Slouching Toward Industrial Policy I. Let’s Do a Programmatic EIS for Decarbonization!

by
What about a collaborative process for decarbonization?

This week, I’m going to post a series of NEPA papers for discussion.  But I’d like to start out with a fairly wild idea.  Last month, I attended a conference put on by The Breakthrough Institute titled “Slouching Toward Industrial Policy.”  For the past years (20 or more), the US has been debating how exactly to decarbonize.    In the Obama and Biden Administrations, the tendency has been to go for solar and wind and hope for batteries.  During the Trump Admin, the focus was on “all of the above” , domestic production of oil and gas and hope for CCS technologies.  The IRA was called “the Most Important Climate Action in US History” by Forbes.

And yet, the IRA is something of an “all of the above” as well.  So, as I call them, all the technological horses in the horse race are getting extra grain via the bill, from batteries to CCS.   And yet, when it comes to permitting or where what stuff will be built, there doesn’t seem to be a plan.   Perhaps an analogy is PODs versus “random acts of restoration.”  Or when I worked in genetically engineered plants, a company wanted to grow pharmaceuticals in outcrossing food plants.  I asked them to begin with the end in mind, in that case, doing an EIS.

Thinking about a more coherent semi-industrial policy, I developed the three A’s which I think are necessary to any such policy. The first is to develop Agreement, the second is Alignment and the third is Accountability. I sometimes wonder whether, like some other environmental issues (say ESA reform), some powerful political figures prefer jabbing the other political party to actually solving the problem. So we’d need an open and transparent mechanism to develop Agreement outside partisan bickering- perhaps some kind of collaborative process writ large?  And hey, I know that Congress doesn’t need to do NEPA, but heck, it’s a process that works for the most part.  It’s, as some Congressfolk say, a bedrock environmental law that shouldn’t be tampered with.  But there’s no reason, in my mind, to restrict NEPA-like processes to small problems, and leave large problems to random political windshifts or flipflops.  The structured analysis, transparency (FOIAble) and opportunities for public engagement  seem to me especially appropriate to our biggest problems that require big solutions (across the landscape).

What if the US approached decarbonizing by doing an enormous programmatic EIS?  As we’ll see later this week, there’s a divergence between what NEPA practitioners generally think of programmatics (not worth the time) versus others like CEQ and some law profs, so maybe CEQ should be in charg?  So I think we’d have willing volunteers from the “programmatics are good” commuity.  Or like the NW Forest Plan, we could have a FACA committee with representatives from different energy producers, distribution systems and so on, unions, economists, national security folks and so on. Alternatives could be developed with realistic scenarios of future demand, supply chains, and labor needed with the people currently working on such things brought in.   Of course,  specific locations of new infrastructure (power plants, transmission lines, etc.), and sources of raw materials would need to be included.

Research funds would be focused on trying to answer questions needed by this group of analysts.  We could have a moratorium on “bad things could happen in the future based on models” climate research, and fund this kind of work, using whatever mix of disciplines and practitioners would be needed to shed necessary light in the dark corners.  And all the information would be publicly peer reviewed.

Sidenote: a foundation funded the Society of Environmental Journalists webinar with Stanford Prof Mark Jacobson. He did a study that showed that 139 countries could go to all wind solar and hydro by 2050. Right now, if reporters wonder about that study, they have nowhere else obvious to go.  If this EIS existed, they would.  We all would.

Things like permitting difficulties due to local concerns,  or even “whoops, our offshore wind economics models turned out wrong” or “gosh, it turns out that those Europeans need our LNG” might show up in scenarios, and uncertainties would be in the open, and in some cases handled by formal sensitivity analysis or other procedures. And of course, there are unknown unknowns, but they exist whether or not the US tries to develop a cohesive and coherent set of policies, or just randomly picks things that sound good to powerful interests of various kinds. I think all of us would learn a lot; and our chosen policies might be more realistic. And think of all the agency NEPA practitioners for decarb projects who could simply tier to that EIS!  What’s not to like?

TSW Kelly Martin Presentation Video and New Tab for Discussions of Moderation on TSW

by

Many thanks again to Kelly Martin for making herself available for a presentation on the Wildfire Commission Report last Friday! And thanks to all who attended and participated.

We had an interesting discussion afterwards, in which  members of the group disagreed on some things (e.g. around the use of beneficial wildfire) and agreed on others (developing affordable housing for firefighters).  One of my favorite moments was toward the end of the video, when Kelly talks about her passions for this work, and why she continues working on these issues in retirement.  I’m sure she articulated how many of us feel and can’t express nearly as well.

I’m hoping the video will work for those who couldn’t attend. It’s posted here. Please comment below if it doesn’t work for you.

Also, The Hotshot Wakeup did an interview with Kelly and the podcast also well worth a listen.

On today’s show, I welcome Kelly Martin to discuss the new Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission’s report to Congress, everything happening with the workforce, legislation, and beneficial fire.

The Presidential Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission was established in 2022. Kelly was one of 500 applicants who applied to voluntarily serve on this 50-member Commission. She was selected to fill the primary seat representing Wildland Firefighters.

Kelly’s 35-year federal career as a wildland firefighter provided invaluable technical and subject matter expertise to the Commission, ultimately obtaining unanimous consensus on comprehensive workforce reforms (see recommendations 84-103 in the Commission report).

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

Comment Moderation- New Tab

I don’t get to read everyone’s comments, but I have noted a couple of requests for moderation.  So I made another tab above labelled “Moderation Requests and Discussion” so I can find them.  Please put all such comments there or a link to the moderation comments you’ve already made. I do want to respond but I want to be more or less consistent, and I want to be able to find them all. Thank you!

