UTAH PUBLIC LANDS MULTIPLE USE Coalition

Transcription

1 UTAH PUBLIC LANDS MULTIPLE USE Coalition 9865 South state Street + Sandy, Utah January 24, 2014 Mr. Juan Palma Utah State Director Bureau of Land Management 440 West 200 South, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, UT Ms. Nora Rasure Regional Forester, Intermountain Region U.S. Forest Service Federal Building th Street Ogden, UT Mr. Dan Jirón Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region U.S. Forest Service 740 Simms Street Golden, CO RE: Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Land Use Plan Amendments and Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Palma, Ms. Rasure and Mr. Jirón: The undersigned organizations write to express our concerns with the 2013 Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DLUPA/EIS), which covers public lands in Utah and a small segment of national forest land in Wyoming. This comment letter does not replace but is in addition to detailed technical comments that may be submitted by the individual undersigned organizations to the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service (the agencies) on this matter. Our constituents represent a diverse group of stakeholders that operate and rely on economic development in Utah and Wyoming, utilize public lands for multiple-use activities, and play a significant role in the protection and conservation of plant and wildlife species, including the Greater Sage-Grouse (GSG). We have a direct and vested interest in the proposed management decisions in the DLUPA/EIS. Advocating the wise multiple use of Utah s public lands

2 Page 2 We support the agencies intentions to craft management procedures to conserve and protect the species and its habitat in order to demonstrate to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) that a listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is unnecessary. Nonetheless, after reviewing the DLUPA/EIS we have identified several issues with the document that, if implemented, will have a number of serious socioeconomic consequences in Utah and Wyoming and will exceed what is needed to demonstrate to FWS that regulatory mechanisms exist to conserve GSG and its habitat in the planning area. Moreover, the agencies have proposed measures that do not adhere to the multiple-use concept mandated by statute and fail to effectively balance the conservation of GSG with continued economic activity in the planning area. The signatories of this letter are seriously concerned about many facets of the DLUPA/EIS that will adversely affect our respective constituencies. We collectively believe that the document is fundamentally flawed because the agencies: 1. Have not adequately incorporated state GSG conservation plans developed by Utah (Utah Plan) and Wyoming (Wyoming Plan) into the preferred alternative Rely too heavily on the BLM National Technical Team s Report (NTT) Report and FWS Conservation Objective Team (COT) reports, which have been demonstrated as not passing basic standards of scientific integrity and objectivity. 3. Have not used Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) GSG distribution and habitat maps which are far more reflective of GSG distribution in Utah than those included in the DLUPA/EIS. 4. Propose overly broad and rigid management restrictions. 5. Underestimate the negative socioeconomic impact of the proposed management of GSG in the planning area. 6. Fail to clearly define the disturbance threshold methodology, which also lacks scientific justification. Because the management policies resulting from this planning effort will significantly affect Utah and Wyoming and the future economic vitality of local communities within the planning area, the agencies must rectify these issues before preparing the final LUPA/EIS and issuing a Record of Decision. Incorporation of State Plans into the Preferred Alternative The states of Utah and Wyoming have undertaken significant efforts to conserve GSG that should be recognized by the agencies. We support both the Wyoming and Utah plans as an alternative to guidance recommended by the NTT report and strongly encourage the agencies to more meaningfully incorporate them into the preferred alternative. Both plans balance future economic activities with robust protections for GSG, and were developed using a bottom-up process with input from diverse stakeholders, rather than the top-down approach taken by the agencies. While there are several similarities between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative E1 based on the Utah plan and Alternative E2 based on the Wyoming plan, there are several important differences, including the size of buffers 1 Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah, February 2013; State of Wyoming s Governor s Executive Orders and

