Following the restoration of its borders by President Joe Biden, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a draft resource management plan (RMP) for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) in Utah. The plan could markedly affect livestock grazing and recreation uses by restoring the monument to an unspoiled, natural landscape.
On Aug. 11, the draft RMP and associated environmental impact statement (EIS) were released. A 90-day comment period with public meetings occurred regarding four alternatives to guide the management consistent with the restoration and protection provided in the proclamation signed by Biden in 2021. The commenting period closed Nov. 9.
Proclamation 10286 restored the boundaries of former President Bill Clinton’s original proclamation in 1996 establishing the monument, and included the 180,000 acres expanded by Congress for a total of 1.87 million acres. In 2017, former President Donald Trump issued a proclamation to reduce GSENM by 860,000 acres.
“Protection of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument will preserve its cultural, prehistoric, and historic legacy and maintain its diverse array of natural and scientific resources, ensuring that the prehistoric, historic, and scientific values of this area remain for the benefit of all Americans,” the proclamation declared. “Reservation of these lands will preserve the living laboratory within the monument boundaries that will facilitate significant scientific discoveries for years to come.”
Alternatives
Alternative A, the no action alternative, continues the current management plan established in 2020 and makes modifications to comply with Proclamation 10286. This alternative allows for the maximum discretionary uses for livestock grazing in nearly all allotments and recreation use.
Alternative B emphasizes flexibility for an array of actions compatible with GSENM objects. Under this alternative, more areas would be set aside to protect intact ecosystems, landscape restoration projects would be started and discretionary actions would be limited around riparian areas. Grazing allotments that are not under permit would be unavailable and land use assessments would be conducted within eight watersheds. Any nonstructural improvements would not be allowed but existing ones could be maintained.
Alternative C, the preferred alternative, protects intact and resilient landscapes with an approach that allows discretionary uses. It would establish four management areas similar to those used in the 2000 GSENM Management Plan: the front country zone, passage zone, outback zone and primitive zone. The intensity and use would vary depending on the zone.
Grazing would be prohibited in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Glen Canyon and GSENM. Allocated animal unit months (AUMs) would be the total permitted use of available allotments. Land use assessments would be required in two years for departed watersheds identified by BLM. Recreational use would transpire mainly in the front country and passage zones, with restrictions on off-road vehicle use and target shooting.
Alternative D would “maximize natural ecological processes by minimizing active management and limiting discretionary uses.” This alternative would be the most restrictive on recreational activities and livestock grazing to maximize natural processes.
For grazing, the conditions in Alternative C would apply, plus all allotments in GSENM would be required to complete a land health assessment and a fully processed permit renewal within 10 years. No structural range improvements would be permitted without the land use assessment.
Alternative A would make over 2 million acres available for grazing and would activate all inactive AUMs within suspended pastures. Grazing availability would decrease by 5% under Alternative B, 10% (207,800 acres) under Alternative C and 46% (984,800 acres) under Alternative D.
“Vegetation management under Alternative B would likely have the greatest positive impact on rangeland health across the planning area, as it would emphasize widespread restoration, including seedings with native and nonnative species,” the draft EIS said.
BLM said the greatest number of conflicts between recreation and livestock would occur under Alternative C.
At a virtual meeting conducted by BLM on Oct. 25, Ade Nelson, monument manager for GSENM, said AUMs across all alternatives could be activated over time with an analysis and decision. Nelson continued BLM worked with the National Park Service and identified allotments within Glen Canyon National Recreation Area conflict with the national recreation area resources and would be made unavailable for use.
Ranchers concerned
Ranchers are concerned with the proposed change and expressed their concerns at a meeting held recently by Garfield County leaders in Tropic, UT.
According to KSL.com, Garfield County Commissioner Leland Pollock felt his concerns were not addressed at a recent BLM meeting in Escalante and that area residents have many concerns. Pollock told local news outlet KTVX that BLM is eliminating target shooting and several thousand AUMs “without due process.”
County leaders presented the four alternatives to the crowd on Oct. 26 and the impacts on the local economy.
“It needs to go to local control. It needs local elected officials that we elect that are calling the shots,” rancher Derrel Spencer said. “Instead, we are getting governed by people 2,000 miles away that have no idea and that don’t understand this and probably don’t really care to.”
Members of the audience expressed concern about public lands issues and access, calling out environmental groups restricting access to those rights, and claiming it is “one of the greatest takings going on in America today,” according to The Insider.
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes was at the event on his tour of the southern portion of the state and took questions from the audience. Reyes told the crowd his office plans to file suit against the federal government on any restricted access plan. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
