Grand County, Utah Public Lands Plan Fails to Address Watershed Issues
According to a recent press release, the Grand
County Council intends to hear comments on three alternative proposals
for “long-term designations of public lands” in Grand County, Utah on
April 23, 2014, with their “final” decision expected sometime after May
2, 2014.
Embedded in all three Grand County alternative plans are the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act (URLEA)
exchange parcels. All three Grand County proposed plans treat the
URLEA as settled law. Despite its lack of legal acceptance, Grand
County plans to use URLEA as the backbone for its own land use
designations.
As specified in my written protests to BLM, articles here and at MoabGas.com,
I strongly disagree with the proposed “reverse land swaps” in Grand
County. I call it a reverse land swap whenever the Utah School and
Institutional Land Trust (SITLA)
will receive land and mineral rights within Grand County. Such
transfer of Grand County BLM land to SITLA encourages fossil fuel
exploitation in Grand County, all under the guise of a “Recreational
Land Exchange”.
If the BLM and Grand County Council make their land use decisions based
on URLEA’s current “Exchange Agreement”, I will consider that neither
BLM nor the public had an opportunity to hear my voice. Before Grand
County enshrines URLEA in its land use documents, BLM should share my
written protests with the Grand County Council. Until my written
protests are accepted or rejected, they are germane to Grand County’s
long-term land use decisions.
On
March 25, 2014, BLM closed its acceptance of written protests to URLEA.
Before that date, I submitted two written protests to BLM. According
to Ms. Joy Wehking of the BLM in Salt Lake City, mine were the only
written protests received. The BLM protest period lasted forty-five
days. On May 1, 2014, my written protests will be more than forty-five
days old. A forty-five day protest period should also be the maximum
time it takes BLM to answer my written protests. Fair for one is fair
for all.
On April 15, 2014, I addressed Joy Wehking with my concerns about not
receiving a reply from BLM regarding my written protests. This was her
answer: “Because the decision for the Utah Recreational Land Exchange
that you protested was signed by the BLM Utah State Director, your
protest must be reviewed and responded to by the BLM's Washington
Office. They have been provided with the relevant information and will
be sending you a written response to your protest. As to when this may
occur, I do not know".
From my previous articles, we know that the URLEA parcel exchange is flawed. For example, Parcel 32, adjacent to Canyonlands Field
received a “grazing land” appraisal. Upon completion of the “reverse
swap” conveyance, SITLA is on record with BLM that they plan to sell
that parcel and its mineral rights to the private sector. If that
happens, Moab visitors will likely find a petrochemical production and
distribution facility intertwined with and dwarfing the Moab Airport.
The Grand County Council, which never saw a steer or an old energy extractionist that it does not like should start posting signs welcoming visitors to “Moab – The New Industrial Desert”.
For the past few years, Grand County resident Kiley Miller
has kept her email contacts informed about assaults on the environment
in Grand County. In her latest email (below), she lays out the stakes
for all to see. The Grand County Council Public Lands Working
Committee, recently proposed three alternatives for the future of
public lands in Grand County. When the Grand County Council, loaded
with “wild westers” appoints a committee to create land use plans, we
can all expect the worst.
As Kiley miller said, “We expected bad, but this is far worse”.
Background: On April 9, 2014, the Grand County Council Public Lands
Working Committee identified three alternatives, along with maps, for
long-term designations of public lands in Grand County. A public
meeting is scheduled for 6 pm Wednesday April 23, 2014 at the Grand
Center to present the maps and to take public comments; the Grand
County Council will accept written comments on the proposal until May
2, 2014.
Even the best alternative (Alternative #3) proposed by the Working
Committee would roll back environmental protection in Grand County.
Members of the County Council need to hear from you; the County must
“GO BEYOND #3” and strenuously improve the Working Committee’s
proposal.
All the alternatives ignored the public input that the county received.
