SUBLETTE COUNTY – More than 60 people attended the Rock Spring’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) public open house on Sept. 26 at the Marbleton Town Hall.

Nearly all questioned the BLM’s recently released draft resource management plan (draft RMP) that includes part of southern Sublette County.

Rock Springs Field Office manager Kimberlee Foster explained to the standing-room-only crowd, including many area ranchers with BLM grazing permits and desert explorers – that it was the federal version of an “open house,” not a “public hearing.”

“We are not taking oral comments tonight,” Foster said. “There is no reporter here to take down comments. This is about a document. We’re here to answer your questions about the document.”

Massive read

Grazing, minerals, public access and many more issues are the relevant elements that make up the draft RMP’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that has more than 1,300 pages in two volumes. The draft EIS was completed in August.

Its release opened 90 days through Nov. 16 for written public comments; then the Rock Springs Field Office (RSFO) will formulate its proposed RMP and final EIS “for the purpose of creating a management strategy that best meets the needs of the resources and values in this area under the BLM multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate,” the executive summary says.

The RSFO’s planning area consists of 33.6 million acres of surface land and 3.7 million acres of BLM-administered mineral estates in parts of Lincoln, Sublette, Fremont, Sweetwater and Uinta counties. This scoping process kicked off in 2011.

Written comments

Only written comments could be submitted although the crowd was prepared to make verbal comments. Everyone with a question was to find the appropriate staff member and station for clarifications.

That’s how an open house works.

There was some grumbling – “B is a thousand times worse than A.” “A is not the same as no changes.” “What about public access?” “Leave it the way it is.” “We need to hold our ground and say ‘none of these.’”

Bob Dexter called for the crowd to raise hands in support for the BLM’s preferred Alternative B. He compared the draft EIS and RMP with a sandwich that might have stinky filling.

“This is not a voting process,” Foster said. “That’s not how NEPA works. We are not hosting a public hearing. That is not part of the process.”

So citizens gathered around the stations, asking questions of each informally dressed BLM staffer posted at a station. They sought to reassure concerned citizens, who milled around, conversing and clarifying, then moving to the next.

Staff dressed in flannel and western shirts, sneakers and hiking boots – difficult to separate from the public – with just first names on their badges.

‘Misconception’

Foster said there is “a lot of misinformation” about this plan. “We’re not closing public access.”

In respect to grazing, she said, BLM’s preferred Alternative B makes about 8,000 AUMs unavailable for the Rock Creek Allotment, “a very fragile ecosystem that was devastated” after “a huge fire years ago.”

The allotment has been under voluntary nonuse since, Foster said.

“It is a misconception that we have to pick an alternative in its entirety,” Foster added of public comments. “If there’s something in Alternative A that you want to keep, if there’s something in B, C or D – people aren’t understanding. We’re going to have an RMP.”

In the BLM’s own words, Alternative A calls for no action and “represents a continuation of these management plans.”

The preferred Alternative B “emphasizes conservation of resource values with constraints on resource uses. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative B conserves the most land area for physical, biological, and cultural resources. Alternative B emphasizes the improvement and protection of habitat for wildlife and sensitive plant and animal species, improvement of riparian areas, and implementation of management actions that improve water quality and enhance protection of cultural resources.”

Alternative C emphasizes the least restrictive management for energy and mineral development “and the least protective management actions for physical, biological, and cultural resources while maintaining protections required by laws and regulations.”

Alternative D “explores a management approach that is less restrictive for resource users than Alternative B, while having a greater conservation focus than Alternative C … (and) allows for opportunities to use and develop resources within the planning area while promoting environmental conservation.”

‘30 by 30’

The draft states it will support guidance in Executive Order 13990 (also known as “30 by 30”), “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.

E.O. 13990 establishes an Administration policy to listen to science, improve public health and protect our environment, ensure access to clean air and water, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, identify steps to accelerate responsible development of renewable energy on public lands, strengthen the government-to-government relationship with sovereign Tribal Nations, make investments to support the Administration’s goal of creating millions of family-supporting and union jobs, bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change, and center equity and environmental justice.”

In Volume I, Chapter 2, BLM lists management actions common to all alternatives, followed with dozens of charts comparing the four alternatives’ effects in detail.

Wilderness study areas are designated or removed only by Congress; special designations for areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC) managements vary by alternative and might include wildlife migration corridors. BLM proposes 10 ACECs in a separate document that the Pinedale Roundup could not open.

Livestock grazing is not considered a surface-disturbing activity and “would remain about the same.” Billed animal unit months would remain unchanged for all alternatives, but livestock’s “total authorized use” is proposed at 303,328 for alternatives A and D, 297,066 for Alternative B and 160,387 for Alternate C.

The final product could include management choices from any of the four alternatives, with the public invited to pick parts they like and combine them – possibly for a new alternative, according to Foster.

Each station in the town hall had large maps showing how alternatives overlapped; individual maps for these alternatives and resources begin on p. 619 in Volume I.

Better and closer analyses of the four alternatives would require extensive comparisons of detailed graphs and writing. For this reason, most at the Marbleton meeting gravitated to their specific areas of interest – grazing, oil and gas leasing, minerals withdrawal, access and recreation, for example.

This draft RMP did not include sage-grouse or wild horse policies because those are addressed separately, she explained.

Furor

Opposition to the BLM document began after its August release and appears throughout the multi-county region affected and up to Gov. Mark Gordon’s office.

Some people at the Marbleton open house shared a Sept. 19 letter to national BLM Director Traci Stone-Manning, after Wyoming’s Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources Interim Committee met with RSFO staff in Pinedale on Sept. 12.

The letter, signed by cochairs Sen. Cheri Steinmetz and Rep. Barry Crago, states the BLM violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the BLM’s official mission statement.

“(The draft RMP) must be withdrawn and reissued with a preferred alternative consistent with multiple-use mandates contained in FLPMA,” it says.

A legislative coalition including Rep. Albert Sommers submitted a Sept. 25 editorial to the Pinedale Roundup, citing its analysis of negative impacts. And last week, Gov. Gordon completely rejected the BLM’s process and proposal.

For more

To read the draft Rock Springs draft EIS and submit written comments, go to https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/13853/570.