US national parks are crowded – and so are many national forests

by

Interesting reading from The Conversation: ” US national parks are crowded – and so are many national forests, wildlife refuges, battlefields and seashores.”

Excerpt:

While research shows that spending time outside is good for physical and mental health, long lines and gridlocked roads can make the experience a lot less fun. Crowding also makes it harder for park staff to protect wildlife and fragile lands and respond to emergencies. To manage the crowds, some parks are experimenting with timed-entry vehicle reservation systems and permits for popular trails.

I can offer one example: At the spectacular Multnomah Falls, in Oregon in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, parking and traffic has been so bad in recent years that these days a “Timed Use Permit will be required daily from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m from May 26 through September 4, 2023.” Permits are only available via Recreation.gov — none are available on site.

My take: these permits are annoying and don’t fully solve the overcrowding problem, but the USFS had to do something.

 

Friday News Round-up: Wind vs. Environment and Politicians From Different Parties Agreeing

by
From left to right, Siemens Energy North America President Rich Voorberg, Utah Office of Energy Director Gregory Todd, Colorado Energy Office Advisor James Lester, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, Gov. Mark Gordon and Nevada Office of Energy Director Dwyane McClinton participate in a groundbreaking ceremony June 20, 2023 for the TransWest Express transmission line in Carbon County. (Dustin Bleizeffer/WyoFile)

We’ve been covering the tension between protectionist interests and renewable energy developers.
Here’s a few more.

1. Prairie-Chicken Listing Expected to Put Wind Farms in Crosshairs
At TSW we can’t afford a subscription to Bloomberg Law but here’s the link for those who have access. Definitely sounds interesting.

A Biden administration proposal to list the lesser prairie-chicken as endangered in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico could stymie oil and gas development in the largest U.S. petroleum basin, environmental attorneys say.

And one warns it could devastate another energy source—wind power.

2.  Wind turbines dry soil in Chinese grasslands.

Paper by Wang et al. open access.

 Our research shows that the operation of wind turbines will cause significant drying of soil, and this drought effect differs significantly according to season and wind direction. Our results show that 1) the soil moisture within wind farms decreases most significantly, with a decrease of 4.4 % observed; 2) in summer and autumn, the declines in soil moisture in the downwind direction are significantly greater than those in the upwind direction, with the opposite occurring in spring. (3) Wind farms aggravate the soil drying in grassland areas, which may have impacts on grassland ecosystems. Therefore, when building wind farms, we need to better understand their impacts on the environment.

I’m not pointing this out to say “wind turbines are bad”; more to say that this is one piece of information that has not yet been included in future models.  With the quantity of wind turbines some project, they themselves will  have impacts on climate and need to be included in models. But we don’t know how many there will be, nor exactly the impacts.  And so it goes…

A Special TSW Feature.. Members of Both Parties Agree on..

3,  New Transmission Lines Should Take Less Than 12 Years to Get Approved and… Climate Urgency

Thanks to reporter Dustin Bleizeffer of Wyofile- the whole story is interesting. Mark Gordon is the R Governor of Wyoming.

 

Though Gordon and the Interior officials often clash on energy and federal land use policy fronts, they all hailed TransWest Express — as well as the Chokecherry Sierra Madre wind energy project that will energize the line with 3,000 megawatts of power — as vital steps toward boosting clean energy to help address a climate emergency.

“We know that the time to act on climate is now,” Haaland said. “From coastal towns and rural farms to urban centers and tribal communities, climate change poses an existential threat. Not just to our environment, but to our health, our communities and our economic well being.”

“Gathered here,” Gordon said, “we see the first steps that we’re taking to make sure that we take the action that’s absolutely necessary to keep us from climate peril.”

***

“Because there is an urgency as we see climate change, we know that we don’t have time to waste,” Gordon said. “We have to move with diligence forward to make sure that we address the issue of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with alacrity and diligence and with dedication.”

