BLM Proposed Rule Stirs Up MOG-y Drama With Certain ENGOs

by

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

Contact:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nantahala-Pisgah forest plan revision – done

by

 

The Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest has completed revising its forest plan.  The final plan was released on February 16 and implementation began last week.  The revision website is here, and the response to the objections is here.

Said Sam Evans, leader of the National Forests and Parks Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center (and Smokey Wire contributor) “A big disappointment for me here at the end of the process is that it is more of the same. It’s going to drive a wedge between stakeholders that had found consensus.” “We can sue over the plan,” Evans said. “We can oppose projects as they come up under the new plan. I would say the only thing that’s not an option for us is letting this plan roll out and be implemented in a way that continues to degrade those same resources — unroaded areas, healthy, intact forests like the state Natural Heritage Areas and existing old growth.”  The ”stakeholders” would be the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Partnership of 20 interested organizations.  This article continues to discuss these disappointments in more detail (though apparently not all of the stakeholders are unhappy).

The Partnership wanted to see various tier objectives tied together so that, for instance, the Forest Service couldn’t move on to Tier 2 timber harvest goals without first meeting Tier 1 goals in other areas, such as invasive species management and watershed protection. Additionally, the Partnership said, the plan should require ecological restoration treatments to be paired with any commercial timber harvest occurring on the forest landscape.

The group was also concerned that 54,000 acres of state Natural Heritage Natural Areas were placed in management areas open to commercial logging and road building, and that the plan didn’t allow for protection of old growth patches found during timber projects. The group wanted to see a “cap and trade” approach to the 265,000-acre Old Growth Network identified in the plan, so that lower-quality patches in the network could be swapped out for higher-quality patches encountered during projects.

According to Evans, only 30,000 acres of the 265,000 acres is at the minimum age level to qualify as old growth, and the remainder is middle-aged forest of 60-100 years. Meanwhile, known old growth stands were not included in the network. The Forest Service does not have a figure for the number of acres in the network that currently qualify as old growth. “We’re trading young forest that maybe will become older one day for existing old growth now,” Evans said, “and that isn’t a good trade for the species that live in old growth forests and don’t move around.”

The forest supervisor had an interesting response to this old growth issue:  “Because of the complexity of the forest, there’s always going to be places that we might find a particular stand that is in that older forest type, and we can say, ‘You know what, that’s an area that’s special, and that we want to favor for those types, and that’s part of a larger project that’s holistic in a given area,’” he said.  They CAN say that project-by-project, but by allowing that flexibility, does the PLAN comply with the requirements for it to affirmatively provide habitat for at-risk species?

There is also disagreement about whether it does what it should to address climate change.  It apparently pits carbon storage (mitigation) vs “resilience” (adaptation).  Shouldn’t carbon storage projections include any additional risk of having less “resilient” forests?  There was a recent question on this blog about how forest plans are dealing with climate change.  This article (which also highlights the criticisms of the plan) lists the Forest Service’s seven main goals for “dealing with the impacts of climate change” (which are about adaptation rather than mitigation)

  • “Where there are species at risk that are susceptible to the effects of climate change, promote activities that support suitable habitat enhancement.
  • “Consider and address future climate and potential species range shifts when planning restoration projects, facilitating species migration and adaptation when possible.
  • “Monitor for new invasive species moving into areas where they were traditionally not found, especially in high-elevation communities. Utilize the monitoring information to assess threats and prioritize treating highly invasive infestations.
  • “Restore native vegetation in streamside zones to help moderate changes in water temperature and stream flow and enhance habitat.
  • “Anticipate and plan for changes in natural disturbance patterns.
  • “Prepare for intense storms and fluctuations in base flow using methods that maintain forest health and diversity, including controlling soil erosion, relocating high risk roads and trails, and constructing appropriately sized culverts and stream crossings while retaining stream connectivity.
  • “To maintain genetic resiliency, consider locally adapted genotypes for use in restoration projects.”

What’s next?  Will Harlan, a scientist for the Center for Biological Diversity said (here) communities still  not satisfied with the decision will “use every tool possible” including “public engagement, community involvement (and) litigation” to push back against what the plan could do to forests.

However, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians was “pleased.”

BLM Releases Proposed Plan to Guide the Balanced Management of Public Lands

by

PR from the BLM today:

Interior Department Releases Proposed Plan to Guide the Balanced Management of Public Lands

Public Lands Rule lays groundwork for conserving wildlife habitat, restoring places impacted by wildfire and drought, expanding outdoor recreation, and thoughtful development

WASHINGTON — Today the Department of the Interior published a proposal to guide the balanced management of America’s public lands for the benefit of current and future generations. The proposed Public Lands Rule provides tools for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to improve the resilience of public lands in the face of a changing climate; conserve important wildlife habitat and intact landscapes; plan for development; and better recognize unique cultural and natural resources on public lands.

The proposed rule directly responds to the growing need to better manage public lands, waters, and wildlife in the face of devastating wildfires, historic droughts, and severe storms that communities are experiencing across the West, as well as to deepen BLM’s collaborative work with communities, states and Tribes to support responsible development of critical minerals, energy and other resources. The proposal is consistent with strategies used by other state and federal land management agencies to ensure the federal government has tools and direction to identify areas in need of restoration or conservation, as well as the ability to encourage investments in public lands to help balance the impacts of development. It will increase access to outdoor recreation by putting conservation on equal footing with other uses, consistent with the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield mission.

“As the nation continues to face unprecedented drought, increasing wildfires and the declining health of our landscapes, our public lands are under growing pressure. It is our responsibility to use the best tools available to restore wildlife habitat, plan for smart development, and conserve the most important places for the benefit of the generations to come,” said Secretary Deb Haaland. “As we welcome millions of visitors to hunt, fish and recreate on our public lands each year, now is the time to improve the health and management of special places.”

“Our public lands provide so many benefits – clean water, wildlife habitat, food, energy and lifetime memories, to name just a few– and it’s our job to ensure the same for future generations,” said Bureau of Land Management Director Tracy Stone-Manning. “As pressure on our public lands continues to grow, the proposed Public Lands Rule provides a path for the BLM to better focus on the health of the landscape, ensuring that our decisions leave our public lands as good or better off than we found them. We look forward to feedback from the public on how this proposal will help us best uphold the BLM’s important mission.”

The proposed rule would build on the historic investments in public lands, waters and clean energy deployment provided by President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act by directing land managers to identify and prioritize lands and waters through the land management process that require habitat restoration work, such as removing invasive species or restoring streambanks. BLM lands are an economic driver across the West, and the proposed rule will ensure those lands and the resources they produce continue to be available for future generations.

It also proposes conservation leasing, a tool authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), to facilitate restoration work on public lands in cooperation with community partners. A conservation lease is a time-limited lease of public land that allows interested organizations to conduct specific restoration or mitigation activities and would generate revenue for the American taxpayer. This tool has the potential to expand opportunities to accelerate restoration of big game migration corridors or establish carbon markets, for example, and directly responds to comments from state and industry partners on the need for a reliable path on public lands by which to pursue compensatory mitigation to facilitate development projects.

The proposed rule includes a roadmap to align the BLM with other land management agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service, in ensuring the agency is inventorying and assessing the health of public lands, including watersheds, forests and wildlife habitat. In light of the rapidly changing climate and increasing demands on public lands, the additional information will be used to identify trends, implement adaptive management strategies, and ensure decisions are informed by the best available science and on-the-ground monitoring. It will also be utilized during the existing land management planning processes to identify public lands in need of restoration work or intact landscapes that may be best managed for their contributions to healthy, functioning ecosystems or water quality.

The proposed rule also provides a framework for land managers to apply provisions of FLPMA that direct the BLM to prioritize the identification, evaluation and designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) through land use planning. ACECs are the primary BLM designation for public lands where special management is required to protect important natural, historic, cultural and scenic resources, systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.

The publication of the proposed Public Lands Rule in the Federal Register in the coming days initiates a 75-day public comment period. In addition, the BLM will host five information forums to discuss the details of the rule.

