Interior drops mitigation rules for public land development

[Ben Lamb]

The Department of the Interior just said that companies who destroy habitat during development don't need to mitigate their impacts. That means fewer mule deer, elk, pronghorn, sage grouse and the other 350 species of native plants and animals that reside in sagebrush habitats.

So much for being great stewards of the land.

INTERIOR
BLM ends compensatory mitigation
Michael Doyle, E&E News reporter

Published: Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Oil and gas drilling on public lands in Utah. Ellen M. Gilmer/E&E News

In a sharp departure from current practice, the Bureau of Land Management said today it will no longer seek off-site compensatory mitigation from energy developers and others whose operations damage natural resources on federal land.

The new policy, spelled out in a BLM memo this afternoon, declares that "except where the law specifically requires, the BLM must not require compensatory mitigation from public land users."

"While the BLM, under limited circumstances, will consider voluntary proposals for compensatory mitigation, the BLM will not accept any monetary payment to mitigate the impacts of a proposed action," the memo states.

Compensatory mitigation refers to activities, monetary payments or in-kind contributions to conduct off-site actions that are intended to offset adverse impacts of a proposed action on federal land.

Even with the change, BLM officials retain their obligation to avoid authorizing any activity that causes unnecessary or undue degradation of federal lands.

"Preventing unnecessary or undue degradation does not mean preventing all adverse impacts upon the land," the BLM memo states. "The negative inference of the words 'unnecessary' and 'undue' is that a certain level of impairment may be necessary and due under a multiple use mandate."

The policy shift means BLM won't impose mandatory compensatory mitigation into its "official actions, authorizations to use the public lands, and any associated environmental review documents, including, but not limited to, permits, rights-of-ways, environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, and resource management plans," according to the memo.

"To ensure compensatory mitigation is voluntary," the memo adds, "the BLM must not explicitly or implicitly suggest that project approval is contingent upon proposing a 'voluntary' compensatory mitigation component, or that doing so would reverse or avoid an adverse finding."

Twitter: @MichaelDoyle10 Email: [email protected]

 

[scubohuntr]

Not necessarily a bad thing, depending upon the implementation of it. Offsite mitigation allows complete trashing of habitat with no reclamation, as long as they plant some trees somewhere else. Without compensatory mitigation, it will be much more difficult for developers to get an EIS approved for projects in high value habitat. Of course, in the final analysis it means only what the courts decide it means.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not necessarily a bad thing, depending upon the implementation of it. Offsite mitigation allows complete trashing of habitat with no reclamation, as long as they plant some trees somewhere else. Without compensatory mitigation, it will be much more difficult for developers to get an EIS approved for projects in high value habitat. Of course, in the final analysis it means only what the courts decide it means.

It's going to destroy the grouse planning on a couple of states, leading to a possible listing by a judge, rather than scientists.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Coming soon to your favorite fishing hole. Thanks to the trump administration.

 

[Zach]

Coming soon to your favorite fishing hole. Thanks to the trump administration.

View attachment 85146

At least grab a pic from the US...maybe from the Gold King mine...

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Never mind!

 

[Ben Lamb]

At least grab a pic from the US...maybe from the Gold King mine...

Or use the Converse County Project - 1 million acres in size in some pretty danged good speedgoat, mule deer & sage grouse habitat that won't have compensatory mitigation applied, nor will it have the mitigation handbook applied for onsite, since that was chucked out the window earlier this year. https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/17/news/economy/eu-japan-trade-deal/index.html

Or the Continental Divide-Creston Project with 9,000 new wells, which will have a similar impact on important grouse, pronghorn, mule deer & elk habitat. https://www.blm.gov/press-release/b...ivide-creston-natural-gas-development-project

The Department of Interior is walking away from their obligation to mitigate impacts to wildlife when it comes to energy development. Rescinding compensatory mitigation is just one more nail in the coffin of public land management for true multiple use, and the handing over of our public lands to high-dollar special interests.

But hey, we get to shoot lead on wildlife refuges.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Then there's this lease sale in Colorado that the Governor is weighing in on because it's going to hurt grouse populations, especially without mitigaton: https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/wes...cle_5a1fa482-8bdf-11e8-8a86-10604b9f6eda.html

And then there's also these lease sales in Wyoming that fly in the face of the SOI's order to protect migration corridors. Hopefully the Secretary pulls those leases, which would just leave leases inside key migration routes for mule deer and habitat for grouse: https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2...ew-leases-could-block-herd-migration/a62677-1

 

[hank4elk]

& fracking next to Chaco Cyn & in Bears Ears &....
Keep your ammo dry & close.

 

[Irrelevant]

There appears to be zero outrage from people who weren't already outraged (or had at least vocalized there displeasure with the current admin). Maybe there is nothing that would or could sway those people into action. Political support > hunting?

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Offsite mitigation allows complete trashing of habitat with no reclamation, as long as they plant some trees somewhere else.

This is not accurate. Offsite mitigation does not remove the reclamation requirement. I have used compensatory mitigation at a coal mine in CO in the form of payments to a wetlands bank. Those payments did not remove the reclamation liability for those acres once mining activity stopped. What they did do was mitigate the loss of wetland habitat while active mining was taking place. These payments were not mandatory from the BLM. They were one of many options we had at the mine to mitigate the loss of wetland habitat. They were also the cheapest option available. Even with this change in policy I would do the same thing every day of the week. Just not sure the BLM would now accept that level of mitigation.

 

[Gr8bawana]

At least grab a pic from the US...maybe from the Gold King mine...

Does it really matter since the results will be the same?

 

[scubohuntr]

This is not accurate. Offsite mitigation does not remove the reclamation requirement. I have used compensatory mitigation at a coal mine in CO in the form of payments to a wetlands bank. Those payments did not remove the reclamation liability for those acres once mining activity stopped. What they did do was mitigate the loss of wetland habitat while active mining was taking place. These payments were not mandatory from the BLM. They were one of many options we had at the mine to mitigate the loss of wetland habitat. They were also the cheapest option available. Even with this change in policy I would do the same thing every day of the week. Just not sure the BLM would now accept that level of mitigation.

That's the way it SHOULD be applied, and most likely the way it usually gets applied. Kudos for doing it the right way. Most of the coal mines I work with have a similar outlook- doing more than is strictly required to improve wildlife habitat and diversity on reclamation. There are always a few, though, that propose offsite mitigation to get approval for a project that should have died, and somehow never get around to finishing the reclamation.

 

[Ben Lamb]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/na...ban_on_land_deals_could_hurt_beleaguered_bird

Just a follow up here: UT, ID, NV, Co, OR, MT are all a little miffed at Zinke's removal of compensatory mitigation.

 

[Zach]

Does it really matter since the results will be the same?

If the results are the same, don't single out one administration. Blame them all.

 

[Gr8bawana]

If the results are the same, don't single out one administration. Blame them all.

It is the trump administration that is rolling back the rules. So yes I will single them out. You didn't see the dems making it easier to pollute our public lands and you also don't see them pushing for PLT, that would be the gop.