part of that,” says Democratic senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, noting that nationally, outdoor recreation contributes $778 billion in consumer spending and supports 5.2 million jobs, yet “our trails and campgrounds aren’t in the shape that they should be, which directly impacts economic activity on public lands and in gateway communities.”

In May, more than 850 signatories representing conservation organizations, local governments, and state and regional tourism boards urged congressional leaders to support the bill. “The Great American Outdoors Act will ensure a future for nature to thrive, kids to play, and hunters and anglers to enjoy,” they wrote.

Senator Heinrich of New Mexico, in addition to Gardner and Manchin, appears to be a special hero to Forest Service fans:

Heinrich lauds Republican senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Rob Portman of Ohio, in addition to Gardner and Daines, with being tireless champions of the Great American Outdoors Act, which he says was named “to appeal to the White House.”

Heinrich, who most observers credit with driving the effort to expand maintenance funding beyond the Park Service, explains that while the Bureau of Indian Education doesn’t have a recreation mission, it was included in the bill because, by “historical accident,” the agency was placed in the Department of the Interior, and therefore, he says, “time and again their funding levels get left out. Sometimes you have to deal with the history that puts us where we are.”

Disappointingly, IMHO, the Paonia, Colorado-based High Country News reprinted a piece from the HuffPost that focused on the “vulnerable” Republicans and implied that they only supported the bill because they are “vulnerable.” It was part of an effort called Climate Desk, although the link between the GAOA and climate is less than direct IMHO. I recognize that partisan politics is one lens to view the news. It shouldn’t be the only lens, though, even if it’s easier to acquire that reporting from NGO-funded news sources.

“It is a desperate attempt to convince their constituents that they aren’t working on behalf of corporations and that they care about what the American people care about,” said Jayson O’Neill, director of public lands watchdog group Western Values Project.

We discussed the Western Values Project in this post, which also has a link to Dave Skinner’s writing in the Flathead Beacon, and an E&E News story.

I hope every state has an outlet like Colorado Politics. It helps us understand who is funding whom to what end, always of interest.

Based on CoPo stories, the Sierra Club has taken a particular dislike to Senator Gardner, from this CoPo piece from November.

“The organization notes that Gardner has introduced a bill to reauthorize of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but his heart isn’t really in it. “[H]is apparent goal is not to pass full funding for LWCF, but rather to maximize the number of positive press hits he gets talking about full funding of LWCF,” according to the Sierra Club. “He has put forth an amendment he knows will not get a vote and in reality does little to move the ball forward.”

Given the outcome with the Great American Outdoors Act, that statement seems remarkably non-prescient. Or this one from CoPo in December:

“Sen. Gardner sits in the majority in the Senate, sees himself as a leader in his party, so there is no good reason for him not to get full funding completed by the end of this year,” said Emily Gedeon, conservation program director for the Colorado Sierra Club. “He puts himself out as an ardent conservationist, but talk is not enough, and he needs to be calling on Senate leadership to get this done.”

After rolling out five critical billboards around the state — including along the main road to the incumbent Republican’s hometown, Yuma — the environmental advocacy organization announced Tuesday that it has another $150,000 in TV ads on network stations in Colorado Springs, Denver and on the Eastern Plains to run through Dec. 20.

I understand that the Sierra Club must think that a D majority in the Senate would be a good thing for the environment, but can we all just take a deep breath and celebrate something good for a few days? And consider, for a minute, that it’s conceivable that Gardner is representing our state’s and people’s interests, and the idea that it’s a political ploy may be worth a few sentences, but is certainly not the whole story.

Trump’s latest marching orders on public lands

by
Trump – Nailed it

The Trump Administration declared the coronavirus pandemic to be a “national emergency” in March. On June 4, the president issued an executive order on “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities.”  It has been characterized as “waiving environmental protections,” in particular the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, and would include actions taken on public lands. This has been condemned in the usual places.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out on federal lands, and whether it makes any difference.  Trump already has the pedal to the metal on development activities, so I wonder what more they could do – without actually violating a law.  Maybe we should expect more lawsuits.

