Utah Recreational Land Exchange (URLEA) Defies Spirit of the Law
The legislative legacy of Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) rests with the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act (URLEA) of 2009. At that time, the bill received accolades from both the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) and the Grand Canyon Trust. In 2009, the bill received unanimous approval by the U.S. House of Representatives and passed the U.S. Senate. In 2009, an executive summary of the bill
stated, “H.R. 1275 (now Public Law 111-53-Aug. 19, 2009) would
authorize the exchange of approximately 41,000 acres of land owned by
the State of Utah and approximately 46,000 acres of U.S. federal land.
Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would be required to
accept the exchange if it is offered by the State.”
The
exchange was to be an “equal value” land swap between the Utah School
and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) and the federal
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In concept, The BLM would receive
prime recreational acreage around Moab and throughout Grand County.
SITLA, on behalf of the State of Utah, would receive prime mineral
extraction lands in Uintah County. Upon development of mineral rights
in Uintah County, all of Utah’s school districts would receive benefit
of payments from the interest and mineral royalties accrued to SITLA.
According to a recent posting on the BLM website, “The BLM will acquire
58 parcels with high conservation and recreation value, totaling 25,034
acres, primarily in Grand County. These parcels will expand the BLM
backcountry with world-class recreation sites like Corona Arch and
Morning Glory Arch. This exchange will improve the quantity and quality
of recreational experiences for visitors to public lands and waters
managed by the BLM. The State will acquire 34 parcels with high mineral development
potential, totaling 35,516 acres, primarily in Uintah County. The
state expects development of these high potential parcels to boost
public school funding across Utah.”
By
titling their URLEA webpage the “Utah Recreational Land Exchange”, the
BLM makes the agreement sound like a “win – win” situation for all
concerned. Tourists will see a bit more protection for Greater
Canyonlands, near Moab. Schoolchildren throughout the state will see
school funding rise by an undetermined amount. Regarding the URLEA, BLM
declared a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). Thus,
according to BLM, an acreage exchange totaling 60,550 acres is not a
“major federal action” and “will not significantly affect the quality of
the human environment”.
Uintah County, as well as the State of Utah, takes its name from the
portion of the Ute Indian tribe that lived in the Uintah Basin. Among
the 32,588 residents of Uintah County, the URLEA FONSI statement might
raise a few eyebrows. Whether it is air pollution or water pollution,
Uintah County has been the dumping ground for “the unwanted” since the
mid nineteenth Century. Today, Uintah County features the most
significantly degraded environment in the State of Utah. In fact, the degradation of both the human and natural environments of Uintah County is legendary.
Unlike
most of Utah, Mormons did not settle Uintah County. In 1861, Brigham
Young sent a scouting party to the Uintah Basin and received word back
the area was “good for nothing but nomad purposes, hunting grounds for
Indians and to 'hold the world together'". That section of country
lying between the Wasatch Mountains and the eastern boundary of the
territory, and south of Green River country, was “a vast contiguity of
waste and measurably valueless”. Young made no further effort to
colonize the area. Instead, he decided to send Ute Indians there.
That same year, President Abraham Lincoln created the Uintah Indian
Reservation, thus beginning the relocation of many Utah and Colorado
Indians to the Uinta Basin. In the 1880s, the federal government
created the Uncompahgre Reservation (now part of the Uintah and Ouray
Reservation) in the southern portion of Uintah County. The Uintah and
Ouray Indian Reservation comprise a significant portion of west Uintah
County. There is relatively little private land in the county.
Uintah
County's economy is based on extracting natural resources, including
petroleum, natural gas, phosphate, and uintaite, which is a natural
asphalt more commonly known by its trade name, Gilsonite. In the 1860s,
Samuel H. Gilson initiated mineral extraction in Uintah County. In the
early twentieth century, Gilsonite became the base for the black paint
on Henry Ford’s Model T automobiles. In the early twentieth century,
coal was the focus of mineral exploitation. Although now defunct, the
Dyer Mine, Little Water Mine and Uteland Mine each laid waste to lands
within Uintah County. Today, the county features branch offices of
several petrochemical companies, including Halliburton and
Schlumberger.
