In a December 19 public BLM coordination meeting, county officials walk away feeling stonewalled by the BLM.
On December 19, Garfield and Kane County officials hosted a public coordination meeting with Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument staff and the Monument Advisory Committee (MAC) in Panguitch.
The meeting provided a public window into much of the discussion within the Committee these last few months. It also revealed much of the thinking at the BLM, which was a year ago tasked with drafting a new Resource Management Plan (RMP) for GSENM by the spring of 2024.
The Bureau of Land Management, which manages the monument, is now attempting to expedite a new management plan under President Biden, before any possible change in administrations. Many of the committee members and local BLM staff acknowledge that completing such a complex process, for nearly 1.9 million acres, is practically impossible under normal conditions.
The fear is that the BLM will not have enough time to adequately prepare a new RMP with proper coordination for local governments, and enough comment from residents in gateway communities. The belief of local officials is that regardless of the process’ status, the BLM director will “rubber stamp” whatever plan they want anyway, before the deadline.
In December, 2021, two months after President Biden restored the original boundaries of GSENM by proclamation, the director of the BLM issued a memorandum to BLM’s Utah director concerning how the GSENM must be managed until a new Resource Management Plan could be implemented. The BLM not only set the March 1, 2024 deadline for final approval, but also set deadlines for other tasks throughout the process.
Inventorying the “Objects” in the Resource Management Plan
President Biden’s 2021 proclamation restoring GSENM identified the same “objects” needing protection by the monument as President Clinton’s 1996 proclamation, but also added more objects and described them in great depth. Still, the BLM tasked local staff with identifying specific items not mentioned in the 2021 proclamation, and to complete an initial list of such objects within one year.
In the coordination meeting, GSENM Manager Adé Nelson acknowledged that they had missed their deadline for creating a list of objects for protection.
Much of the discussion in the meeting centered on how such a list of objects would be created, and what criteria the BLM would use to identify them. BLM Project Manager Scott Whitesides explained that they would only inventory broad categories of objects, as opposed to specific pots and shards.
Garfield County Commissioner Leland Pollock pushed back, saying “It’s our position today that we want a very articulate, defined list of these objects.” He added that “It’s very important that we don’t over-identify things and put in ridiculous objects of value … We don’t want to get hung up over a rock or something that doesn’t mean anything.”
Pollock later stated that he was concerned that studies to identify objects were being done by the wrong people, such as special interest groups, who would add things they themselves wanted protected.
Where Is the List?
County officials pressed on the BLM staff to provide the inventory list. At first the BLM staff basically said there was nothing to share, since they hadn’t finished such an inventory list, but then later admitted that a list has already been created and was in deliberation internally. Those on the county side complained that they couldn’t “coordinate” with the BLM on the list if they couldn’t get a copy.
“Without that list, we really don’t know how to help you with your goals,” David Dodds said. “That’s a really important document to us.”
Whitesides said the BLM cannot commit to any specific time when the list would be made available, and that it would first have to go through an internal approval process.
Margaret Byfield of American Stewards of Liberty wasn’t satisfied. “That does not alleviate, [and] that does not give any clarity. You have not coordinated the inventory list with the counties at this point,” she said, referring to the BLM’s responsibility to coordinate with cooperating agencies such local governments.
Nelson stated that they were working on something they intended to share with the cooperating agencies, and then to eventually make it available to the public, before the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). But, she added, the inventory list would just be an initial list and would grow over time, thereby expanding the scope of the monument’s protections. “It’s a living inventory.”
Grazing: Not a Right
Grazing was also a topic of discussion at the meeting, and whether it was a right existing prior to the monument itself. Both Clinton’s and Biden’s proclamations subject the monument to existing rights.
Nelson explained the BLM’s policy on what right was a valid, existing right: it is a right of use arising under federal law, predating the monument proclamation. She added that new rights could also be considered on a case-by-case basis.
When asked if grazing was a valid existing right, she answered that it was not. She explained that grazing is “discretionary use.” Therefore, as an example, suspended AUM’s could be eliminated if an analysis says they should be.
Commissioner Pollock disagreed, stating that grazing was made a right under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, predating the creation of the BLM.
No Coordination on the GSENM Resource Management Plan
The discussion later turned to the lack of coordination. Byfield had stressed that NEPA requires a robust process in drafting environmental impact statements, and stated that the BLM had so far refused to release any EIS’s to the public, which could result in an insufficient EIS. “You’re really setting up a lawsuit,” she said.
Kane County Commissioner Wade Heaton stressed the need for more of what the BLM has been working on in order to coordinate — especially the inventory list. “We can’t have real coordination without an inventory list. We simply can’t do it. We have to have that list.”
Byfield added, “What we’ve heard today, is an absolute ‘no’ to coordination. Even ’no’ to trying to come up with the process. There’s been no discussion on what this looks like other than going through your cooperating agency process. The whole spirit of coordination is to work together, but all we’ve heard from you is no, no, no, no to coordination.”
Commissioner Pollock told the panel that residents frequently tell him “We’d like to comment, but we feel like it falls on deaf ears.” Residents feel that the BLM does what it wants anyway, and they really have no say in how the GSENM Resource Management Plan turns out.
Pollock hoped for an easier path forward. On the subject of grazing and possible reductions in AUMs, Pollock asked, “Wouldn’t it be nice Adé, for you, and Shawn, and everybody here, if we could do this and not end up in court?”
Pollock warned them not to attack AUMs as “low-hanging fruit.” He continued, “As county commissioner, I was in court for five years on 21 allotments on the Grand Staircase. Basically, Judge Waddoups ruled in our favor. It was five years in court, and you lost anyway.”
– The Byway
Feature image caption: Kane and Garfield County officials lead a public coordination meeting with BLM staff on December 19, in front of a group of between 40 and 50 local residents, many of whom are tied to the ranching industry.