Here’s some of the key language in the EO (with my emphasis):

Sec. 2.  Policy.  Agencies, including executive departments, should take all appropriate steps to use their lawful emergency authorities and other authorities to respond to the national emergency and to facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery.  (I assume that means other non-emergency authorities, and not other unlawful authorities 🙂 )

Sec. 5.  Expediting the Delivery of Infrastructure and Other Projects on Federal Lands

b)  To facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall use all relevant emergency and other authorities to expedite work on, and completion of, all authorized and appropriated infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects on Federal lands that are within the authority of each of the Secretaries to perform or to advance.

Sec. 6.  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Emergency Regulations and Emergency Procedures.

b)  To facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery, the heads of all agencies are directed to use, to the fullest extent possible and consistent with applicable law, emergency procedures, statutory exemptions, categorical exclusions, analyses that have already been completed, and concise and focused analyses, consistent with NEPA, CEQ’s NEPA regulations, and agencies’ NEPA procedures.

Sec. 7.  Endangered Species Act (ESA) Emergency Consultation Regulations.

(b)  The heads of all agencies are directed to use, to the fullest extent possible and consistent with applicable law, the ESA regulation on consultations in emergencies, to facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery.

Sec. 10.  General Provisions

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Of course an executive order can’t change the law or regulations, and this one explicitly refers to existing procedures that can be used in emergencies.  All I see Trump doing here is pointing out that there are existing authorities to expedite projects, and agencies should be using them.  But maybe the intent might be to expand the situations that are considered emergencies to include an economic recession.  I doubt that could be done “consistent with applicable law” related to emergency determinations.  Here is the language applicable to Forest Service NEPA (36 CFR §220.4):

The responsible official may take actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency and are urgently needed to mitigate harm to life, property, or important natural or cultural resources.

If there is a need to mitigate immediate harm to life, property or important resources, it would be consistent with applicable law to use the established emergency procedures.  There is either nothing new in the executive order, or if there is, we should expect it to be challenged.  (And then there is the question of why he waited three months to address this “emergency.”)

But these are dark days.  The Washington Post quoted an attorney at a large national law firm (Perkins Coie) that doesn’t usually represent environmental plaintiffs.  He noted that the National Environmental Policy Act was enacted 50 years ago partly to prevent arbitrary federal decisions such as building highways through parks and communities of color and that the current administration cannot simply set aside laws aimed at protecting vulnerable Americans or the environment. “I will not be surprised to see many observers comparing this move — declaring an emergency to shield agency decisions from the public — to the order to clear Lafayette Square on Monday evening,” Jensen said, referring to actions in a Washington park this week. “It’s just one more face of authoritarian ideology, with a clear link to issues of race and equality and government accountability.”

 

What’s Up With: Biden “No New Leases” and Funding LWCF?

by
From Idaho LWCF summary.

Colorado Senator Gardner (R) and Senator Manchin of WVA (D) were responsible for shepherding the recent LWCF bill through Congress and getting it signed by the President.  Their efforts were greatly supported by the conservation community in general.

Here’s a link to the Forest Service LWCF page. I couldn’t get the map to work, and I’d be interested in whether others can.

Currently the push from organizations like the Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition is to get Congress to use all the funds (you can sign on to a letter).

It was a simple idea: use revenues from the depletion of one natural resource – offshore oil and gas – to support the conservation of another precious resource – our land and water. Every year, $900 million in royalties paid by energy companies drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) are put into this fund. The money is intended to protect national parks, areas around rivers and lakes, national forests, and national wildlife refuges from development, and to provide matching grants for state and local parks and recreation projects.  Over the years, LWCF has also grown and evolved to include grants to protect working forests, wildlife habitat, critical drinking water supplies and disappearing battlefields, as well as increased use of easements.

Yet, nearly every year, Congress breaks its own promise to the American people and diverts much of this funding to uses other than conserving our most important lands and waters.