4.   We Should Use Current Information in Decisions and Note Conflicts of Interest

Roger Pielke, Jr. testified at a Congressional hearing. You can read about it on his Substack.

Here’s a place of agreement as well.

Specifically, I referred to the misuse of outdated climate scenarios and our old friends RCP8.5 and RCP4.5, which you can read about in more detail below. Readers here will know that outdated climate scenarios are a big problem.

For me, it was notable that my testimony was favorably received by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) on the right and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Tim Caine (D-VA) on the left.

In fact, in his closing remarks Senator Whitehouse read from a recent post The Honest Broker on conflicts of interest in climate research:

Experts monetizing their expertise is one important reason why people become experts, and there is no problem with people seeking to make a buck. But where expertise and financial interests intersect, things can get complicated. That is why there are robust mechanisms in place for the disclosure and mitigation of financial conflicts of interest . . . All of this is just common sense. Your doctor can’t prescribe you drugs from a company that pays him fees. You wouldn’t think much of a report on smoking and health from a researcher supported by the tobacco industry.

In case you wonder what that has to do with climate, it turns out that some papers defending RCP 8.5 happen to be from people in consulting firms whose models are based on 8.5 and are advising their clients based on 8.5.  Which is not wrong, necessarily, as Whitehouse says, but needs to be disclosed.

The TSW Fair Reporting Award Nominations Requested- Stories on the Proposed BLM Public Lands Regulation

by
From this Pew study https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/07/13/u-s-journalists-differ-from-the-public-in-their-views-of-bothsidesism-in-journalism/

First, I’d like to express my disappointment with the journalism community on this topic. There are many interesting things in the Proposed Rule, but it’s like news sometimes is simply a springboard to a Preferred Narrative. So we haven’t heard much about the complexity of peoples’ views, especially since the recent House hearing, where partisans pontificated about it. Our friends at the Center for Western Priorities posted three stories this morning that basically said it’s a great thing for people who have our interests (obviously all right-thinking people) and Republicans are bad. Oh, and we have zero skepticism about what this Administration says, even though politicos have never been famous for telling the truth.

“Is politics nothing other than the art of deliberately lying?”- Voltaire.

The star who stands out so far is Sammy Roth of the LA Times who received or found the solar industry’s comments. And that was a great find. But I’m looking for something deeper. And I can’t find all the possible contestants for this award without the help of TSW readers.

So.. I am proposing the TSW Fair Reporting Award. I will send the beverage of choice, and the honor of being the first recipient of the TSW Fair Reporting Award, to the reporter who, in the view of me and other TSW readers, does the best job of presenting a variety of views on the Proposed Rule fairly, as well as digging below the surface. We’re hosting this in the hope of helping people write their public comments in a meaningful way, other than saying “it’s swell the way it is” or “it’s the worst thing ever.” Extra points for interviewing people not on an obvious side.. not ranchers, oil and gas folks, ENGOs and so on. We exist and have opinions, and maybe the story would look different if our voices were heard.

Nominations of reporters and stories are open below, and you will all get to weigh in them openly in the comments. We can potentially add criteria as well. We may disagree on how well different stories meet the criteria, and that conversation will be interesting as well. I reserve the right to make the final decision, as, well someone has to and it might as well be me. And if we round up some excellent stories, we can give out more than one award.

Also, if anyone knows anyone of the philanthropic persuasion, and actually anyone is welcome to sweeten the reward pot.

What could be more to our democracy than quality, fair reporting on complex issues; reporting that takes a more than superficial look at the claims and views of both “sides”?

Two Exploratory Mining Projects in Arizona: One Litigated, One Streamlined with FAST-41

by
This photo claims to be an exploration drilling rig for mining. Any better photos, please submit!