The February 2014 URLEA Decision of Record states, “The overwhelming
majority of the non-Federal lands in the exchange are within areas
designated through the land use planning process for special management
for conservation and recreational purposes.” What that document does
not say is that the overwhelming majority of the Federal lands in the
exchange are within areas designated “Open” for oil, gas and tar sands development.
Even so, the BLM FONSI statement ignores the potential impact by
saying that mineral extraction on over 35,000 acres in Uintah County
“will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment”.
In
Grand County, with its Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park
and the now endangered Greater Canyonlands, the BLM paints a rosy
picture of tourist dollars enhanced by the transfer of SITLA lands to
BLM stewardship. On their webpage, they say, “Nearly six million annual
visitors recreating on Utah’s public lands have boosted local
economies and contributed to community job growth through recreation
tourism. Public lands managed by the BLM in Utah contribute
significantly to the state’s economy and, in turn, often have a
positive impact on nearby communities. In fact, recreation on
BLM-managed lands in Utah provided $490 million in local and national
economic benefits in 2012.”
Again, if we look deeper, the picture is not so clear. In July 2013,
Cushman & Wakefield completed the Appraisal reports for the Federal
and non-Federal lands identified in the URLEA. The reports included a
mineral evaluation of the exchange parcels "previously screened and
identified by the State and the BLM" as having potential mineral
values. Thus, if neither SITLA or BLM had previously identified the
mineral resources on a given parcel, the Appraisal ignored the value of
any minerals present. In fact, the Appraisal found that BLM would
“experience a net gain of lands with potential for potash and sand and
gravel and a net loss of lands with potential for oil and gas and tar
sands”. Therefore, as SITLA and Uintah County experience a net gain of
lands with potential for oil and gas and tar sands, BLM and Grand
County will receive several natural arches and other sensitive sites,
plus the potential for more new sand, gravel and potash mining.
In 2013, BLM claimed that it had no choice but to issue permits for potash exploration near the Hatch Point Anticline Overlook.
If the Moab District Resource Management Plan Map (RMP) designated an
area as “Open”, BLM said it was obligated to issue the exploratory drilling permits. Other questionable acts by the Moab BLM Field Office include the 2013 issuance of a commercial filming permit in the Desolation Canyon Wilderness Study Area.
Apparently, the local BLM office saw filming of a “MythBusters”
television episode as being wholly compatible with “wilderness study”.
At Hatch Point, in what had been an undisturbed, spiritual environment,
drill rigs now dot the landscape. Each mineral exploration foray into
Greater Canyonlands lessens the future chances of creating a Greater Canyonlands National Monument.
If the extraction companies can lay waste to sufficient territory,
they can effectively destroy the undisturbed environment necessary for
national monument status. Meanwhile, the Moab BLM Field Office stands
ready to issue permits for filming and mineral extraction on an
expedited basis.
Other
than brief a mention on Page Seven of the URLEA Decision Record, there
is no indication of where in Grand County those "sand, gravel or potash"
resources lay. If the sand, gravel and potash deposits mentioned in
the URLEA are in areas designated as “Open”, we can expect to see a
boon in BLM permits issued for their immediate exploration and
extraction. In the case of Hatch Point potash, the Moab BLM Field
Office has already demonstrated blind allegiance to its own Resource
Management Plan.
Under URLEA, we can expect any "Open" lands transferred to BLM purview
to become immediately available for mineral exploration. In Moab, once
exploration begins, it is only a matter of time before exploitation
follows. That outcome would be in direct opposition to both the spirit
and the letter of this law. Each parcel conveyed from SITLA to BLM
should contain stipulations that include no future mineral development.
Only then shall we see an actual increase in protection for Greater
Canyonlands.
A
major premise of the URLEA is that the land exchange between Utah
(SITLA) and the BLM shall be of "equal value". If that is true, how can
25,034 acres of non-Federal lands with largely recreational or
environmental uses be equal in value to 35,516 acres of Federal lands
targeted for mineral extraction? Grand County itself is going through a
binge of land clearing and drilling activity unseen since the days of Charlie Steen, the "Uranium King".