Now as part of Senator Biden’s campaign, he pledged to “ban new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters” (from the WaPo compendium of positions). I wasn’t sure (1) that the OCS counts as public lands or waters or (2) perhaps the OCS is all leased anyway. Of course, I’m also not sure that “public” is the right word, as I’m not sure the Prez can legally dictate what happens on the land of other government entities.

I couldn’t find any info on this anywhere, and finally a kindly E&E reporter gave me this link to a story by E&E News reporter Kellie Lunney. I hope you can read the whole thing, but I’m not sure about the E&E paywall. Some excerpts:

It’s not an entirely new argument. Members of Congress from energy-producing states, including Louisiana, have pointed out over the years that oil and gas drilling revenues pay for a wide range of conservation and coastal restoration projects, including LWCF.

But it’s an argument that could end up gaining more traction than some more gimmicky attempts — such as that the Green New Deal will eliminate hamburgers and milkshakes — that opponents have used to mock the framework as unrealistic and foolish (E&E Daily, Feb. 28).

“Yeah, I think it’s a Catch-22,” said House Natural Resources Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) about the dependence of programs like LWCF on oil and gas revenues.

“The more we become dependent on that, the more the push is going to be to expand that, and I think we need to mitigate that.”

Grijalva helped craft the public lands package and push permanent LWCF reauthorization along with the panel’s top Republican, Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah.

The chairman said that other than straight-up appropriations for LWCF, there are “not too many” other funding mechanisms he could envision for the program if the offshore drilling revenue stream were to dry up.

But that’s why it’s important now to allocate more money to the fund than it has traditionally received, to “maximize its use” and start making the transition from offshore revenue-dependent funding, Grijalva said.

The authorized funding level for LWCF is $900 million, but it has hardly ever been funded at that level; its annual appropriations in recent years have typically been about half that.

There’s also GOMESA

The 2006 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA), passed shortly after Hurricane Katrina, allows four Gulf Coast states — Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas — to share 37.5 percent of oil and gas revenues produced in federal waters off their coasts to assist them with coastal restoration and storm protection.

It’s a critical program for the area, and one the region’s lawmakers fiercely defend.

Louisiana Rep. Garret Graves (R) has referred to the state’s coastal region as being the “goose laying the golden egg” for the federal government when it comes to LWCF, and possibly a trust fund of unallocated revenues to pay for the massive public lands and national parks maintenance backlog (E&E Daily, Nov. 13, 2018).

A portion of GOMESA revenues also helps fund LWCF. Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas generated $200 billion in offshore oil and gas revenue last year for the federal government.

What I got from all this is (1) in the short run, with Biden’s promise (and assuming Congress goes along with it) money will keep flowing in from current leases, (2) in the medium term, that funding would dry up and need to be replaced by another source of funding (renewable energy on federal land?) or to the general taxpayers (but that requires budget battles that they may not win). So perhaps we ought to think about replacement in terms of payments to the feds (and the state portion) for future wind and solar leases on federal land. It’s probably not too soon to start thinking about it.

(2) folks in Congress are actually working across the aisle (even possibly unlikely ones like Grijalva and Bishop!)

Texas congressional delegation wants federal oil & gas leasing to fire up in the state

by

From the Forest Service scoping notice:

The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT) is initiating the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS will analyze and disclose the effects of identifying areas as available or unavailable for new oil and gas leasing. The proposed action identifies the following elements: What lands will be made available for future oil and gas leasing; what stipulations will be applied to lands available for future oil and gas leasing, and if there would be any plan amendments to the 1996 NFGT Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan).

The Forest Service withdrew its consent to lease NFGT lands from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for oil and gas development in 2016. The reason for the withdrawal of consent was due to stakeholder concerns, including insufficient public notification, insufficient opportunity for public involvement, and insufficient environmental analysis. There is a need to analyze the impacts of new oil and gas development technologies on surface and subsurface water and geologic resources; air resources; fish and wildlife resources; fragile and rare ecosystems; threatened and endangered species; and invasive plant management. There is also a need to examine changed conditions since the Forest Plan was published.