From E&E News:

Environmental groups are suing the Forest Service to halt mineral exploration in Arizona’s remote and biologically diverse
Patagonia Mountains.
The legal fight is playing out in close proximity to a separate mineral project the Biden administration hopes to fast-track. Groups including the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, the Center for Biological Diversity and Earthworks filed a lawsuit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, challenging the agency’s approval of the Sunnyside and Flux Canyon exploratory mineral drilling projects.
The legal challenge zeroes in on the Forest Service’s approval earlier this month of exploratory drilling in an area of the Coronado National Forest that the groups say contains nesting and foraging sites for the threatened Mexican spotted owl and Western yellow-billed cuckoo, as well as habitat for endangered jaguars and ocelots. The Forest Service said it does not comment on ongoing litigation and referred questions about the lawsuit to the Department of Justice, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. According to the lawsuit, Arizona Standard LLC, a subsidiary of Barksdale Capital Corp., a Canadian metals exploration company, would be able to drill up to 30 new well pads to look for copper, lead, zinc and silver. Separately, the agency approved the Flux Canyon project, which would allow Arizona Minerals Inc., a Nevada-based corporation held by South32 Ltd., an Australian mining and metals company, to develop more well pads to identify silver, lead and zinc deposits.
*****
The lawsuit also says that the cumulative impacts of such drilling projects would “transform this mostly undeveloped landscape with a constant disruption of noise, lights, dust, human activity, and vehicle traffic for the foreseeable future.” The Forest Service’s conclusion that the Sunnyside project didn’t require a full environmental impact study and that Flux Canyon required no environmental assessment is “arbitrary and unlawful,” the groups said.
“These oversights, omissions, misreadings, and failures violated NEPA,” attorneys for the groups wrote in the lawsuit. The Patagonia Mountains are also home to a separate mining project that the federal government is fast-tracking, which environmental groups say adds to the cumulative impacts on vulnerable species.
The Biden administration in May announced it is moving to expedite the review and approval of a manganese and zinc mine in southern Arizona, South32 Hermosa’s $1.7 billion underground mine and processing plant. “It’s clear these cumulative impacts will be significant for wildlife,” said Laiken Jordahl, an advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity.

Here’s a link to the description of the FAST-41 for the South32 Hermosa mine.

Does anyone know whether the litigation process is different for Fast-41 projects?

Introducing the Climate-Model Burger and Friedman’s Law of Disciplinary Symmetry

by

I was surprised by the intensity of the discussion around the wildfire post. I don’t think we’re going to solve the “how dire is the climate situation and what is the best policy solution?” here in the humble TSW world. However, we can talk about what we know about, that is, forests.

First, there seemed to be a tendency to attack Cliff Maas’s views on bad meteorological luck being a component of what made wildfire smoke go to New York.  I’d like to bring up two ideas here. One was the concept that a meteorologist doesn’t know about climate.

Are weather and climate related?  Here’s what NASA says

“The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere “behaves” over relatively long periods of time.”

NOAA has a page about it as part of the National Centers for Environmental Information. (If the USG ever needs to save money, they might want to look at duplication of efforts among agencies in the climate/environmental arena).

Though they are closely related, weather and climate aren’t the same thing. Climate is what you expect. Weather is what actually happens.

Let me invoke Friedman’s Law of Disciplinary Symmetry, which states, “if two or more disciplines are necessary to understand a phenomenon, then neither can be invoked as the sole source of scientific authority or knowledge on that phenomenon.”

This is equally true for wildfires. We can imagine that meteorology, the different fire sciences, plant scientists (what plants are there in what complexes and fuel conditions?) plus practitioners should all be involved in discussions of both “why did this happen?” and “what will happen in the future” .
*********************
The Climate-Model Burger

I developed the Climate Burger analogy trying to explain to people how climate models work, and why some people (including me) are skeptical of some of the confidence placed in them for real-world predictions (not research use). I’d like to have an analogy that incorporates the linear process, so if you can think of one, please post in the comments. Also if you have questions or clarifications. It’s pretty simplified.

When people talk about climate modelling, they tend to talk about the whole burger. But it’s really composed of three layers. First there’s the

bottom bun.