Of the 182 letters received by the Council from Grand County residents
and business owners, nearly 90% favored strong wilderness and public
lands protection.
And
yet, the County’s best alternative (Alternative #3): Protects just over
half (58%, or 484,446 acres) of the proposed wilderness in Grand
County -- and then riddles that “protected wilderness” with ORV routes.
The Working Committee decided that places like Porcupine Rim, Mary Jane
Canyon, Fisher Towers, Goldbar Rim, the Dome Plateau, and most of
Labyrinth, including Mineral, Hell Roaring, Spring, and Tenmile
canyons, were unworthy of wilderness protection.
• Would punch a hole through the heart of the Book Cliffs -- one of
the largest remaining roadless areas in the lower 48 states -- to build a
“Hydrocarbon Highway” for fossil fuels extraction. The county proposes
a mile-wide “transportation corridor” (proposed as 2 miles wide in the
other alternatives) to ship fossil fuels from the Uinta Basin and
proposed tar sands mining in the Book Cliffs to dreamed-of refineries
in Green River, or to the railway.
• Leaves
open to oil and gas drilling the entire view shed east of Arches
National Park, including the world-famous view from Delicate Arch. The
Working Committee rejected proposed wilderness areas east of Arches.
This is the same area that caused a national uproar and sent Tim DeChristopher
to prison when, in its the waning days, the George W. Bush
Administration sold the famous 77 oil and gas leases. Under the
county’s best proposal, leasing and drilling in that region may follow.
•
Allows oil and gas drilling and potash mining on the rim of Labyrinth
Canyon (upstream from Spring Canyon). The lack of real protection in
the greater Labyrinth Canyon area in all three proposals is a glaring
and curious omission.
• Supports
continued off road vehicle abuse and offers zero concessions on ORV
routes designated in the Bush-era BLM travel plan -- even though the
planning of those routes likely failed to follow the law. The county
would codify the BLM’s Bush-era route designations even though a federal
judge recently set aside a nearly identical travel plan in the
Richfield BLM office for failure to comply with legal mandates to
protect archaeology, riparian areas and other natural resources. It is
just a matter of time before the Court overturns the challenged Moab
travel plan.
• Fails to protect Moab’s watershed. There is no wilderness proposed for the La Sal Mountains on US Forest Service land. Destructive cattle grazing will continue.
• Limits
the use of the Antiquities Act in Grand County -- the same act that was
used by three different Presidents to protect what is now Arches National Park.
Alternatives
1 & 2 are even worse. Both would impose a 2-mile wide
transportation corridor for the Hydrocarbon Highway through the heart of
the Book Cliffs. This is wide enough to build an entire city within
the corridor. Alternatives 1 & 2 provide even less protection for
Grand County’s proposed wilderness and less protection from oil &
gas and potash development.
What you can do:
The Grand County Council needs to hear from you!
1. Please, call your council members at (435) 259-1342 and let them
know they need to improve Alternative 3. This should be the beginning
of the discussion in Grand County, not the end.
2. Attend the public meeting Wednesday, April 23rd at 6 pm at the Grand Center.
3. Send a letter to the Grand County Council before May 2nd:
Grand County Council
125 E Center Street
Moab, UT 84532
Also, send a copy of your letter to:
Mr. Fred Ferguson
Legislative Director, Rep. Rob Bishop
123 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Thank you, Kiley Miller and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) for the above information.
Moab and Grand County, Utah now stand at a crossroad. On the old energy
side of the road, sit the ranchers, miners and mineral extractors. On
the new energy side of the road, sit outdoors people,
environmentalists, botanists, photographers… and even a few Jeep
owners, such as myself. If you care about the future of Moab, and are a
“citizen” of this world, let the officials listed above know how you
feel. Otherwise, do not be surprised when the industrial desert drowns
out any serenity still present in Grand County, Utah.
By James McGillis at 04:54 PM | | Comments (0) | Link
No comments:
Post a Comment