These leasing availability decisions are forest plan decisions that were most recently made in 1996.  The action proposed by the Forest Service would result in changes in the stipulations and would therefore require a forest plan amendment.  The changes would shift about 11,000 acres from “controlled surface use” to “no surface occupancy,” and remove timing limitations from about 35,000 acres.

A letter from five Republican members of the delegation disagrees with the premise that the 1996 analysis was inadequate, and is unhappy with the pace of the amendment process.

The published timeline anticipated a Draft EIS in the winter of 2019 with the Final EIS expected in the fall of 2020. We are concerned that this timeline is no longer achievable given current pace of progress.

We request that USFS end the informal comment period, issue a Draft EIS this spring and ultimately approve the Final EIS that reinstates BLM’s ability to offer public competitive leases of National Forest and Grasslands in Texas for oil and gas leases before the end of 2020. While USFS is required by law to respond to eligible comments received within the public comment window (CFR218.12), the Forest Supervisor also has the authority to declare the available science sound, conclude the public comment period, and proceed with the issuance of the scoping comments and alternative development workshops as the next steps ahead of a Draft EIS (CFR219.2.3, 219.3) (sic).

That last sentence got my attention as the kind of congressional attention to Forest Service decision-making that might cause them to cut a legal corner here or there (especially when there is an election coming).  I also noticed the absence of any reference to the new requirements for amendments, and maybe the delay could have something to do with this becoming evident to them as a result of scoping.  36 CFR §219.13(b)(6):

For an amendment to a plan developed or revised under a prior planning regulation, if species of conservation concern (SCC) have not been identified for the plan area and if scoping or NEPA effects analysis for the proposed amendment reveals substantial adverse impacts to a specific species, or if the proposed amendment would substantially lessen protections for a specific species, the responsible official must determine whether such species is a potential SCC, and if so, apply section §219.9(b) with respect to that species as if it were an SCC.

I found nothing in the EIS for the 1996 revision about effects of oil & gas development on at-risk wildlife species.  You’d think the new information since 1996 might have something to do with effects on climate change, too.

Let’s Discuss: Other D Candidates’ Wildfire Proposals

by

from this website https://www.270towin.com/2020-democratic-nomination

In yesterday’s post, I quoted from Bloomberg’s website. It’s harder to find this information for others, but this article in the Desert Sun, did a nice job of rounding up the other candidates’ answers (although like for my requests from the campaigns, not everyone responded). Thanks to Susan Britting for providing this link! Also note that Malcolm North, a Forest Service Research scientist, was allowed to talk to the press and even design a thoughtful question for the candidates.

Warren

Wildfires pose an especially serious threat to low-income communities, people with disabilities, and seniors. That’s why Elizabeth has committed to:

*Improving fire mapping and prevention by investing in advanced modeling with a focus on helping the most vulnerable — incorporating not only fire vulnerability but community demographics.
*Prioritize these data to invest in land management, particularly near the most vulnerable communities, supporting forest restoration, lowering fire risk, and creating jobs all at once.
*Invest in microgrid technology, so that we can de-energize high-risk areas when required without impacting the larger community’s energy supply.
*Collaborate with Tribal governments on land management practices to reduce wildfires, including by incorporating traditional ecological practices and exploring co-management and the return of public resources to indigenous protection wherever possible.
*She’s also committed to prioritizing at-risk populations in disaster planning and response and strengthening rules to require disaster response plans to uphold the rights of vulnerable populations. A Warren administration will center a right to return for individuals who have been displaced during a disaster and while relocation should be a last resort, when it occurs, she is committed to improving living standards and keeping communities together whenever possible.