Those are the assumptions that go in to projecting future CO2 levels, land use, and other factors that go into the meat layer. This includes economic models and various combos of assumptions. Some of us are leery of economic models, and economists themselves tend to be humble about projections. I think this is the point where some skeptics leave the discussion especially older folks from different fields. Back in the old days, you couldn’t be more certain of a projection than the uncertainties within each variable you used to estimate it. (There are mathematical ways of stating this from statistics that engineers and others learn). When people talk about RCP 4.5 or 8.5 or whatever, they are talking about the assumptions in the bottom bun.

The meat

This takes the CO2 and other variables from the bottom bun and runs them through atmospheric models, which tell us things like future global temperatures. This is the true realm of climate modeling, and most of the people we think of as “real climate scientists” work in this arena.

I honestly have no clue about the atmospheric physics assumptions. I do know that I once asked if modellers did sensitivity analysis on the assumptions (in a meeting at the Temple of Modeling, NCAR in Boulder) and the scientist we spoke with said it was too complicated to do that..that there wasn’t enough computing power available. Perhaps that’s not true or has changed.

The top bun

The top bun then takes those outputs and translates them into impacts. But there are at least two serious problems with the way this is done.

1. Impacts to plants and hence to animals, and to fuel conditions, are actually a function of microscale changes (imagine a tree on a north slope versus a south slope- in the same climate, those are very different micro-environments as perceived by trees- hence in Colorado we can see different species on each aspect). We don’t really understand (1) the environment as a tree perceives it (2) how that might change (3) how much plasticity an organism has to changes (4) how those changes would influence predators, diseases, mycorrhizal associations and their interaction (4) conditions for establishment of seedlings (5) genetic variability of seedlings and so on.

(Note: I’ll point out here that some people feel that you don’t need to understand those things to understand the broader picture- that’s a philosophy of science question we can discuss at greater length.)

2. Impacts are also a function of human beings.. the very same human beings who were working with the environment prior to climate change projections. So.. people can plant trees. People can fight wildfire with different suppression strategies. People can and do develop new firefighting technologies. But these are not possible to enter into models. So.. most impacts don’t consider “adaptation” at all. Like projecting wildfires without fire suppression; or going backward in time. Modeling fuels of the past, but not changes in suppression strategies and technologies. Or in agriculture, the existence of plant breeders or switching

To me, where “the emperor has no clothes” is in the top bun. Yes, the assumptions in the bottom bun are probably not very accurate either. One of my unpopular ideas is to away with them and just talk about potential future concentrations. Then policy makers could talk about different ways to get to the desired concentrations with all their possibilities and imaginations open.. without the sidebars and assumptions of the RCP’s. I think that would clarify discussions greatly and make the trade-offs clearer.

Clearly, the top bun as it is today privileges certain sources of information (biophysical modeling) over other scientific disciplines (fire scientists, practitioners, meteorologists, agronomists, forest ecologists, social scientists and so on) not to speak of practitioners (water managers, fire suppression folks and so on). I’m not the only person who thinks this.. there’s quite a list of disgruntled disciplines and practitioners, if you listen.

But don’t believe me! Here’s some earth scientists saying some of the same things in Earth Science-ese

Note that the concept of Siirila-Woodburn et al. paper in Nature Reviews was to characterize uncertainty and suggest ways of dealing with it.

And from the same paper:

Making science usable for decision- making requires strong trust between the parties 245. This trust often develops over deliberate, long- term collaboration 246, with mutual understanding of the science, models and tools being discussed and demonstration of the credibility, saliency and legitimacy of the new approach(es) 247. Institutional, technical and financial capacity to implement these approaches must also be overcome 233. Scientists must also recognize that practitioners are often directly responsible, sometimes even personally liable, for the outcomes of decisions made, which makes them hesitant in the application of new climate science 236, especially if perceived as not fitting with existing knowledge or policy goals 233,248.A path forward can be made by including Earth scientists, infrastructure experts, decision scientists, water management practitioners and community stakeholders, in a collaborative, iterative process of scientific knowledge creation through a co- production framework 41,42,249,250. This process helps to ensure that new science is suited to challenges at hand and can provide meaningful input into decision- making processes.