Forest Service Proposed Rule on Carbon Capture and Storage

by
From Clearpath https://clearpath.org/tech-101/pore-space-101-carbon-capture-cant-rock-and-roll-without-storage/

This is where all this gets really interesting to me, as it is jostling between different environmental interests- climate vs. traditional preservation types.  So in what used to be our federal lands space, we will have environmental lawyers  and political operatives duking it out, with federal employees doing the NEPA work, the companies rolling the dice,  and the public likely relegated to the bleachers. And without all the partisan rancor featured in other discussions… at least so far.

The proposal published in the Federal Register would exempt carbon capture and storage (CCS) from an existing agency requirement prohibiting permanent or “perpetual” use of such lands.

Because CCS projects would store carbon dioxide in pore space underground for more than 1,000 years after the gas is injected, it would be tantamount to an “an exclusive and perpetual use and occupancy” not allowed under current rules, according to the Forest Service, which is part of the Department of Agriculture.

By exempting CCS from the prohibition on permanent projects, the Forest Service can review proposals and applications and “authorize proposed carbon capture and storage on NFS lands if, where, and as deemed appropriate,” the proposed rule said.

National forests and grasslands could support greater deployment of carbon capture projects, as they offer billions of tons of CO2 storage potential and blocks of land under government ownership, rather than involving multiple owners.

Some environmental and advocacy groups, however, rejected the prospect of allowing CCS projects on Forest Service lands, saying the plan would create pollution, prolong the fossil fuel industry and put delicate ecosystems at risk.

“This serious rule change invites polluters to apply for dangerous CO2-dumping permits in our national forests,” said Victoria Bogdan Tejeda, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law program, in an email. “Our forests should be protected for people and wildlife, not handed over to companies for pollution-dumping pipelines that could asphyxiate and kill people if they rupture.”

In response, Scott Owen, a Forest Service spokesperson, said that at this time, the agency “does not have any carbon capture project proposals under consideration.”

Owen said the proposal only changes the initial screening criteria allowing the Forest Service to consider proposals for carbon capture and storage projects.

“All proposals must still pass secondary screening to be accepted as a formal application,” Owen said in a statement. “Carbon capture proposals are still subject to [National Environmental Policy Act] compliance and approval by the authorized officer on the Forest.”

Each forest has an authorized officer that would review individual carbon capture proposals for NEPA compliance prior to approval, Owen added.

The proposed rule also puts forward a definition for CCS where CO2 would not be classified as hazardous waste.

Tara Righetti, a law professor at the University of Wyoming, said in an email that CCS applications for review could be approved “if they met all other criteria required for special use authorizations, including environmental analysis and consistency with the land management plans.”

“When finalized, this rule will mark an important step towards utilization of forest system lands for CCS,” Righetti added.

Xan Fishman, director of energy policy and carbon management at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank, called the rule a positive step forward.

“Fighting climate change is going to be a massive, massive endeavor and it’s going to require a bunch of solutions,” Fishman said in an interview.

Those solutions will involve point source capture, where CO2 emissions are trapped before they go into the atmosphere, and carbon removal, where legacy CO2 is pulled out of the air, he said.

“Opening up every reasonable avenue” to store CO2 is “smart,” Fishman said. “Here’s a way we can store it underground and it doesn’t mess with the rest of the forest for other uses.”

The comment period for the proposed rule ends Jan. 2.

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

Remember in our discussions of the Rock Springs RMP last week, the Wyofile story talked about how rights of way potentially needed for CCS might be blocked off by the conservation alternative.  Anyway, as the E&E story says:

Some environmental and advocacy groups, however, rejected the prospect of allowing CCS projects on Forest Service lands, saying the plan would create pollution, prolong the fossil fuel industry and put delicate ecosystems at risk.

It could be argued that current wind and solar projects prolong the fossil fuel industry, because they require natural gas backup at least until there are scalable batteries, with minerals and supply chain issues not yet worked out; certainly they create pollution and put delicate ecosystems at risk. To be fair, I think CBD is fairly consistent on not wanting wind and solar, transmission lines, nuclear,  nor mines for strategic minerals. If I’m not understanding their views I hope someone will correct me.

I get that certain ENGO’s (and CAP and some media) seem to hate the fossil fuel industry, but it’s hard to see that fossil fuels are going anywhere soon. Center for Western Priorities (run by D operatives) almost has a story about the oil and gas industry being bad in almost every newsletter.  Scratch the environmental veneer and there seems to be the waferboard of partisan self-interest.

There’s the EIA report from last month:

Electricity generation from renewables and nuclear could provide as much as two-thirds of global electricity generation by 2050, according to the EIA.

Solar and wind show the highest levels of electricity generation growth. Meanwhile, coal and natural gas is expected to make up between 27% and 38% of power generation capacity by 2050, down from about half in 2022, EIA Administrator Joseph DeCarolis said on Wednesday during an event to present the outlook.

I found this from the Clean Air Task Force, but am trusting them on the details.  The basic point is that we need CCS to keep global warming to below 1.5 degrees C with no or limited overshoot, according to the IPCC.

Carbon capture and storage (including DACCS and BECCS) is central to IPCC mitigation pathways

WGIII made clear that carbon capture and storage is a critical decarbonization strategy in most mitigation pathways. Among the 97 assessed pathways that keep global warming to below 1.5ºC with ‘no or limited overshoot’ (meaning a reduced chance of exceeding 1.5ºC in the near term), there is a broad range of possible deployment levels for the technology, with a median average of 665 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide cumulatively captured and stored between now and 2100.