In their official Appraisal, Cushman & Wakefield valued each parcel
according to its “highest and best use”. Even with 198 parcels
included in the URLEA Appraisal, BLM contact Joy Wehking at the
BLM-Utah State Director's office told me that representatives of Cushman
& Wakefield visited every site. Upon returning to their offices,
correlating their field observations with the existing parcel
descriptions was a daunting task. Despite their apparent best attempt,
or perhaps because both BLM and SITLA failed to identify its mineral
potential, Cushman & Wakefield missed badly on at least Parcel 32.
According
to all the positive publicity, the intention of the URLEA is to
preserve and enhance recreation and to protect environmentally sensitive
lands in Grand County. That such preservation and enhancement comes at
the expense of an underrepresented rural county to the north is
URLEA's “dirty little secret”. In Nevada, there is a secret place
called “Area 51”, which is wrapped in myth and mystery. In Grand
County, URLEA “Parcel 32” is equally mysterious. In a counter-intuitive
move, the BLM proposes to transfer a prime Grand County parcel to
SITLA. Once it becomes part of SITLA lands, Utah can then lease it to
the highest bidder or sell it outright.
According to URLEA maps and documents, Parcel 32 consists of 352 acres of Federal land adjacent to Canyonlands Field (Moab Airport).
The “Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations” for Parcel 32 are “Open
Subject to Standard Stipulations”. Despite its obvious potential for
commercial or petrochemical development, Cushman & Wakefield
appraised the “highest and best use” of the
entire parcel as “grazing land”. According to URLEA documents, Alan
Swenson, Russell Stansfield and Fred Hunzeker do hold a grazing permit
named “Bigflat-Tenmile”, but for only eighty of the 352 acres. That
grazing permit expires in 2018. Elsewhere, in the
URLEA section titled “Interests to be Conveyed or Reserved”, Parcel 32
reserves (and contains) county and U.S. highways and Union Pacific rail access, as well as a Fidelity Exploration & 
Production Co.
“pipeline” and a Pacific Energy and Mining Company (PEMC) “gas
pipeline”. Despite its “Open” status for oil and gas leasing, by
identifying it as grazing land, Cushman & Wakefield erroneously
appraised Parcel 32 as being worth only $780,000.
Other than the transportation interests in the
property, what do we know of the current occupants of Parcel 32?
Recently, Fidelity Exploration began increased culinary water purchases from the City of Moab, ostensibly for use on their rapidly expanding gas field near Dead Horse Point.
Moab City Manager Donna Metzler says the amount of water the town
sells to drillers is “not a big hit on the system,”. Metzler went on to
say, "I don’t know exactly where they take the water. I don’t know
exactly what they’re using it for... You would expect a small motel to
use about that much water."
For their part, Pacific Energy, is one of the more secretive oil and
gas operations in Grand County. Although they do have a website, it is
identified only by their internet URL address, not the name of the
company. Although their website looks professional enough, the PEMC
"Oil" webpage links to a Chevron Oil Company "Crude Oil Marketing" webpage. The PEMC "Investors" webpage links to a Yahoo Finance stock listing for the company. 
Listed
as "Over the Counter - Other", in the past year, PEMC has traded at
between one cent per share and $.35 per share. Its latest close, on
February 3, 2014 was three cents. Most stocks that I watch do not
fluctuate by 350% in a single year. In any event, PEMC looks like a
penny stock that is ripe for speculation.
Had Cushman & Wakefield appraised Parcel 32 for its potential as an
oil and gas production site, or as a railroad and highway terminal or
transfer-station for two of the largest oil and gas producers in Grand
County, its value could have gone as high as $10 million. Not
ironically, over 20,000 SITLA-owned acres, which were valued at $10
million, recently disappeared from the land swap in order to adhere to
the “equal valuation” clause of the agreement.