The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land located primarily in 12 western states, including Alaska, on behalf of the American people. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. Our mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

“Using our nation’s forest inventory to open carbon markets to family forest owners”

by

Here’s an announcement from the Forest Service about a program designed to promote use of small, private forests for carbon offsets.  In particular, it’s about the the use of Forest Service FIA data in this program, but I’m always interested in what management practices are considered to be worth getting paid for, and I don’t think I’ve seen them this clearly specified.  The program website says, “When you enroll, you’ll receive payments for implementing forest management practices that increase the carbon sequestered and stored on your land.”  This program seems to be only available in the eastern U. S., but if you track through the links you can find the specific “management requirements” for several states under the “Practice Overview” documents here.   The three groups of states are each a little different.

Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin (Payments are higher for “growing mature forests” than for “promoting diverse forests;” these are requirements for the former, while the latter allows more intensive logging, but has requirements for reserve areas.)

  • Harvests may not remove more than 25% of the basal area at the time of the harvest.
  • Harvests may not reduce the average stand diameter by more than 10%.

Maryland/Pennsylvania/West Virginia (Payment is for “growing mature forests” only)

  • If you choose to conduct a timber harvest, it must not remove more than 25% of the basal area per acre
  • High-grading is prohibited during the contract period. High-grading is defined as a reduction in quadratic mean tree diameter of more than 10% from the pre-harvest condition.

Vermont/eastern New York (Payments are higher for “grow older forests” than for “enhance your woodland.”  The former generally requires deferment of commercial logging for 20 years.  The latter restricts timber harvest based on basal area, diameter, trees per acre, snags and opening size.)

Would something like this make sense in the west?  For federal lands (as a best management practice, since they couldn’t be paid for it)?  (I know we’ve had some discussions about thinning requirements based on basal area vs other metrics.)

 

 

Can We Log Our Forest and Conserve It Too?

by

Here’s an interesting blog post by Alice Palmer focusing on BC, but applies elsewhere.

Can We Log Our Forest and Conserve It Too?

If we want to transition to a bioeconomy, we will need more biomaterials. Finding them won’t be easy.

Speaking at a recent forestry conference in BC, futurist Nikolas Badminton enthused about recent forestry innovations, such as mass timber high-rises, wood-based windows, and electricity-generating floors. Indeed, one has only to open their daily newspaper to be inspired about the promise of a “bioeconomy” replacing carbon-intensive materials such as cement or plastic with bio-based ones such as wood fibre.

Unfortunately, while wood is increasingly viewed as a climate-friendly building solution, the logging activities that provide this wood are not viewed in the same positive light. Indeed, many people believe industrial forestry to be environmentally damaging in terms of both carbon emissions and biodiversity conservation. These beliefs frequently carry over to the media and various levels of government.

In short, we want to “eat our cake and have it too” – use the wood, but preserve the forest. However, if we want to both take advantage of the multiple carbon benefits of building with wood and conserve 30% of the earth’s surface (as per the UN Convention on Biological Diversity), we’ll need to make some tough decisions.

The author continues with four hypothetical scenarios…. All worthy of discussion.

Scenario 4: Active land management

With climate change threatening biodiversity, conservation groups and the forest industry call a truce. Some forests are set aside for conservation purposes and others are designated for industrial wood production. Previously degraded forests are actively restored and intensive silviculture in the industrial forests reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfires and enables high-quality wood production. These industrial forests rapidly sequester carbon, contributing to global net zero emissions.

The Amazing World of Political Byzantinery… How a CEQ Underling Overruled a Senate-Confirmed Cabinet Secretary

by

And I’ve been interested, as you know, in how alignment in the USG currently works. Because if the Admin has a stated policy, then are the agencies working together to implement it? What if they disagree? How are arguments worked out in practice? Who is really holding the cards, and why.. and what makes political power exactly.. donations, the buddy system??? And when we think about voting, we need to think not only about the candidate themselves, but who in the Admin will be making decisions and why. Because I’m not a political person (I consider myself politically-impaired and many of my former bosses will agree) but based on my experience, every notable decision from here on in has some 2024 considerations involved. (We used to call this “silly season” and like many things it was shorter during less partisan times).

So today, we have an interesting example, based on the rumor mill (several sources). In this case, the USDA wanted to support the bill on fire retardant that was discussed last week at the Federal Lands Subcommittee Hearing (which was interesting and I’ll have a post or two just on that).