And..

Thus, at the same time that science evolves to increase predictive understanding of the mechanisms of hydroclimatic change, management practice must evolve to accommodate uncertainty regarding the changing patterns of current and future hydrologic variability. Developing a robust strategy and selecting investment options that balance competing societal objectives and multisectoral interactions (such as the interaction among water and energy 186 or water and carbon 207 reduction goals) requires new approaches to integrate water resource planning. Frameworks and planning methods for decision- making under deep uncertainty that acknowledge and accommodate imperfect knowledge regarding the probabilistic range of possible future conditions such as decision scaling 241, robust decision- making, dynamic adaptation pathways 242 and scenario planning can identify scientifically informed adaptive strategies that leverage best available science without overstating its confidence 243.

But back to the Climate-Model Burger..what do you think of this analogy? How could it be improved?

Welcome to The Smokey Wire! Reminder of TSW Values

by

It appears that we have some new subscribers and it has been awhile since we restated our norms and values.  So Welcome!.. you’ll find we are a hospitable group.

  1. The three doors of charitable speech. When commenting, please consider the three doors that charitable speech must pass through.  It’s also in a widget in the right column of the website, in case you forget.  “The gatekeeper at the door asks, “Is it true?” The second gatekeeper asks, “Is it helpful?” The third gatekeeper asks, “Is it kind?” (adapted from the writings of Krishnamurti by James Martin on p. 169 of his book “Between Heaven and Mirth.) “Many of us spend time on other social media such as Twitter, and TSW is intentionally a different space.  We don’t always achieve that, we are human beings.  Sometimes people just need to vent, and we are fairly tolerant of that.  On the other hand, personal attacks are not OK. There are plenty of other internet spaces for that.
  2. The rule of “some”.  Again, TSW is about ideas and evidence, not tribalism.  So if you make a comment about any group, you might be challenged.  If you say “some” Republicans or “some” ENGO’s”  it is both likely to be more true and less likely to be challenged.  No one is perfect, and we are a forgiving lot, but like I said, you may be challenged.
  3. Anonymity is OK, welcome, in fact.  We have different Anonymous people on TSW who all have different perspectives and have different informational and philosophical gifts to share with us.  From Hillel to the Hill. I’m retired now, and the drama that led to my retirement was partially from my involvement here, so I will always be sympathetic to any of the Anonymous among us.
  4. If you have a claim, support it; if you’ve read a book or a paper, tell us the claim and something of the rationale in it and/or use a quote. If it’s a paper, do your best to find a non-paywalled copy for us to peruse. Don’t just tell us that there are good ideas in a 300 page book and we should read it.  Which reminds me.
  5. Consider contributing more.  We’re interested in book reviews, and contributions on other topics. Contact me in advance to see if its something that might fit.  And then there’s money.  We are obviously a shoestring organization- we need $1000 a year to keep going, and so far only have $220 for this year.  The recommended donation/subscription is $30 per year. We don’t take advertising and so are truly independent.

Hopefully, these are not too difficult or constraining for you.  We look forward to hearing your ideas, experiences, and information!  Thank you for your presence and again, welcome!

Do any community members have values they would like to add?

Solar Industry Fried About Proposed BLM Reg (2): It’s a Big Change.. But No OIRA and a CX

by
As environmental compensation for several solar farms, renewable energy developer Avantus retired grazing rights on 215,000 acres of federal land in California’s Kern County, including some with Joshua trees.(Avantus via LA Times)

Apologies to all who are not interested in the proposed BLM regulation.  I haven’t seen anything much in the press on it so thought I would dive in. Plus we only have 15 more days, and it’s not an ANPR like the MOG for the Forest Service, meaning we all have another go at the MOG (when it is a proposed rule) but not this one.