If the current version of URLEA becomes law, what will future airline
passengers and motorists see as they approach Moab from the north? As
early as 2019, if the Moab BLM Field Office holds to their own
Management Resource Plan, visitors can expect to see a 352-acre
petrochemical production facility adjacent to Canyonlands Field. Based
on its existing 
Management
Resource Plan, and the BLM Moab Field Office's history of granting any
and all conforming mineral exploration permits, the last chance to
stop exploitation of Parcel 32 is to either remove it from the land
swap or force SITLA to pay "equal value" as indicated by its potential
for commercial or petrochemical development.
According to BLM contact Joy Wehking, SITLA is on public record that
they plan to convey Parcel 32 into as yet undetermined private
ownership. "It is the price we have to pay", she added. If the
underlying premise of the URLEA is an "exchange of equal value", why
should "we, the people" pay anything to assist private development of
land designated by the URLEA as "cattle grazing land"?
Unless the BLM receives hard-copy, written protests
prior to the close of comments on March 24, 2014, URLEA Parcel 32 will
soon thereafter transfer to Utah/SITLA at a grossly undervalued price.
If my evaluation is correct, SITLA should immediately reintroduce the
remaining 20,000 acres originally targeted for inclusion in the land
swap. Only with the inclusion of all $10 million worth of non-Federal
parcels recently withdrawn, can the BLM claim that URLEA represents an
"exchange of equal value". If SITLA refuses a fair appraisal for Parcel
32, BLM could void the URLEA and produce the Environmental Impact
Study (EIS) that it should have conducted in the first place.
As
of this writing, it is too late for "comments". Even sending an email
to BLMwill not help. The only action that will halt this land-grab is
if "interested parties submit written protests to the BLM-Utah State
Director". Sadly, the BLM webpage for URLEA does
not include the mailing address of the BLM-Utah State Director. During a
telephone call to BLM contact Joy Wehking, she informed me that the
appropriate mailing address is listed at the top of the "Notice of
Decision" page.
Since the BLM did not see fit to put that address on their main URLEA
webpage, I will publish it here: Attn. Joy Wehking, United States
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Utah State
Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1345.
Ms. Wehking informed me by telephone that as of March 7, 2014, no
written protests to URLEA were then on file. With my mailing a copy of
this document to her, that situation will soon change.
As some readers will recall, in the latter days of the second George W. Bush administration,
there was an all-out push to lease every square inch of public lands
for oil, gas and mineral extraction. The effort was so slipshod that
lands near the Moab Golf Club and some directly over the well fields
that supply Moab with its precious culinary water were included in the original auction proposals.
through
its Bureau of Land Management, divided Grand County into two
categories. Some public lands were to be protected, but the majority was
up for grabs as oil and gas fields.
To
add insult to the injury of the mineral extraction projects that the
SCIC supports, the group plans to divert millions of dollars from
“community impact funds" to pursue their goals. Rather than helping
heal the land and the health of those affected by unbridled extraction
of chemicals and hydrocarbons, the coalition plans to use the community
impact funds to help build haul-roads, pipeline access and rail
facilities. All of their efforts will now go full speed ahead to
scrape, drill, pump and haul as much raw hydrocarbon as they can from
the affected lands.
us
were elected up here". Despite the overwhelming number of written
protests and the overwhelming number of citizens voicing their
opposition at the final Grand County Council meeting on the subject,
the Gang of Six extractionist boosters on the council voted to join
the anti-environmental cabal of counties. Jackson was subsequently
elected as Grand County's representative to the SCIC.
of
ancient cultures that once lived in the area. For many residents of
the area, the predominant feeling seems to be, “This is our land and we
can do whatever we want with it”.
wonders that took nature eons to create?
5.
The crux of the issue is; when, where and in what form was the
Environmental Assessment released to the public? Was it in April 2013,
as BLM suggests in its “Protest Dismissed” document”? Was it in
September 2013, as the published “final EA document” indicates? Or was
it completed on December 30, 2013, as the Electronic Bulletin Board
page indicates? Any way you look at it, the content and publication
date(s) of the Environmental Assessment represent a moving target.