However, as I understand it, the Secretary of Agriculture (a Senate-confirmed Cabinet member) was overruled by an underling at the Council on Environmental Quality. How did this happen? I filed a FOIA to learn more, but anyone who has more information please contact me.

Right now, I can think of two rational reasons for this point of view. 1. Giving more power to the EPA or 2. “They shouldn’t live there anyway”.- kind of a pre-re-wilding point of view. But we’ll see what it says in the FOIA.

Ramping Up Green Energy Permitting.. BLM asks for $20 Mill to Accelerate

by

I got this map from the Greenwire story so it might not be the latest one.
There must have been something in the air.. after I posted the previous post on BLM geothermal permitting, I found this story from E&E News. It’s paywalled, so here are some excerpts.

It plans to do this primarily through organizational changes designed to more quickly review and approve applications forright-of-way grants for projects on BLM lands, according to a budget justification document.
The budget proposal would allow BLM to:
* Create a “project management office” that would support “technical development of BLM field staff for the review and permitting” of solar, wind and geothermal projects “and related transmission and battery storage infrastructure.” One goal is to coordinate with the Department of Energy to tap into $400 billion in grants provided through the Inflation Reduction Act “to advance clean energy.”
* Name a task force of experts to help with breaking “permitting bottlenecks and challenges,” as well as hiring additional staff at BLM Renewable Energy Coordination Offices in the West who are tasked with prioritizing renewable energy project applications.
* Establish a geothermal regional project support team. BLM has reported that there are 48 geothermal power plants
operating on bureau-managed lands, with a total 2,500 MW capacity.
BLM declined to answer specific questions about its renewables budget request in time for publication.
But the bureau says in the budget document that the increased funding, if approved, would “support siting, leasing, processing rights-of-way applications, and oversight of renewable energy projects and transmission lines connecting to renewable energy projects.”

The FS and other agencies have had trouble hiring people, but maybe these jobs would be work at home so perhaps more attractive.

While the pace of renewables development the Biden administration hopes to achieve might be faster than before, it’s not terribly impressive, either, said Carey King, a research scientist and assistant director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas, Austin.
King noted that in Texas, which has very little federal land and few zoning laws, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) already has about 35,000 MW of wind power capacity in operation — by far the most of any state — and has turned its attention to solar. There is more than 8,000 MW of installed solar capacity in 2021, with plans to add another 8,000 MW capacity by the end of this year.
“The BLM plans sound about the same size as Texas rate of permitting/installation,” he said.

But.. the federal lands are subject to a different regulation scenario with a variety of different stakeholders as we have seen in the Geothermal Toad project.

BLM is on pace to approve 48 wind, solar and geothermal energy projects with the capacity to produce an estimated 31,827 MW of electricity — enough to power roughly 9.5 million homes — by the end of the fiscal 2025 budget cycle, according to an Interior Department report to Congress last year (Greenwire, April 20, 2022).
Much of that effort has focused on solar resource-rich Nevada, where the bureau in the last year has removed tens of thousands of acres of federal lands for use while it evaluates commercial-scale projects.
BLM last year removed the equivalent of 185 square miles of federal lands in southern Nevada’s Esmeralda County from new mining claims and other uses for two years while it studies seven utility-scale solar power projects that would have the capacity to produce 5,350 MW of electricity, or enough to power roughly 1.8 million homes (E&E News PM, July 26, 2022).
BLM last week segregated from new mining claims and other uses 5,281 acres straddling Clark and Nye counties in Nevada, about 40 miles west of Las Vegas, while it studies the proposed 500-MW Mosey Solar Project (E&E News PM, March 20).
The Mosey project is near three other large-scale solar project proposals covering nearly 16,000 acres of federal lands southeast of Pahrump, Nev., that BLM in 2021 withdrew from new mining claims while it evaluated each.
But the buildup has prompted some pushback from those worried about impacts to natural resources.
A number of residents in Nevada and California told BLM during an online hearing last month to gather public feedback on the bureau’s plan to update its 2012 Western Solar Plan (E&E News PM, Feb. 14).
“We are basically, to put it very simply, we are right in the middle of this attack of solar on our community,” said Don Sneddon, a Desert Center, Calif., resident who asked BLM to designate in the plan “exclusion zones” around towns and residential areas to prevent solar power plants from encroaching on homes. “Very simply said, the human element needs to be considered.”

