BLM proposing conservation leasing

[rogerthat]

I say no new rules until they remove the Bundy trespass cattle from gold butte

 

[WesternWyoming]

Here's the scoping notice that @Oak posted in the other thread.

my $.02 is that some of these leases could be closed to public use, but not likely how Art is thinking.

The restoration piece is one to consider: Does it make ecological sense to allow for access to an area that is being treated for cheatgrass or working to establish new plant starts for sagebrush, etc? if there is a restriction to access, then there needs to be a legitimate reason, such as how @mulecreek explained their public land lease for mining. Lots of O&G leases where portions are off limits, etc. Lots of public land leases for other developments have timing restrictions, etc. The idea behind this concept is about the health of the land, not recreational access.

I've talked with some folks in the ag and energy world who are pretty skeptical of this, but I'm not so sure that isn't just the gut-level reaction (often times warranted from their perspective). I'm not as familiar with the proposed rule as others, but having known the BLM director and chief legal counsel for over 2 decades, I can say that they're some of the smartest people I've ever worked with and I'm 100% confident they've taken all of this into consideration.

Yes, there are a lot of gut-level skeptics about conservation leases in our neck of the weeds fur sure. Our county commissioners practically pulled out the tar and feathers. But for all reading this thread, taking a gander into the horses mouth would calm a lot of guts: https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2023-05/Conservation%20Leasing%20fact%20sheet%205-11-23.pdf.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Since most won't be able to read link key points inserted. Good points against! Of course Green Decoys will disagree.

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

In the early days of his presidency, President Biden laid out his vision to comply with the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/">30 x 30 agenda</a>, which is a marketing scheme...

www.sltrib.com

This rule is problematic and should be withdrawn.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

• First, the Bureau of Land Management doesn’t have the authority to create this rule out of administrative thin air. FLPMA doesn’t contemplate a conservation lease scheme, and if Congress wanted the BLM to administer such a program, they would have expressly authorized it. This scheme would also likely raise revenue for the government, which again, is something BLM doesn’t have authority to do. Only Congress, can authorize a new program like this that raises revenue for the government.
• Second, this rule won’t work. I have reviewed BLM project files where the agency and high-minded conservation organizations have entered into agreements to manage land towards conservation priorities. In these cases, all parties to the agreement flagrantly neglected to uphold the terms and conditions of the agreement. If the conservation leases don’t have any teeth for non-compliance, then they could cede management control of public lands to 3rd parties at the same time the public will have few if any tools to hold the 3rd parties accountable for non-compliance.
• Third, this rule is unnecessary. The BLM is already required to comply with dozens of other laws and executive orders to prioritize conservation on public lands. Scores of environmental lawsuits that get filed every year ensure that the compliance with these laws is taken seriously. Despite the statutory requirement the BLM has to manage public lands for multiple use, conservation is prioritized above all other uses on a regular basis.
• Fourth, this rule could easily lead to unintended intervention into public land management by foreign governments. If the government of Brazil wanted to further monopolize the American beef industry, it could funnel dark money to organizations that oppose public land grazing that could use the funds to acquire conservation leases on public grazing allotments to interfere with those grazing operations. If China wanted to kill an American lithium industry in its infancy, it could fund wildlife protection organizations to acquire conservation leases in areas rich with lithium.

 

[Beignet]

Since most won't be able to read link key points inserted. Good points against! Of course Green Decoys will disagree.

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

In the early days of his presidency, President Biden laid out his vision to comply with the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/">30 x 30 agenda</a>, which is a marketing scheme...

www.sltrib.com

Have you looked at the website of the group where that opinion piece author works? He’s a shill for the motor sports industry. Not a remotely credible voice on the subject of conservation.

 

[nrpate05]

This, for example I could see groups leasing public land close to Yellowstone for bison or wolf preservation. Probably raise a lot of money to get it done.
I could also see a different administration using something like this to justify exclusive hunting leases the highest bidder. I am sure SFW and thier buddies would be all for this and you have to find some way to keep those campaign contributors happy.
Could be all wrong and hope I am but if we continue to allow the executive branch and bureaucrats to write all the rules, just hard to say where we will end up when administrations change.

My understanding is that this wouldn't be allowed under the proposed rule. I believe it says that a conservation lease cannot exclude existing authorized uses. This would mean if hunting is allowed, then it would remain an acceptable use under a conservation lease.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Have you looked at the website of the group where that opinion piece author works? He’s a shill for the motor sports industry. Not a remotely credible voice on the subject of conservation.

Public lands multiple use.

 

[Beignet]

Public lands multiple use.

Welp, looks like one of those multiples could soon be conservation.

 

[BuzzH]

Public lands multiple use.

Right, but not multiple ABUSE.

 

[USMC123456789]

Suppose Fred Eshelman applies for a conservation lease on the BLM corners on Elk Mountain for 'habitat restoration ' and the public is excluded till the lease is up, which if they are administered in the same manner as oil and gas or grazing leases would be 10 years? I did read about the recreational use but once it is made a rule the BLM can add those special clauses to the lease.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Suppose Fred Eshelman applies for a conservation lease on the BLM corners on Elk Mountain for 'habitat restoration ' and the public is excluded till the lease is up, which if they are administered in the same manner as oil and gas or grazing leases would be 10 years? I did read about the recreational use but once it is made a rule the BLM can add those special clauses to the lease.