My take: not so sure more modeling is needed, I’m assuming “more vulnerable” means old and/or poor and/or minority. It sounds like spending a lot of money to figure out how to prioritize spending money. This is one of those things that it would be interesting to see what it would look like in practice. Maybe poorer communities get fuel treatments around them, and richer communities need to pitch in? Perhaps it already works that way in practice. The idea of “returning public resources to indigenous protection wherever possible” sounds interesting. I’m not sure how I think the federal government should be involved in a “right to return.” Seems to me like something that should be worked out between people, communities, their local governments, and insurers.

Pete Buttigieg: wildfires are included in climate change and resilient infrastructure.

Tom Steyer:

As part of my Justice Centered Climate Plan, I will invest nearly $500 billion in the upkeep and protection of our watersheds, wetlands, national parks, and forests — and this includes fire management as well as protecting our clean drinking water. Because while some of the impacts of climate change are already here, there are levelheaded preventative measures we can take to protect ourselves and our forests from the worst dangers. My plan puts $555 billion into developing climate-smart communities and housing and an additional $755 billion into adaptation, resilience, and green infrastructure. This will ensure that the people who are displaced from fires and flooding have affordable places to live with access to green space. And it will also ensure that they have good-paying jobs building our new climate-resilient infrastructure, protecting our lands and waters, and serving communities hit by the climate crisis as long-term disaster recovery workers.

That’s a lot of money, but I’m curious about the “levelheaded preventative measures” and if those are the same as “developing climate-smart communities and housing” or “upkeep and protection” of private and federal lands.

Bernie Sanders:

We must invest now in mitigating these more frequent and severe wildfires, making our infrastructure more resilient, and preparing for disaster response. We must change our framework of fire suppression and forest management to take the whole local ecosystem into account, including the rural communities who are most vulnerable.

In California, developers are building houses in fire hazard zones, a move partially driven by the housing shortage. Bernie is committed to fully closing the 7.4 million unit shortage of affordable housing to guarantee housing to all as a right. We will work to ensure housing growth is climate-resilient, with experts and impacted communities included every step of the way.

We’ll expand the wildfire restoration and disaster preparedness workforce. We’ll increase federal funding for firefighting by $18 billion to deal with the increased severity and frequency of wildfires. Furthermore, we must facilitate community evacuation plans that include people experiencing homelessness, and increase social cohesion for rapid and resilient disaster recovery to avoid the use of martial law and increased policing in disaster response.

We’ll also amend the Stafford Act to ensure that FEMA ensures that recovery and rebuilding efforts make affected communities stronger than they were before the disaster so they are more resilient to the next disaster.

There are certainly many more voters (and delegates) in California, as the map above shows, so perhaps a California-centric view of wildfires is appropriate. Still, the relationship between housing shortages and living in fire-prone areas (grasslands, shrublands and forests) is more complicated in the Interior West than a lack of affordable housing in the cities. People would rather be here, and many are retired or work from home.

I like the idea of increasing social cohesion (but the martial law thing is a little scary). However, I wonder how politicians who spend their lives saying bad things about their opponents (and sometimes their supporters) can quickly spin to uniting people and community-building. I’ll be glad to see it if he is elected.

The other candidates apparently did not respond to the Desert Sun’s query (nor mine).

I’d have to give the “thoughtfulness about wildfire” aka “not just another climate issue” award to Bloomberg and Warren. Others have told me that they have more staff and that could be the reason. Certainly they are the only two who answered my questions, so there might be something to that. What do you think?

Let’s Discuss: Bloomberg’s Wildfire Resilience Plan

by

)

I’ve been trying to collect information on different D candidates’ positions on various federal lands policy issues. I was thinking we could take a candidate per day, but perhaps should have started sooner. Here is a link to a pdf

Mike will set a goal to reduce deaths and property losses from wildfires by 50% within four years. He will direct the U.S. Forest Service to coordinate with federal, state and local agencies, tribal leaders, environmental groups, rural communities, private timber companies, utilities, and the insurance industry to develop fire management plans for each state at risk.

Do States already have fire management plans? Would the goal possibly interfere with suppression choices to do WFU?