WGIII also identifies seven specific pathways, termed ‘Illustrative Mitigation Pathways’ (IMPs) that best summarize and highlight different decarbonization strategies – four that achieve 1.5ºC and three that keep temperatures ‘likely below 2ºC. Only one of the seven IMPs includes no carbon capture. However, this scenario requires global energy demand to nearly halve in the next 30 years, which is socio-politically unrealistic given the existing energy poverty around the world and that energy demand must increase as much of the world industrializes and urbanizes. Even the IMP based on particularly high uptake of renewable energy still requires more than 3 Gt ofcarbon dioxide to be captured and stored annually by 2050 (Figure 3.15 in the full report).

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

DACCS is direct air capture and storage, and BECCS is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.

So I guess we gotta do it, according to the IPCC. But not on federal land, says CBD.  And so it goes.. Next post: EIS for thee, but not for me.

New to national forests – carbon sequestration

by
The world’s largest carbon direct air capture facility has started construction in Iceland

From the news release:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service today announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would allow the agency to consider proposals for potential carbon capture and sequestration projects on national forests and grasslands. This proposal would harmonize the framework between the federal government’s two largest land managers by aligning with regulatory structures already established for the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management.

If this amendment is finalized, applications for carbon sequestration on national forests or grasslands would be considered for permanent use. The proposed regulation changes the initial screening criteria to allow the Forest Service to consider proposals for carbon capture and sequestration projects and does not allow for any other permanent uses on national forests and grasslands.

From the Federal Register:

The United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service or Agency), is proposing to amend its special use regulations, which prohibit authorizing exclusive and perpetual use and occupancy of National Forest System lands, to provide an exemption for carbon capture and storage.

Carbon dioxide injected in pore spaces may remain for over 1,000 years after injection and would be tantamount to an exclusive and perpetual use and occupancy if authorized on NFS lands.

The proposed rule would not authorize carbon capture and storage on NFS lands. Rather, the proposed rule would exempt proposals for carbon capture and storage from the initial screening criterion prohibiting authorization of exclusive use and occupancy of NFS lands, thereby allowing the Forest Service to review proposals and applications for carbon capture and storage and to authorize proposed carbon capture and storage on NFS lands if, where, and as deemed appropriate by the Agency.

Proposals for underground storage of carbon dioxide would have to meet all other screening criteria, including but not limited to consistency with the applicable land management plan, potential risks to public health or safety, conflicts or interference with authorized uses of NFS lands or use of adjacent non-NFS lands.

Of course it would have to be consistent with forest plans, but would a forest plan that authorizes “exclusive and perpetual use and occupancy” of national forest lands be consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act?  (Is the BLM different in this regard?)  I assume that’s why the existing special use regulations are written to prohibit permanent uses.  Maybe this should be viewed as a question of divesting ownership rather than a permitted special use.

 

Public Lands Litigation – update through October 20, 2023

by

There are even a few court opinions dealing with plan-level decisions!

FOREST SERVICE

Court decision in Western Watersheds Project v. Perdue (D. Ariz.)

On September 29, the district court upheld the Stateline Project, reauthorizing livestock grazing for ten years on fourteen allotments on the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests.  Plaintiffs had argued that the Forest Service violated NEPA and the APA when it authorized the Project by failing to: (1) take a “hard look” at the Project’s impacts on Mexican Wolves, the Blue Range Primitive Area, and inventoried roadless areas; (2) prepare an EIS based on the context and intensity of the Project; and (3) consider a reasonable range of alternatives (there were two:  no grazing and a 3% reduction from current AUMs).

Court decision in Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Trulock (D. Or.)

On October 5, the district court upheld the Camp Lick Project on the Malheur National Forest.  The Project would harvest trees larger than the 21” limit imposed by the Eastside Screens included in its forest plan because the Malheur properly amended its plan to allow this project. Plaintiffs had argued that the issues addressed by the amendment were forestwide, so the amendment (and therefore the effects) could not be limited to particular project, but the court disagreed.  Instead the court agreed with the magistrate judge’s conclusions that NFMA “(i) does not require that the U.S. Forest Service identify a “unique” attribute present at the location of a site-specific amendment within a forest plan and (ii) does not require a finding of de facto significance whenever a site-specific amendment shares similarities with past or future amendments.”

(In response to Sharon’s question here, this opinion does not address whether removing these larger trees was necessary to reduce fire risk or what the effects of removing them would be.  That may be because the administrative record adequately addressed these issues so they were not raised by plaintiffs.)

Court decision in Helena Hunters & Anglers Association v. Moore (D. Mont.)

On October 11, the district court upheld the Helena-Lewis and Clark national forest’s revised forest plan against challenges related to grizzly bears and big game – in particular the “removal” of wildlife standards that had been in the old forest plan and would benefit these species.

Interestingly, the government attorneys tried to claim that this was an original plan rather than a plan revision, despite a record full of references to a “revised” plan, because the two national forests had been combined subsequent to the first forest plans.  The court concluded it is a revised plan, and dismissed the significance of this argument (but if it were a new plan, it would have been more difficult for plaintiffs to complain about “removal” of the wildlife standards).  The court also refused to buy the government argument that the former standards were “largely carried forward” by equally effective guidelines and desired conditions, holding that these other plan components do not have “the same strength or impact” as standards.  However, it was sufficient under ESA for the Fish and Wildlife Service to address the old wildlife standards as part of the environmental baseline, and to address the “general” effects of the revised plan without those standards.