Other than Sammy Roth at the LA Times, who has been covering the protection/renewable energy tension for some time, I haven’t seen much coverage of the details of the regulation other than a bit of “good people want it, bad people don’t”.

Back to the solar industry letter: they raised two points that are worth further examination.

Is it or Ain’t it… a Big Change, and if Not, Why Are We All Here?

Why No OIRA?

In addition to these potential unintended consequences, the Proposed Rule is a major agency action that would substantially alter the status quo of BLM’s management of federal lands and therefore should be scrutinized to examine its economic and environmental consequences. Among other things, the Proposed Rule:

• Requires OIRA Review. BLM’s effort to shield the Proposed Rule from OIRA review is inappropriate. At a minimum, it must be subjected to the detailed policy analyses required of “major rules” under the CRA, “significant regulatory actions” under Executive Order (EO) 12866, and “significant energy actions” under EO 13211.

Assuming that the solar folks did their homework (does anyone know where to look for this in the reg?), I guess that answers my question as to how the proposed regulation did not encounter some resistance from USDA about redefining “conservation” differently from long-standing and widely popular USDA programs.  In addition, it seems highly likely that DOE would be equally concerned about taking land off the table for solar and wind.  It seems to me that the Admin can’t argue that:

 By putting conservation on an equal footing with other uses, the proposal would help guide responsible development while safeguarding important places for the millions of people who visit public lands every year to hike, hunt, camp, fish, and more.

It’s a big thing that needs to be done, but not big enough to require OIRA.   As we used in say when working with Roadless, “they need to pick a lane.”  Except that politically generated proposals don’t have to.  Speaking with a forked tongue is an inherent tendency of all politicos, but I still think we need to point it out when it occurs.

A Categorical Exclusion?

Back to the solar folks.

• Requires Full NEPA Review. BLM proposes to comply with NEPA by applying a Departmental categorical exclusion (CX) typically used for “policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.” The Proposed Rule goes well beyond what is appropriate for consideration under a CX, and BLM should prepare an EIS analyzing the Rule’s environmental and economic impacts, including an evaluation of the potential negative consequences for renewable energy development on federally managed lands.

Some of us remember a NFMA Planning Rule that was required to have an EIS done when a CE was originally used.  I spent a large number of hours discussing this with lawyers so am hoping that some of them can shed some light on why or why not this kind of “procedures and definitions” only kind of reg deserves (or doesn’t) an EIS.

If a) the Proposed Rule is finalized with a CE and 2) people with funding for attorneys don’t like the Rule, it seems probable that, like the Planning Rule, an EIS would ultimately be required.

***********

More next time..

A Confusing Tale of Two BLM Regs: More Protection and More Development- Who Will Win?

by

There are many interesting (to me) things about the Proposed BLM Rule (Conservation and Landscape Health) and I’m glad they gave us more time to post on it.

Yesterday I empathized with the Biden Admin who want to please both their protectionist friends and their renewable energy development friends. And yesterday it was also announced that

Interior Department Proposes Rule to Bolster Solar and Wind Development on Public Lands, Continue Progress on Efficient and
Responsible Permitting

WASHINGTON — The Department of the Interior today announced a proposed update of its renewable energy regulations to promote the development of solar and wind energy on public lands. The Bureau of Land Management’s proposed Renewable Energy Rule would reduce fees for these projects by around 80%, facilitate development in priority areas by streamlining review of applications, and deliver greater certainty for the private sector.

“The Department of the Interior takes seriously our responsibility to manage the nation’s public lands responsibly and with an eye toward the increasing impacts of the climate crisis. The power and potential of the clean energy future is an undeniable and critical part of that work,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Laura Daniel-Davis. “Under President Biden and Secretary Haaland’s leadership, this Administration is taking an all-hands-on-deck approach toward ambitious clean energy goals that will support families, boost local economies, and help increase climate resilience in communities across the West.”

This sounds terrific, I mean why charge them at all?