Double federal funding for fire management
Mike will double federal funding for fire management to $10 billion and devote half to mitigation efforts. These new resources will fund efforts to rapidly increase the pace and scale of forest restoration, reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Federal money will also be directed to help fireproof homes and communities, develop evacuation plans, and strengthen other local resilience efforts, which will save lives, create jobs, reduce the costs and dangers of firefighting, and bolster insurance networks.

Of course, Presidents can’t actually double funding, but “increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration” sounds like another billionaire’s (currently President) policy. It’s nice to see some apparently bipartisan ideas.

Create a national Wildfire Corps to make communities more fire-resilient and restore healthy forest ecosystems
Mike will create a national Wildfire Corps, a new partnership between federal, tribal, state and local governments and communities. The Corps will hire and train thousands of workers to lead efforts to make communities more fire-resilient and restore healthy forest ecosystems. It also will provide enough firefighters to quickly contain wildfires when they break out.

I’m not sure that there is a lack of people if they were funded, perhaps there is, and/or a lack of training. I wonder if we asked fire people in communities would they see the same needs?

Use data and technology to detect and mitigate fires and to improve firefighting techniques. Mike’s administration will help fund a network of sensors and cameras to detect fires faster and more cheaply, and will strengthen the communications grid for public safety and emergency notifications. It will partner with state authorities to use satellites, drones, firefighting aircraft, and AI and communications technology to help predict the spread of fires and improve firefighting techniques.

Better technology.. why not?

What do you all think of these ideas?

Public land developers getting financial pushback

by

An interesting observation from the Washington Post.  As investors become more enlightened about the financial risks caused by climate change they are starting to hold corporations accountable.  That includes their operations on public lands – and litigation is part of the risk.

A dozen-and-a-half senators wrote letters to 11 of the largest U.S. banks asking them to back down from financing any oil and gas activity in an unspoiled expanse of Arctic wilderness.

“The scale of your banks’ assets individually, let alone together, give you the ability to drive change in protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in shifting towards a U.S. financial sector that effectively analyzes and plans for climate risks,” the group of a senators, led by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), told Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and six other banks in a letter sent last Thursday.

Democrats hope these banks follow the lead of one key peer: In December, Goldman Sachs said it is ruling out financing new drilling or oil exploration in the entire Arctic.

The world’s largest asset management firm, BlackRock, said last month it would divest from coal burned in power plants and make climate change a “defining factor” of its investing strategy.

And just last week, a group of investors representing nearly $113 billion in assets under management issued a similar letter to energy, mining and timber companies. Their warning: Don’t invest in certain federally controlled areas once protected but now open to development by the Trump administration.

These areas include not only the oil-rich Arctic refuge but also Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the largest intact temperate rainforest where the U.S. Forest Service wants to allow new logging, (discussed here) and Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (the Twin Metals mine litigation is discussed here), a popular lake-pocked forest near where the administration wants to allow a copper and nickel mining operation.

The institutional investors, which include several religious funds as well as a fund established by the late oil heir David Rockefeller, warned companies that many of the administration’s rollbacks of public land protections are legally precarious, and may be struck down by the courts or the next presidential administration. The letter went out to ExxonMobil, the timber company Weyerhaeuser and 56 other firms, according to Reuters.

“Many of these projects are mired in litigation,” the letter stated, “challenging the legality of any current or future industrial activity initiated in these regions and providing evidence of the risks associated with conducting commercial development on lands that the American public has deemed valuable for protection.”

The institutional investor letter also mentioned other areas, including protected sage grouse habitat (litigation discussed here) and the national monuments that have been reduced in size by the Trump Administration that are also under litigation (discussed here).  Here’s the latest on that.

Democratic Primary Candidates (2020) on Federal Lands Issues

by

This post is intended to start an information source and discussion on where Democratic primary candidates stand on federal lands issues. The WaPo has a very useful section called “Where Democrats Stand”. Most of the time, federal lands issues would probably not show up, but the WaPo did ask a question “would you end leasing for fossil fuel extraction on federal lands?” Here’s the link. If others can find a handy place where candidates’ other federal lands policy positions can be found, or add to the WaPo findings, please post in the comments. Note: I believe that we can talk about candidates’ positions without saying mean things abouot them or each other.