The court held that NEPA’s requirement to look at the environmental consequences of the revised plan does not mean it has to look at the effects of individual plan components (or their “removal”).  However, it did refer to the the plan components included in an EIS for the multiple-forest Grizzly Bear Amendment that were added to the existing plan prior to the revision, and are part of the revised plan.  The court also held that the FS was not required to consider an action alternative that retained the wildlife standards, because, “Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the proposed alternatives are otherwise unreasonable.”

Useful word for the day (from the opinion):  “defugalty:” an inconsistency, especially with regard to forms of communication.

Court decision

On October 15, the Oregon district court dismissed an antitrust lawsuit against Iron Triangle and Malheur Lumber by a group of sawmill owners, logging contractors and timber owners who accused the defendants of engaging in anticompetitive business practices.  The court held that the 10-year stewardship contract with the Forest Service “is not an illegal conspiracy in restraint of trade.”

Best oxymoron for a business name:  Prairie Wood Products

Court decision in Gallatin Wildlife Association v. Olson (D. Mont.)

On October 19, the district court dismissed a challenge to seven grazing allotments on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest based on their effects on bighorn sheep.  This followed the Forest Service losing a prior court case involving these allotments that required additional analysis, and an EIS was pending.  Court found no unreasonable delay because the Forest was “not required to undertake agency action beyond that which already has been taken.”  The court also summarily rejected a challenge to a supplemental EIS prepared for the revised forest plan in response to another lawsuit involving bighorn sheep, and rejected a third claim because these plaintiffs had failed to raise it in their prior challenge to these allotments.

BLM

Court decision in Desert Protection Society v. Haaland (E.D. Cal.)

This case deals with the BLM’s decisions to amend the California Desert Conservation Area Plan and to grant a right-of-way to Eagle Crest Energy Company to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a gen-tie [electrical] line and water supply pipeline.  It would run through an area that had been designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern in the Conservation Plan.  The larger energy project had been approved by FERC after an earlier NEPA process.  On September 29, the district court upheld the BLM’s right-of-way decision against NEPA and FLPMA claims.

The NEPA claims involved decommissioning requirements, the range of alternatives, mitigation, and effects on acid rock drainage, groundwater, wildlife and global warming (which “largely concern the FERC Energy Project and not the BLM Right-of-Way Project”).  Under FLPMA, the right-of way was not subject to other plan requirements because it was considered a “valid existing right.”  BLM also met FLPMA requirements related to balancing interests, mitigation measures, collocation of right-of-ways, and the administrative protest process.

New lawsuit:  Colvin & Son v. Haaland (D. Nev.)

On October 17, two ranchers in Nevada sued the BLM for delaying compliance with the Wild and Free Roaming Horses & Burros Act of 1971, which they say requires “immediate” removal of excess horses.  BLM data showed that current populations are far above the “appropriate management level” established by the agency.  (The article has a link to the complaint.)

Four individuals have been indicted by a federal grand jury on 13 counts of violating the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act by allegedly purchasing and then selling dinosaur bones valued at over $1 million and causing more than $3 million in damages, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Utah.  The value represents 150,000 pounds of paleontological resources, including dinosaur bones, illegally removed from federal (BLM) and state lands in southeastern Utah sold at gem and mineral shows and sometimes, China.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.)

On September 30, the district court held that the Service adhered to a reasonable interpretation of the ESA and followed proper procedures when deciding to downlist the American burying beetle from endangered to threatened status, despite noting climate change will pose foreseeable and grave risk to the beetle’s remaining populations in the coming decades.  Ultimately, the Service proposed downlisting the species based on the agency’s conclusion in its 2019 study that the “beetle’s viability is higher than was known at the time of listing” and “it is not presently in danger of extinction.”  The species’ historic range includes forests and grasslands in the eastern half of the U. S.  (The article includes a link to the opinion.)

  • Extinction delistings

We have previously questioned whether/how national forest management has contributed to extinction of any species (where we discussed the ivory-billed woodpecker, which is still not officially on the extinction list).  Here are some other possible examples.

In the continental U. S., this list of species removed from the protection of ESA because of extinction includes eight mussel species found in the southeast, where according to USDA, “Erosion, caused in part by deforestation, poor agricultural practices, and destruction of riparian zones, has led to both increased silt loads and shifting, unstable stream bottoms.”

The list also includes the Bachman’s warbler, a black and yellow songbird found in several Southern states, including on the Francis Marion National Forest.  According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bachman’s warbler was also lost to destruction of its bottomland forest habitat.

OTHER

Settlement of Slockish v. U. S. Dept. of Transportation (Supreme Court)

This case involved the destruction of a Native American sacred site as part of a highway improvement project within the Mt. Hood National Forest.  The parties to the case, which included the Yakama and Grand Ronde tribes, the Cascade Geographic Society and the Mount Hood Sacred Lands Preservation Alliance, agreed that the U. S. government would plant nearly 30 trees on the parcel and maintain them through watering and other means for at least three years.  The government also agreed to help restore the stone altar, install a sign explaining its importance to Native Americans and grant tribal access to the surrounding area for cultural purposes.

A Bonner County District Judge recently upheld a decision by the Shoshone Board of County Commissioners denying a petition for road validation concerning a section of West Fork Pine Creek Road, which provides access to a section of BLM land with varying trails and roads throughout it – including “an area of specifically constructed off-road obstacles called the ‘Roller Coaster.’”  The result is that public can be denied access to public lands on this private road.

If anyone is wondering how the northern spotted owl might have fared without the protection of the Endangered Species Act, Canada is now facing that scenario.  Its Species at Risk Act requires an emergency order when an endangered species faces an imminent threat and before that threat materializes.  The scientific recommendation to do so for spotted owls in British Columbia was ignored for eight months, allowing further logging of the forest that supports the last remaining wild-born spotted owl in Canada.  A lawsuit was filed in June and heard in October.