Here’s what the proposed regulation says

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to amend its existing right-of-way (ROW) regulations, issued under authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The principal purpose of these amendments would be to facilitate responsible solar and wind energy development on public lands managed by the BLM. The rule would adjust acreage rents and capacity fees for solar and wind energy, provide the BLM with more flexibility in how it processes applications for solar and wind energy development inside designated leasing areas, and update agency criteria on prioritizing solar and wind applications. The rule would also make technical changes, corrections, and clarifications to the existing ROW regulations. This rule would implement the authority granted to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) in the Energy Act of 2020 to “reduce acreage rental rates and capacity fees” to “promote the greatest use of wind and solar energy resources” and achieve other enumerated policy goals.

In the description it says..

Through the rent and fee adjustments contemplated in this rule, the BLM also expects that lower acreage rental rates and capacity fees for solar and wind energy generating facilities would translate into lower costs for energy deployment, increasing renewable energy market penetration in domestic energy production. By reducing costs to producers, these reduced rates may also reduce electricity costs to rate payers.

Let’s see.. the Feds and States already provide subsidies to wind and solar, and BLM will reduce rates that they pay, but this “may” reduce electricity costs to rate payers.  It would be nice if there were some guarantee that those  savings (conceivably given up by taxpayers) would be passed on to ratepayers.

At some point, if protectionist groups are in disagreement with industrializing federal landscapes, we can expect to see media campaigns about “welfare turbines”, echoing previous concerns about “welfare ranchers”,  royalties for oil and gas being too low, and all that.  Not that I know what they should be other than fair market value, which is enormously difficult to figure out since private and public land are rarely in direct competition.

On the other hand, if I were in the renewable industry I would wonder how these two rules would interact.  If the BLM were increasing the levers for protectionist control (the conservation rule, more intactness, more ACECs) at the same time, saying “if no one else (important to us) has a problem, we will streamline your permitting and charge you less.” Sure they would only pay 20% but first they need to lease a site.  Investors don’t like uncertainties, and there’s nothing less certain than possible long-term litigation in the federal courts.  While major ENGOs might not be on board to litigate these projects, our friends at other ENGO’s may take a different approach.

Here’s a link to the proposed regulation, called “Rights-of-Way, Leasing, and Operations for Renewable Energy.”

As usual, if anyone finds a good write-up on this, please link below.

Improving public access to public lands

by

We have discussed “corner crossings” and other barriers to public land access resulting from land ownership patterns.  Overlaying this is another barrier – availability of information about the extent of public access that does exist.  It turns out there is a lot more existing public access than meets the eye, and some technology and legislation is making more information about it available to public land users.

… the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership teamed up with onX to quantify the scope of the landlocked public lands problem and offer solutions that would open access to these acres. Since 2018, the team has found a staggering 16.43 million acres of inaccessible public land across 22 states. …  With $27 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund dedicated to increasing public land access each year, there is an incredible opportunity to address the landlocked public lands problem through strategic land acquisitions and access easements.

We soon learned that the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service held roughly 90,000 such access easements—where permanent access to public land has already been secured—but 50,000 were only recorded on paper, stored away in the dusty filing cabinets of local agency offices.  Neither the agencies, nor the public, have ever had a complete digital picture of where there is legal access to our public land. Seeing a clear need for a solution, TRCP experts began talking with lawmakers, which led to introduction of federal legislation called the Modernizing Access to Our Public Land Act.

The MAPLand Act requires federal land management agencies to digitize their paper easements, information about roads and trails and vehicle type on federal land, and the boundaries of areas with federal rules concerning weapon type and shooting. The ultimate goal is to make all of this information readily available to the public.  In April 2022, the MAPLand Act was signed into law.  This means that complete and consistent mapping data about road, trail, and shooting access will be digitally available to hunters and anglers wanting to use their public lands.

Of course funding this in a deficit-reducing environment may not happen as fast as we’d like.

BLM Extends Comment Period on Proposed Regulation to July 5: E&E News Story

by

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

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

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

BLM offers extra comment time on public lands rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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