The only reason you'd need to close an area for restoration is temporary closures during herbicide application or other treatment that could cause safety concerns, and would be very short term. You're forgetting who the BLM is, the bureau of livestock and mining, if anything this is a front to allow more resource use, there is no grand conspiracy in BLM to affect hunting, your fears have no basis in reality.

 

[Beignet]

Suppose Fred Eshelman applies for a conservation lease on the BLM corners on Elk Mountain for 'habitat restoration ' and the public is excluded till the lease is up, which if they are administered in the same manner as oil and gas or grazing leases would be 10 years? I did read about the recreational use but once it is made a rule the BLM can add those special clauses to the lease.

See Section 6102.4(a)(3). Is that land in need of “restoration or land enhancement” or “mitigation?” Moreover, these proposed leases are "...not intended to provide a mechanism for precluding other uses, such as grazing, mining, and recreation."

Does anyone read these things? It also shoots down a lot of the specious claims made in the opinion piece that Oscar posted.

Federal Register - Conservation and Landscape Health

 

[USMC123456789]

The only reason you'd need to close an area for restoration is temporary closures during herbicide application or other treatment that could cause safety concerns, and would be very short term. You're forgetting who the BLM is, the bureau of livestock and mining, if anything this is a front to allow more resource use, there is no grand conspiracy in BLM to affect hunting, your fears have no basis in reality.

I guess you trust the government more than I do.

 

[USMC123456789]

See Section 6102.4(a)(3). Is that land in need of “restoration or land enhancement” or “mitigation?” Moreover, these proposed leases are "...not intended to provide a mechanism for precluding other uses, such as grazing, mining, and recreation."

Does anyone read these things? It also shoots down a lot of the specious claims made in the opinion piece that Oscar posted.

Federal Register - Conservation and Landscape Health

Mitigation and restoration are already covered by The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, all this new proposed rule would do is open up the possibilities of bureaucratic abuse.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Mitigation and restoration are already covered by The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, all this new proposed rule would do is open up the possibilities of bureaucratic abuse.

Not sure you could make the argument that all it would do is open the door for abuse, but it is something that needs to be on people's radar. Not enough to make me automatically push back against the idea.

 

[kwyeewyk]

I guess you trust the government more than I do.

I think it's more a matter of understanding than trust.

 

[Beignet]

Mitigation and restoration are already covered by The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, all this new proposed rule would do is open up the possibilities of bureaucratic abuse.

Does the BLM current have the financial and manpower resources to address high priority areas on their own? I think a big part of what sells me on this is that these things could be outsourced to people who can tackle them more efficiently. It seems like there’s mechanisms in place to ensure performance: bonding, past performance requirements, etc.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Does the BLM current have the financial and manpower resources to address high priority areas on their own? I think a big part of what sells me on this is that these things could be outsourced to people who can tackle them more efficiently. It seems like there’s mechanisms in place to ensure performance: bonding, past performance requirements, etc.

MT 29% Federal mostly FS, NV 80% Federal mostly BLM. Apples and Potatoes.

If Interior Dept can not fund and manage Federal public lands allow the states to oversee management for multiple use, public access, preservation of resources.

 

[Straight Arrow]

MT 29% Federal mostly FS, NV 80% Federal mostly BLM. Apples and Potatoes.

If Interior Dept can not fund and manage Federal public lands allow the states to oversee management for multiple use, public access, preservation of resources.

You mean all those states with a huge excess of monies in their coffers?! You gotta be kidding.
You must be from Utah ... oh yeah ... you are!!!

 

[brocksw]

MT 29% Federal mostly FS, NV 80% Federal mostly BLM. Apples and Potatoes.

If Interior Dept can not fund and manage Federal public lands allow the states to oversee management for multiple use, public access, preservation of resources.

And who is responsible for funding the DOI and therefore BLM? Is it the DOI? The BLM? Or a bunch of folks in suits in DC playing party politics looking for ways to appeal to their base for re-election?

Not to mention the BLM brings in over a 100 billion annually. Their 2023 budget is 1.7 billion and employs 500k people.

"If the DOI cannot fund and manage public lands, allow the politicians that prevent them from receiving adequate funding to take a hike."

FIFY

 

[OriginalOscar]

DOI - NPS Zion can't repair a trail for 10 years until Utah Non-Profits fund $1.2M to repair the trail. https://zionpark.org/2020/emerald-pools-trail-restoration/

Poor stewardship of public lands and example Govt fail.

Back to question at hand. I feel allowing non-profits to have lease agreements for public lands is not in the public interest to multi-use. If any organization wants to support stewardship, access, and multi-use of public lands they can support with funding, labor, or collaboration with others.

Utah has waged this fight with organizations like SUWA for decades which do not support multiple use of public lands.