The future of spotted owls in the U. S. might have looked like this:

“Today, however, only one wild-born spotted owl remains alive in all of Canada. Earlier this year, remains of two owls released from captivity in 2022 were found with their transmitters outside protected areas. The third was returned to the breeding centre where it is recuperating after being hit by a train…  Foy was part of a team that visited the Fraser Canyon forest sites at the end of May. He said they found logging had already started in places where critical spotted owl habitat was meant to be protected.”

 

Rock Springs RMP: Renewables, Carbon Capture, Transmission and Rights of Way- Wyofile Story

by
This map depicts rights-of-way exclusion areas as proposed in the Bureau of Land Management’s preferred “conservation” Alternative B of the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan draft environmental impact statement. (Wyoming Bureau of Land Management)
This map depicts rights-of-way exclusion areas in the Bureau of Land Management’s current management plan. (Wyoming Bureau of Land Management)

We have been discussing the Rock Springs RMP. First, the Cowboy Daily had an article about a retiree’s views on the process.  Then we had the NY Times story.   I’m always wondering about whom the Biden Admin is serving when it comes to making decisions on renewable energy vs.  “protection.” Fortunately for all of us who don’t want to read draft EIS’s (without getting paid),  a reporter from Wyofile looked into specifically my question.

This map depicts rights-of-way exclusion areas as proposed in the Bureau of Land Management’s preferred “conservation” Alternative B of the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan draft environmental impact statement. (Wyoming Bureau of Land Management)

Undeveloped areas will be largely off-limits to industrial-scale energy projects — be they fossil fuels, trona, hard minerals, wind, solar or a combination — under the Bureau of Land Management’s preferred “conservation” scenario for managing 3.5 million acres of federal land in southwest Wyoming, some observers say.

That’s primarily because the BLM’s conservation priority spelled out in “Alternative B” — one of four management scenarios in the Rock Springs draft environmental impact statement guiding its resource management plan — would vastly expand “exclusion areas” for rights-of-way, hampering greenfield development for projects that require new roads, pipelines and electric transmission lines.

Nearly 2.5 million acres — 71% of the planning area — would be excluded from consideration for new rights-of-way.

That’s a 481% increase in acreage off-limits to things like maintained roads, power lines and pipelines. BLM officials say it’s also a means to inhibit permanent industrial facilities in other areas — a state-owned land section, for example — because they typically require infrastructure like power lines and pipelines. 

“Conservation, that’s what’s driving that particular alternative,” Wyoming BLM spokesman Brad Purdy told WyoFile. “So there would be less development overall.

“Rights-of-way,” Purdy continued, “that’s how we [permit] solar. It’s how we do roads, how we do power lines. I think all of those types of things would be impacted.”

The proposed rights-of-way exclusion areas take into account conservation values weighed against “marginal” energy yield opportunities in yet-to-be-developed areas, according to the BLM. Legislative leaders, however, say it’s another example of the agency’s failure to find a balance that doesn’t harm Wyoming’s “bedrock industries.”

My bold. But if they are marginal energy opportunities, why do they need to be taken off the table?

So here is what the Wyoming Outdoor Council folks think.

A close examination of where the 2.5 million acres of rights-of-way exclusion areas are drawn suggests a recognition of marginal development opportunities, particularly for wind, solar and geothermal energy, according to Wyoming Outdoor Council Energy and Climate Policy Director John Burrows.

There are simply higher-value wind resources in other areas of the state, Burrows said, while the preferred alternative still allows for adequate growth in both wind and solar development where industrial infrastructure already exists — primarily along the Interstate 80 corridor. The proposed exclusion areas, he noted, mostly encompass large areas of the northern and southern portions of the management area, where there’s little to no existing industrial infrastructure.

“The BLM’s preferred alternative keeps just under 1 million acres of land open and available to wind and solar leasing,” Burrows said. “In our assessment, this is more than adequate to give future opportunities for responsibly sited renewable development while also protecting the truly outstanding wildlife habitat, wide-open spaces, cultural resources and other values across the planning area.”

Is it possible that maybe the Wyoming Outdoor Council is not on the same page as DOE might be on the need and preferable locations for renewable development (and transmission lines)?

Industrial-sized carbon management projects such as the Sweetwater Carbon Storage Hub, which would pump and store carbon dioxide deep underground, and Project Bison, which would pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in what’s referred to as “direct air capture,” are located just outside the BLM’s Rock Springs Field Office management area. However, those projects require pipelines, power lines and other infrastructure that may need rights-of-way approval from the BLM in the Rock Springs management area.

For example, the Sweetwater Carbon Storage Hub partnership will rely on constructing facilities to collect carbon dioxide from multiple existing trona mining facilities near Green River and pipe it to injection sites near Granger.

Trona, oil and natural gas

The BLM’s preferred conservation alternative would also further restrict potential expansions of trona mining and, especially, oil and natural gas development due to the proposed growth of rights-of-way exclusion areas and myriad wildlife habitat projections.

It would “increase the level of impacts to trona development and could result in further reduction of trona extracted via mining activities,” according to the draft EIS. It would also result in a 73% drop in projected federal oil and gas drilling over the next 20 years “due to an increase in areas that are closed to fluid mineral leasing and managed with [no surface occupancy] stipulations.”