BACKGROUND A significant amount of the nation’s fossil fuel production happens on federal lands and waters — 42 percent of coal, 24 percent of crude oil and 13 percent of natural gas in 2017. The extraction and combustion of these fuels accounted for nearly a quarter of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions between 2005 and 2014, according to a study from the U.S. Geological Survey study. The Keep It In the Ground Act by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) would end new federal leases for fossil fuel extraction on federal lands and waters. The Obama administration issued a moratorium on coal leasing in 2016, but it was reversed by the Trump administration, an action that has led to an ongoing legal battle.

Note that Senator Bennet, the only candidate from a state with substantial federal lands, did not respond. I did not check the WaPo’s figures, but they seem consistent with this CRS report.

The argument seems to be that if we didn’t produce that coal, oil, and gas on federal land, the GHG’s would not be emitted. It seems to me that experience has shown that we would substitute from private land or import. Perhaps that would lead to increased prices (reduced supply) and therefore the amount of GHG’s emitted would thereby be reduced. However, the need to raise prices for essential heat, electricity and transportation fuel (having the pain felt by those with least discretionary income) to reduce demand doesn’t seem like big vote-getter, so it’s not clear to me exactly what the logic path is.

Biden says “banning new oil and gas permitting” but perhaps not coal? Not clear.
Bloomberg says “I will immediately end all new fossil fuel leases on federal land.”
Buttigieg “supports” ending new leases for fossil fuel extraction. Perhaps this is more realistic than “immediately ending” an activity that is provided for in statute.
Gabbard says “end the leasing of fossil fuel extraction on federal lands and watere.”
Klobuchar and Patrick also “support ending new leases.”
Sanders wants to keep everything in the ground, which includes federal lands.
Tom Steyer says “Keep publicly-owned oil, coal, and gas in the ground by stopping the expansion of fossil fuel leases and establishing a careful process to wind down federal onshore and offshore fossil fuel production.” This sounds a little different than just having new leases, but not sure. Also not sure you need a “careful process” to wind it down if you stop issuing leases.
Warren says “As president, I would issue an executive order on day one banning all new fossil fuel leases, including for drilling or fracking offshore and on public lands.”
Yang supports ending leasing for fossil fuel extraction on federal lands, his campaign told The Post.

Two candidates responded with specific goals for federal lands and renewable energy:
Bloomberg includes “expedite clean energy development in federal lands along with offshore wind.”
Warren pledges “to generate 10% of our overall electricity needs from renewable sources offshore or on public lands.”

Of course, ramping up clean energy on federal lands comes with environmental concerns as well.

There’s also a link to a fracking ban here. Here the candidates are more diverse. Perhaps Bennet has the most nuanced “I believe natural gas has a role to play” in transitioning to net-zero emissions “as long as it is developed in a way that protects the health of our communities” and Klobuchar, perhaps, the oddest “So as president in my first 100 days, I will review every fracking permit there is and decide which ones should be allowed to be continued and which ones are too dangerous.”

Missoula Forest Collaboration Roundtable

by

Montana Public Radio collected some interesting perspectives.

What collaboration looks like to what some would consider a “far-right politician:”

“We were thrilled to have the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation with us today, that is exclusively focused on habitat restoration for elk and sportsmen. We want to continue to have all voices at the table,” Gianforte said…  I think all voices needed to be at the table in these collaboratives, but you have to participate in good faith,” he said. “There have been instances here in Montana where a collaborative worked literally for years to put a project together, and yet people who were at the table still sued. We have to prevent that sort of bad behavior.”

Is it “collaboration” when your participation means you can’t sue over the outcome?