As to Biden Admin alignment, it appears that the new Avi Kwa Me National Monument was protected partially in response to concerns of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe. There’s an open access article on this on Greenwire.

“To us, this is the last of what’s left out there,” said McDowell, who serves as project manager of the Topock remediation project, which aims to address groundwater contamination near the Topock Maze, a geoglyph near Needles, Calif., considered to be spiritually important to the tribe.

“Every time we turn around, there’s a proposal to put in a wind farm or a solar project that would wipe this landscape out,” she said.

McDowell noted that the Mojave are not opposed specifically to wind energy development, but rather its impact on an important area.

“It’s not that we’re against any type of energy development. It’s just where you put it at,” McDowell said. “And unfortunately, to people that don’t live here, don’t come from here … or don’t know the land like the Mojave people do, they see it just as a piece of desert, as a landscape than can be bulldozed and cleared.”

Can We Get There From Here? Wishful Thinking Meets Reality on Federal Lands.. Geothermal Version

by

 

This map is from an earlier presentation on this video at 23:15

The Western Governors’ Association has a whole series called “The Heat Beneath Our Feet” about geothermal.  At 28:14 of this video, Lorenzo Trimble of the BLM talks about the BLM process.

Apparently there is a Geothermal PEIS that amended 114 (!) land use plans to incorporate geothermal leases. Improved leasing on BLM and FS, and is not stale. In this presentation, the FS is one Surface Management Agency.

Personally I would prefer that people not say that using a CE (or CX in BLM-ese)  is “not NEPA” as that’s not what the regs say…

Interestingly if you have an oil and gas lease, you can non-competitively apply for a geothermal lease.

New CEQ Guidance on Habitat Connectivity

by
Cascade Forest Conservancy

On March 21, the Council on Environmental Quality provided “Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Ecological Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors” to federal agencies.  The Forest Service was a member of the working group that developed this guidance.

“Connectivity is the degree to which landscapes, waterscapes, and seascapes allow species to move freely and ecological processes to function unimpeded. Corridors are distinct components of a landscape, waterscape, or seascape that provide connectivity. Corridors have policy relevance because they facilitate movement of species between blocks of intact habitat, notably during seasonal migrations or in response to changing conditions… Increasing connectivity is one of the most frequently recommended climate adaptation strategies for biodiversity management.”

“To the maximum extent practicable, Federal agencies are expected to advance the objectives of this guidance by developing policies, through regulations, guidance, or other means, to consider how to conserve, enhance, protect, and restore corridors and connectivity during planning and decision-making, and to encourage collaborative processes across management and ownership boundaries. Any existing corridor and connectivity policies or related policies should be updated as needed to align with the objectives in this guidance. Federal agencies should have new or updated policies ready to implement by the first quarter of 2024 and make their policies publicly available. Federal agencies should also actively identify and prioritize actions that advance the objectives set forth in this guidance.”

“Federal agencies should not limit engagement in restoration activities only to circumstances when restoration serves as a mitigation strategy to compensate for adverse impacts from projects or actions. Instead, Federal agencies should consider where there are opportunities in their programs and policies to carry out restoration with the objective of promoting greater connectivity.”

One of the specific “focal areas” listed in the memo is “forest and rangeland planning and management.”  “Connectivity and corridors should factor into high-level planning and decision-making at Federal agencies as well as into individual decisions that lead to well-sited and planned projects.”  “In carrying out large-scale planning required by statutory mandates (citing NFMA and FLPMA) Federal agencies should consider updating inventories of Federal resources under their associated management plans to assess connectivity and corridors.”

The Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule already includes language requiring that forest plans address connectivity as part of its wildlife viability considerations.  I had something to do with that, but I was regularly disappointed in the agency’s unwillingness to “think outside the green lines” about how species occurring on a national forest depend on connectivity across other land ownerships, so I’m always happy to see someone try to make them do that:

“Ecological processes and wildlife movement are not limited by jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, Federal agencies should seek active collaboration and coordination with other Federal agencies, Tribes, States, territorial, and local governments, as well as stakeholders to facilitate landscape, waterscape, and seascape-scale connectivity planning and management, and consider appropriate collaboration with other nations. Prioritization and strategic alignment of connectivity efforts across partners improves the effectiveness of each entity’s activities and enables larger-scale conservation, enhancement, protection, or restoration to occur.”

“Federal agencies with investments on Federal lands or in Federal waters adjacent to designated areas that may have conservation outcomes (e.g., National Park System units, national monuments, national forests and grasslands, national marine sanctuaries, national estuarine research reserves, wilderness areas, national wildlife refuges, etc.) should explore collaborative opportunities to enhance connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries.”

These kinds of initiatives seem to come and go, but we should at least expect to see the land management agencies tell us what they think under this administration by next year.  If anyone happens to notice, let us know!

What Happened to This Bill? Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act

by

UPDATE: I called Levin’s office and it was reintroduced in January and is HR178. Without reading it carefully it looks similar.

Last week we talked about the USG picking some priority sites for renewable energy on Federal lands.  It was proposed by Congressperson Levin (current member of House Natural Resources Committee)  of S. Cal. in 2021. Here’s his press release.

The Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act helps combat the climate crisis and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by promoting the development of wind, solar, and geothermal energy on public lands. The bill includes measures to ensure a fair return for impacted states and communities and directs revenues to fund conservation. In addition, the bill incentivizes development in lower-conflict priority areas, while ensuring impacts to wildlife, habitat, and cultural resources are avoided and minimized.

The bill establishes a revenue sharing mechanism ensuring a fair return for relevant stakeholders. The revenue sharing mechanism will distribute certain revenues derived through the bill by returning 25 percent to the state where development occurs, 25 percent to the counties of origin, 25 percent deposited into a fund for sportsmen and conservation purposes, and 25 percent directed for the purposes of more efficiently processing permit applications and reducing the backlog of renewable energy permits.

Here’s a link to the bill.

(a) PRIORITY AREAS.—
5 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consulta6 tion with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish
7 priority areas on covered land for geothermal, solar,
8 and wind energy projects, consistent with the prin9 ciples of multiple use (as defined in the Federal
10 Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
11 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)) and the renewable energy per12 mitting goal enacted by the Consolidated Appropria13 tions Act of 2021 (Public Law 116–260). Among
14 applications for a given renewable energy source,
15 proposed projects located in priority areas for that
16 renewable energy source shall—
17 (A) be given the highest priority for
18 incentivizing deployment thereon; and
19 (B) be offered the opportunity to partici20 pate in any regional mitigation plan developed
21 for the relevant priority areas.
22 (2) ESTABLISHING PRIORITY AREAS.—
23 (A) GEOTHERMAL ENERGY.—For geo24 thermal energy, the Secretary shall establish
25 priority areas as soon as practicable, but not  later than 5 years, after the date of the enactment of this Act.
3 (B) SOLAR ENERGY.—For solar energy—
4 (i) solar designated leasing areas (in

5 cluding the solar energy zones established
6 by Bureau of Land Management Solar En

7 ergy Program, established in October
8 2012), and any subsequent land use plan
9 amendments, shall be considered to be pri10 ority areas for solar energy projects; and
11 (ii) the Secretary shall complete a
12 process to consider establishing additional
13 solar priority areas as soon as practicable,
14 but not later than 3 years, after the date
15 of the enactment of this Act.
16 (C) WIND ENERGY.—For wind energy, the
17 Secretary shall complete a process to consider
18 establishing additional wind priority areas as
19 soon as practicable, but not later than 3 years,
20 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Something that’s interesting about this bill is who endorsed it .. (Ormat are the geothermal folks involved in the geothermal/toad litigation we talked about last week.  Anyway,

The following organizations have endorsed the bill: The Wilderness Society, American Clean Power, Natural Resources Defense Council, Solar Energy Industries Association, EDF Renewables, Ormat Technologies Inc, Trout Unlimited, National Association of Counties, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Outdoor Alliance.