It seems like different departments within the USG are funding climate actions, technologies and subsidies, while others are blithely cutting off possibilities for the future use of those technologies and increasing the difficulty of siting.  If we are in a “climate emergency” wouldn’t we want to map the potential build-out of renewable and transmission needed first, and then “protect” what’s left?  And certainly mining our the minerals we use,  and not importing them (from countries of questionable friendliness) has some value, even if they do not fit the definition of “strategic.” Because they provide jobs and tax dollars, and if our environmental regulations are not as tight as other countries’ are, they can be fixed.  The point of view of “get it somewhere else” applied to the US seems to me to be economically and national security-wise a really bad idea.  And I thought Covid had made us rethink supply chains? At the same time, according to this Admin, made in the US is a good thing, while minerals produced in the US are not, except for some.  It’s all very puzzling.

Anyway, thanks to Dustin Bleizeffer of Wyofile for looking into this.

 

Bill to Use Federal Land for Affordable Housing: HOUSES Act of 2022

by

This isn’t about employees, but is of interest.

U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis has co-sponsored legislation that would allow federal land to be used for public housing.

The Helping Open Underutilized Space to Ensure Shelter Act (HOUSES) would open up parcels of federally owned land for states or local governments to buy for the purpose of increasing the availability of housing.

“The purpose of the bill is to make state and local governments able to buy local land for home development,” Lummis told Cowboy State Daily on Wednesday afternoon.

The legislation would amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and also proposes that state or local entities would be allowed to buy federal public land at a discounted rate “well below market value,” ratioed by a Payment in Lieu of Taxes price.

The HOUSES Act was first introduced in 2022 and was recently reintroduced by Lummis, bill sponsor Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, and Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska. Lack of affordable housing has become not only an issue in Wyoming in recent years, but also throughout the entire West.

“Housing affordability is a nationwide problem. Rent is high and mortgages are even higher thanks to Bidenomics,” Barrasso said in a statement. “The HOUSES Act will provide new options to state and local governments by allowing them to buy certain lands from the federal government for residential purposes. As more people move to Wyoming, growing communities need options to expand housing.”

What It Does?
Lummis said the legislation could have a particular benefit for a number of Wyoming communities like Jackson, Sheridan and Cody that border federal land, which makes up nearly 50% of Wyoming’s total acreage.

“Affordable housing is becoming less and less capable in Wyoming,” she said.

The Joint Economic Committee of Congress estimates the bill would lead to the construction of 2.7 million more homes in the U.S. and alleviate Wyoming’s entire housing shortage.

Under the bill, development would be limited to federal lands directly adjacent to where existing sewer infrastructure could be developed and would also exclude particularly sensitive tracts of land such as wilderness areas and national monuments. This would leave out most federal land aside from BLM and Bureau of Reclamation property.

I don’t think that’s true.. it sounds like FS would be included.

It would ensure that lands are primarily used for housing with a mandate that at least 85% be dedicated for residential purposes and the community’s related needs. It also includes density requirements, ensuring a minimum of four homes per acre and prohibits the development of luxury second homes on these parcels.

“It allows the carve-out of small parcels and is especially for the purpose of adding affordable housing,” Lummis said.

A local entity would be allowed to use the land for low-income housing, condominiums, single-family homes or even mixed-use developments.

The local government would submit requests for conveyance to the Secretary of the Interior, who would then need to approve the sale along with a state’s governor.

Not Just Houses …
According to the bill text, construction of community amenities like assembly halls, firefighting facilities, grocery stores, health clinics, hospitals, libraries, churches, police stations, recreational facilities and schools would also be allowed.

It would also require the construction of water, sewer, electricity, communications infrastructure and some connection to public transit.

Creating industrial areas would also be allowed if they include “manufacturing, assembling, processing, extracting or otherwise treating raw materials.”

The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act already allows for the exchange of specific, low-value, isolated parcels of public land where it is necessary, seen most prominently on the far edge of Las Vegas.

“Instead of doing these on a case-by-case basis, this will establish an act of Congress to allow it,” Lummis said.

Some conservatives have criticized proposals like these as the government meddling in the private market. Lummis doesn’t buy that argument because the land being discussed isn’t available to the private market anyway.

“The private market is already cut out now because it’s federal land,” she said.

Lummis added that she finds it nearly impossible these days for the private sector to make money off building affordable housing.

The HOUSES Act also has been derided by a handful of environmental groups like Backcountry Hunters and Anglers as anti-public lands.

“The availability and affordability of housing is a real concern that impacts everyday Americans; however, the HOUSES Act does not present a meaningful attempt to solve this issue,” the group said in a Monday press release. “Rather, it would facilitate the removal of multiple-use lands from the public estate.”

I have some questions..probably someone has been following this..

  1. Why Nevada and nowhere else?
  2. To environmental groups, is this more OK if done piece by piece, or not acceptable at all?
  3.  Does the land have to be transferred, or could it be traded or leased?

Guest Post: I knew the forests would burn when activists forced sawmills like mine to close

by

[Note: This editorial was published last week in azcentral.com, a “Part of the USA Today Network.” Bruce Whiting’s account takes place in Arizona, Utah, and Colorado, but the story is much the same for all federal forestlands in the western US, including Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. BZ]

Opinion: Four generations of my family helped responsibly thin the forests. Then came the lawsuits, and companies like mine simply could not survive.

Bruce Whiting
opinion contributor

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2023/10/26/logging-stop-forest-fires-industry-never-return/71306702007/

For the past 25 years, I have watched with great sadness as beautiful forest has burned, destroying homes, decimating communities and negatively impacting lives.

Even after all these years, I ask myself what else I could have done to prevent this tragedy.
My family spent four generations operating sawmills and working in the forests of Arizona, Utah and Colorado.

Today, our family-owned sawmills are all gone, and I only wish that there would be some way for the next generation to turn the tide and save our forests before they all burn.

Groups began fighting timber sales

Sixty-five years ago, my father moved our family to Fredonia to help operate the sawmill owned by my grandfather and his brothers.