3 Page 3 around leks, the design and application of disturbance thresholds and operational restrictions, and the mapped habitat boundaries, as described below. Overreliance on the NTT and COT Reports We question the reliance on many cited sources in the DLUPA/EIS, particularly the NTT Report. Some recommendations from the NTT report are directly included in the preferred alternative, and it appears the report serves as the basis of many of the proposed management restrictions. The use of the NTT report is problematic as it contains overly burdensome recommendations that are not based on local conditions. An independent review of the report shows that it contains many methodological and technical errors, selectively presents scientific information to justify recommended conservation measures, and was disproportionally influenced by a small group of specialist advocates. 2 As such, the NTT report does not adequately represent a comprehensive and complete review of the best scientific and commercial data available and is inappropriate for use as the primary basis of many of the proposed management restrictions. We are similarly concerned with the document s reliance on the FWS COT Report. While the COT Report is intended to serve as a guidance document to federal agencies, states, and others, there are several data quality issues that should be taken into consideration before it is used to guide conservation efforts for the species. An independent review of the COT Report found that it is a selective review of scientific literature and unpublished reports on GSG, presents outdated information, overstates some threats to GSG while downplaying others, and relies on a threats analysis that contains methodological bias and error. 3 Failure to Utilize UDWR GSG Distribution and Habitat Maps Notwithstanding the State of Utah's submission to BLM, the agencies failed to utilize UDWR GSG distribution and habitat maps which are far more reflective of Utah GSG distribution than those in the preferred alternative of the DLUPA/EIS. Instead, it appears that BLM has utilized two-year old data regarding occupied habitat to expand the Preliminary Priority Management Areas (PPMA) and Preliminary General Management Areas (GPMA) habitat areas from those mapped by UDWR, rather than using more up-to-date information released by the State in The agencies have not properly justified this discrepancy. Since Utah BLM was a participant in the development of the state s GSG conservation plan, it is inexplicable that the agencies failed to incorporate the up-to-date mapping underpinning the Utah Plan. We strongly encourage the agencies to replace the PPMA and PGMA maps in the preferred alternative with those included in Alternative E1. These maps represent the best available science and are an integral part of the Utah Plan. Under Alternative E, 97.1% of the birds would be in managed Utah Sage Grouse Management Areas (SGMA) or 2 Rob Roy Ramey, Review of Data Quality Issues in a Report on National Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures Produced by the BLM National Technical Team (NTT), (September 19, 2013). 3 Rob Roy Ramey, Data Quality Issues in the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. (October 16, 2013).

4 Page 4 Wyoming core areas, which would result in strong protection of GSG populations while balancing conservation with other multiple uses. 4 We also request that the agencies reject the PPMA and PGMA habitat areas identified in Alternatives B and C, which are considerably more expansive than those in Alternatives D and E and unjustified by scientific documentation. Overly Broad Application of Restrictions in Habitat Areas We question the proposal to impose rigid, uniform management restrictions without consideration of local conditions in habitat areas. The agencies have proposed prohibiting surface occupancy or disturbance within four miles of a lek in PPMAs during nesting, lekking, and early brood-rearing periods. A four-mile buffer around leks does not address variations in habitat quality and topography, and would result in blanket restrictions over substantial acreage that does not actually contain active leks or GSG habitat. In addition, there is no scientific evidence that enforcing rigid, uniform restrictions across hundreds of thousands of acres will actually benefit the species and its habitat, which undercuts the agencies ability to work with users of public lands to enable development while protecting the GSG. Furthermore, the agencies have not provided a mechanism to ground-truth the habitat areas on a project-specific basis before imposing restrictions, or to monitor its quality or use in the future. Without ground-truthing and future monitoring, the agencies will likely preclude multiple-use activities in areas that do not actually support GSG habitat or active leks, unnecessarily preventing economic activities without commensurate benefit to GSG populations and habitat. Inadequate Socioeconomic Analysis Users of public lands in Utah and Wyoming generate billions of dollars worth of economic activity at the national, state and local levels and provide thousands of high-paying jobs within the planning area. The management restrictions and closures in the DLUPA/EIS will undeniably have a direct negative impact on these users and the future viability of coal and hard rock mining, oil and natural gas development, agricultural production, grazing and ranching activities, and power generation in the planning area and beyond. Crucial tax revenue and other economic benefits from these activities will decline. Unfortunately, the agencies underestimate the negative impact of their proposed management restrictions. The socioeconomic analysis is biased and overestimates speculative non-market valuations while underestimating the very real economic impacts from actual productive activities that directly create jobs and wealth for local communities, the states, and the nation. The agencies discuss the socioeconomic impacts on the entire planning area but do not delineate the effects on specific counties and towns. A more specific analysis proposed by many cooperating agencies during the scoping process would adequately assess the varying levels of socioeconomic impacts, as required in the land use planning process. 4 DLUPA/EIS at ES-11