What this idea of collaboration looks like to what some would consider an “extreme environmental group” (Alliance for the Wild Rockies):

“He wants to have all voices that agree with him at the table,” Michael Garrity says.  Garrity says he had no advance notice about Thursday’s roundtable. The Alliance is frequently at odds with — and in court fighting against — timber interests over forest policy.  Garrity said Friday that not only did he not receive an invitation, no one from what he called the environmental community got one either. And without that perspective, he says this week’s roundtable was simply an echo chamber. “It’s not going to be a good dialog unless they invite groups that oppose some logging by the Forest Service.”

My emphasis, especially on the “some,” not all logging.  (The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation does not oppose logging, though some elk hunters and groups do.)

What collaboration and litigation look like to the Forest Service:

“Different people see it in different ways; including different courts,” (USDA Undersecretary) Hubbard said. “The idea is for us to come together and agree on what kind of treatments make some sense, what satisfies most of the interest out there in one way or another, and then be able to implement that and have the courts support that with some consistent rulings.”

(My emphasis.)  The implication is that courts are just another form of public opinion.  And that it’s ok to exclude some of the interest out there, like “groups that oppose some logging.”  (And my usual gripe – the scope of project collaboration should include not just the “kind of treatments,” but which areas should be treated.)

(And there’s some discussion of categorical exclusions and the Good Neighbor Authority, too.)

2016 election consequences for Colorado federal lands

by

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management over the last several years have been developing long-term Resource Management Plans for more than 3 million acres of BLM lands in Eastern Colorado and the Uncompahgre Plateau and in the Rio Grande National Forest.  According to this article, the state and local communities are not happy.

The Trump-driven shift toward more oil and gas development on public lands worries Colorado politicians and conservation groups that are steering the state toward increased protections. Agencies within the same department seem in conflict. Long-studied plans are changing between between draft and final reports, with proposed protections fading away and opportunities for extraction growing…

“What we are seeing is the full effect — in proposed actions — of the 2016 election at the local level,” Ouray County Commissioner Ben Tisdel said.

The article goes into detail about the effects on the Uncompahgre Field Office’s proposed plan:

County commissioners from Gunnison, Ouray and San Miguel counties have filed protests with the BLM over the Uncompahgre Field Office’s proposed plan. The counties have been involved with the planning for eight years. In 2016, the counties submitted comments on the plan outlining concerns for the Gunnison sage grouse and listing parcels the agency should protect and retain as federal lands.

“Alternative E proposed doing all the things we specifically asked them not to do,” said Tisdel, the Ouray County commissioner, adding that lands his county wanted protected were listed in the 2019 plan for possible disposal by the agency. “We thought we had a pretty good product in 2016 and now we have this new alternative, Alternative E, that goes way beyond anything we had seen before and is awful in ways we never thought of before.”

With regard to the Rio Grande National Forest revised forest plan:

The move from that September 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the final version released in August has riled conservationists and sportsmen. Goals established for air quality, designated trails, fisheries management, fire management, wildlife connectivity and habitat were scaled back in between the draft and final versions.

Colorado’s governor has weighed in on the BLM plan (in language consistent with the Western Governors Association policies):

The resource management plan’s “failure to adopt commitments consistent with the state plans, policies and agreements hinders Colorado’s ability to meet its own goals and objectives for wildlife in the planning area,” Polis wrote.

The BLM had an interesting response:

“There is room to adjust within the RMP, which has a built-in adaptive management strategy,” he said. “We are ready to respond as the state’s plans are complete.”

So they plan to do whatever the state wants them to do later?  “Room to adjust within the RMP” appears to mean that they don’t have to go through a plan amendment process with the public, which seems unlikely to be legal for the kinds of changes the state appears to want.  (It definitely wouldn’t work for national forest plans.)

The Western Energy Alliance blames the governor for being late to the game:

It doesn’t get a complete do-over just because something new happens, like Gov. Polis issues a new order.”

But it does apparently get a complete do-over because a new federal government administration says so.  There may still be some legal process (e.g. NEPA) questions this raises.