Over the generations, we worked with thousands of wonderful employees, civic leaders and federal officials to care for the Kaibab, Coconino and Tonto National Forests, along with forests in other states.

We prided ourselves in working as responsible stewards.

Then, in the early 1990s, I started losing the battle on forest thinning and was forced to close our sawmill in Payson.

Why Arizona simply cannot let its pine forests burn

Groups like the Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Trust and Center for Biological Diversity had made it their mission to block every timber sale offered by the U.S. Forest Service through the utilization of the legal process.

These groups openly admitted to me that they wanted to force the closure of all lumber companies and return the forest back to Mother Nature.

I had no other option but to close in Fredonia, and the results were that hundreds of hard-working men and women lost their jobs.

With little timber, we couldn’t survive

No matter how many times we tried to tell these groups, they persisted with their ill-conceived notion that we could revert back to letting Mother Nature thin the forest.


Regulations protecting the northern goshawk and the Mexican spotted owl, plus a string of environmentalist lawsuits, had ended government timber sales in our areas.


The national news heard about the plight of so many small lumber communities, and in 1995 I was interviewed by Tom Brokaw and his staff for a segment in a series about government red tape.


During our visit, we talked about Fredonia and how it — like many other small communities that were once thriving sawmill towns — were experiencing closure after closure, and that there would not be anyone left to work with the U.S. Forest Service.


I told them that we were starting the slippery slope toward massive fires that would destroy entire forests, homes and lives.


Then in 1997, I lost the final battle in Panguitch, Utah, to keep our last remaining sawmill open.
More than 25 years later, nearly all of the sawmills are gone and devastating fires, like the Dude Fire, are the norm.

Forests are being allowed to grow and grow, building up fuel loads, until disaster strikes.


The logging we need will never return

Where are the Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Trust and Southwest Forest Alliance when fires continue to break out all over the West?


Mother Nature has indeed taken vicious control over the forest, after we humans failed to care for it.
And even though it’s needed desperately, the forest product industry and sawmills will never return.


You would have to be crazy to invest that kind of money, not knowing if the Forest Service will be permitted to sell timber on land that needs thinning and cleanup, because extremists are there, waiting in the wings, to shut it down again.


They like to blame global warming so that they do not have to face the results of their actions, but let’s face it: the Forest Service’s options for wise forest management are extremely limited now that they no longer have the sawmill industry as a partner.

Bruce Whiting is the former president of Kaibab Industries and Kaibab Lumber Co.

All the News That Fits the Narrative; Rock Springs RMP, Schuller Interview with EPA EJ Administrator

by

We’ve been having a discussion on various aspect of the Rock Springs Wyoming RMP.   A few things have come my way that are of interest relating to that, and also the role of communities.
******************
First, Tisha Schuller talks with the deputy assistant administrator for EJ at EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights on her Energy Thinks podcast. I didn’t listen to the whole thing but she shared a few quotes.
On EPA’s growing focus on EJ: 
“It is the first time in government—not just in the United States but in the history of humankind—that we have real funding at the same time that we have real political support not only to change the systems and structures of governance but to do so in an equitable way.”

Hmm.. count me skeptical as to the role of one federal agency (or even the current Admin, which is, after all one of three branches of the federal government) in changing “the systems and structures of governance” in an “equitable way.” Not that I have a problem with equity, but I think its use and meaning are contested.

And
On placing communities at the head of the table:
“None of us want to live in a place where we’re not heard. None of us want to live in a community where things are done to it and you don’t have anything to say about it. None of us want to live in that place. Communities with EJ concerns want to be heard.”

“Communities with EJ concerns” is a term also used in the proposed NEPA regs (more on those next week). Rather than define what EJ communities are or aren’t, we now have communities with concerns. For example, my somewhat neighboring community of Kiowa is not thrilled about new high voltage powerlines (this is all private as part of Colorado’s Power Pathway, so no federal nexus except for endangered species and National Park viewsheds). There are quite a few different parameters that could be indexed in different ways (for example, east of there is a food desert). So depending on the way you index, it could be an EJ community or not. If you were to define what one is. But any community seemingly could have EJ concerns, and is there an arbiter of what are legitimate concerns or not? It’s all not exactly transparent or clear. In my experience, when people dream up abstractions and are intentionally not clear about who is in and who is out.. other people are making the determination, usually for small or large political reasons.

Of course, there’s “being heard” and “having your say determine the outcome”; plus not all people in communities agree. People in the federal land management space know this landscape quite well over many decisions large and small. It seems in the broader world of new energy buildout, other organizations and NGOs are discovering these complexities.

*****************
The NY Times on Rock Springs decision..

This was quite timely. Note the tagline ..

Explosive reactions to the proposal, which would limit drilling, show how the president’s climate policies are crashing into walls in some oil and gas states.

The journalist, Lisa Friedman (no relation) seems like a nice person. At one Society of Environmental Journalists meeting I attended, she (and other reporters from Coastal Media) seemed extraordinarily interested in Pendley’s (he was there) attitude toward climate change. As if somehow the BLM were the key to worldwide decarbonization. It felt a little weird to me, especially since I wanted to ask him about e-bikes. Oh well.

As a candidate, Mr. Biden pledged to end new federal oil and gas leasing. And, as president, he has said he wants to conserve at least 30 percent of public lands and waters by 2030. Both are part of an aggressive agenda to curb climate change, though Mr. Biden has approved some large fossil fuel projects. Political and legal concerns have played a role in those decisions.