5 Page 5 Disturbance Threshold Methodology Limiting surface disturbance using a threshold is a central component of the proposed DLUPA/EIS. However, the methodology for implementing a threshold is not clearly defined, while the concept lacks scientific justification and evidence that it will sustain or increase GSG populations. When determining whether development is appropriate on federal lands, disturbances on private and state lands will count towards the disturbance threshold. While the agencies do not have the authority to restrict development on private lands, they could preclude project authorizations on public lands in order to compensate for disturbances on private lands. This would disadvantage federal leaseholders with no control over developments on private lands and could force them to abandon federal leases and forego significant capital investments, putting in jeopardy federal revenue and socioeconomic benefits to local communities. The approach also represents an inappropriate overreach of federal authority. The agencies have not adequately elucidated critical details about the functionality and application of the threshold concept. The DLUPA/EIS does not clearly explain the scientific data or the sources for that data that are being used to establish the threshold; how the disturbance database would be managed and updated and by whom; if or how disturbance percentages will capture reclamation or habitat enhancements; whether and how temporary anthropogenic disturbances will be treated differently than permanent disturbances; and whether and how GSG populations will be actively monitored in each zone and by whom. Because threshold tools present myriad challenges that may inhibit consistent and clear implementation, the basis and functionality of them must be clearly thought out and presented to entities that will be impacted by their use. Without a clear explanation of the methodology, the agencies will be unable to properly implement thresholds. While the Utah and Wyoming Plans include disturbance threshold procedures, they are clearly thought out and provide the needed flexibility to allow economic activities that properly limit surface disturbance to proceed. Again, we support the state plans and their flexible, adaptive management which will protect the species while enabling economic growth. Conclusion We respectfully request that the agencies rectify the issues identified above before preparing the final LUPA/EIS and issuing a Record of Decision. As written, the DLUPA/EIS does not represent a balanced approach to the future conservation of GSG and economic development in the planning area and would preclude the agencies from carrying out their multiple-use mandates. It also far exceeds what is needed to demonstrate to FWS that a federal listing of the GSG is unnecessary. The undersigned organizations appreciate the agencies consideration of these concerns and are fully willing to further discuss our recommendations with you in more detail.

6 Page 6 Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on behalf of Utah Public Lands Multiple Use Coalition. The Coalition is an advocate for the wise multiple use of the public lands and recognizes the obligation of being good stewards of our natural resources. The Utah Public Lands Multiple Use Coalition represents a broad base of businesses and industries who are engaged in improving the lives of Utahns and of Americans through energy and minerals development and delivery, food production and delivery, recreation opportunities, jobs, tax base and ultimately providing opportunities for future generations. Sincerely, Randy N. Parker Chair Members: Utah Farm Bureau Federation, Randy Parker, Chair Tooele County Commission, Jerry Hurst, Vice Chair Utah Wool Growers, Tonia Fuller Utah Manufacturers Association, Todd Bingham Western Counties Alliance, Ken Brown Questar, Rey Butcher Utah Trucking Association, Rick Clasby Utah Farmers Union Ken, Bushman Utah Mining Association, Mark Compton Red Leaf Resources, Jeff Hartley Utah Rural Electric Association, Mike Peterson Utah Petroleum Association, Lee Peacock Rocky Mountain Power, Jeff Richards Utah Taxpayers Association, Howard Stephenson Utah Shared Access Alliance, Mike Swenson Utah Cattlemen s Association, Brent Tanner Western Energy Alliance, Lowell Braxton Utah Association of Counties, Mark Ward Others: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton Public Lands Advocacy, Claire Moseley Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Esther Wagner CC s: The Honorable Gary Herbert, Governor, State of Utah The Honorable Matt Mead, Governor, State of Wyoming The Honorable Orrin Hatch, U.S. Senate

7 Page 6 The Honorable Mike Lee, U.S. Senate The Honorable Mike Enzi, U.S. Senate The Honorable John Barrasso, U.S. Senate The Honorable Rob Bishop, U.S. House of Representatives The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, U.S. House of Representatives The Honorable Chris Stewart, U.S. House of Representatives The Honorable Cynthia Lummis, U.S. House of Representatives Tom Tidwell, Chief, U.S. Forest Service Neil Cornze, Principle Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management Juan Palma, Utah State Director, Bureau of Land Management Mike Styler, Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural Resources Greg Sheehan, Director, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Scott Talbott, Director, Wyoming Game and Fish Kathleen Clarke, Director, Utah Public Lands Policy Office