I guess you can state that “conserving” 30 percent of land” is an “aggressive approach to curb climate change, but I wonder whether if the protected areas don’t allow fuel reduction.. they actually do that. Plus some of us might see a conflict between renewable build-out and “conserving.” Without a map, though, why would we believe that they are compatible? Otherwise it’s just political arm-waving attempts to placate renewable and ENGO interests. And as we have seen with the BLM conservation rule and the proposed CEQ NEPA regs, when renewable buildout and “protection” meet, renewables lose.

“We are in a bit of a bubble here right now with Ukraine and the Middle East,” said Mark Squillace, a law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. Mr. Squillace said if oil prices climbed there could be heightened interest in federal oil and gas leasing, but only in the short term.

Mark is another great person, and I’d like to think we’re in a “bubble” but I don’t know what our foreign policy will be nor how others will react. The fact is that no one knows.

“I think we all know that in the next 20 years or so there’s going to be a whole lot less oil and gas production, because of the trends that we’re seeing with electric vehicles and renewable energy,” Mr. Squillace said. Wyoming, which also is grappling with collapsing demand for its coal, he added, “should, of all states, know the consequences of not managing their land.”

I don’t understand exactly what that means.

Ah.. the “backlash”

The backlash began almost immediately. Lawmakers accused the Biden administration of trying to pull Wyoming “back to the Stone Age.” Governor Gordon sent a letter to the Bureau of Land Management director asking the agency to withdraw the entire plan. A local sheriff declared he would not enforce the plan if it were finalized.

The director of the Bureau of Land Management’s field office in Rock Springs, Wyo., Kimberlee Foster, told a local news outlet that her staff members had begun receiving threatening calls were being investigated by the F.B.I. “It’s not really about specifics in the document,” Ms. Foster said. “The hate has been more political in nature.”

Pivot to “incipient Bundys”. Lawmakers quote.. Governor Gordon’s letter (which was pretty mild for a politician), a sheriff.. yup.

“The situation is ripe for this sort of anger to come to the surface,” said State Senator Brian Boner, a Republican. He noted the federal government already owned nearly half, 48 percent, of Wyoming land. “You feel like you don’t really have a voice in the way your state moves forward, and in this instance there’s a significant threat to peoples’ livelihoods,” he said.

So let’s go back to Tisha’s podcast:

None of us want to live in a place where we’re not heard. None of us want to live in a community where things are done to it and you don’t have anything to say about it. None of us want to live in that place

What’s interesting about the Times story is that it’s all about oil and gas, not about the process, which is what Gordon’s letter was about. Does not mention the political back and forth concern, as in the Cowboy State Daily report discussed previously, and as we shall see there’s other info not included.

Indeed “all the news that fits the narrative”. Oil and gas bad and not needed, check. Republicans bad, check. Westerners dangerous and incipient Bundys, check. Are the facts wrong? Probably not. Does fitting the info to a narrative leave a lot out and not actually help our understanding of what’s going on? Yes.

Good thing we have the Cowboy State Daily and Wyofile!

Climate scientists then and now

by

It’s been interesting the last few months on TSW seeing up close how climate change deniers operate.  To me any way, but maybe not to everyone reading TSW for insights about public land management.  I don’t think this is the place to debate the scientific nuances of global warming, point by point (nor is it the place to be debating Hillary or Hunter).  At the risk of feeding the trolls one more time, I’ll say one more thing about what I think about the broader climate issue, and then try hard to disengage.

This article (partially excerpted here) is actually about the role of scientists (one of Sharon’s favorite topics), and its actual title is

Why many scientists are now saying climate change is an all-out ‘emergency’

After a few years of record-breaking temperatures and extreme weather events, Ripple’s experience is a sign of how climate scientists — who once refrained from entering the public fray — are now using strident language to describe the warming planet. References to “climate emergency” and “climate crisis,” once used primarily by activist groups like the British-based Extinction Rebellion or the U.S.-based Sunrise Movement, are spiking in the academic literature. Meanwhile, scientists’ communication to the media and the public has gotten more exasperated — and more desperate.

On Monday, scientists released a paper showing that the world’s “carbon budget” — the amount of greenhouse gas emissions the world can still emit without boosting global temperatures more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) — has shrunk by a third. The world has only six years left at current emissions levels before racing past that temperature limit.

“There are no technical scenarios globally available in the scientific literature that would support that that is actually possible, or can even describe how that would be possible,” Joeri Rogelj, a climate scientist at Imperial College London, told reporters in a call.

Tim Lenton, one of the co-authors on Ripple’s most recent paper and a professor of earth system science at the University of Exeter, said that 2023 has been filled with temperatures so far beyond the norm that “they’re very hard to rationalize.”

It wasn’t always this way.

In the 2000s and even early 2010s, most scientists shied away making any statements that could be seen as “political.” Jacquelyn Gill, a professor of climate science and paleoecology at the University of Maine, said that when she was doing her PhD in those years, senior academics warned her against deviating at all from the science when interacting with the media or the public.

Hassol said that the shift is simple. In the 2000s, she said, climate change wasn’t yet at the level of an emergency. She recalls a 2009 report called “The Copenhagen Diagnosis,” which analyzed climate science to date and made suggestions for how to reach net-zero carbon emissions. If world governments had acted swiftly, the world would have had to cut emissions only by a bit over 3 percent per year. “We called that the bunny slope,” Hassol recalled.

If, on the other hand, governments waited until 2020 to start the transition, cuts would have to be much steeper — up to 9 percent per year. “We called that the double-black diamond,” she said. Despite the brief respite in CO2 emissions during the pandemic, humanity’s trajectory has veered closer to the double-black diamond.

If my communication has gotten “more exasperated – and more desperate,” maybe this is why.