2016 election consequences for Colorado federal lands

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management over the last several years have been developing long-term Resource Management Plans for more than 3 million acres of BLM lands in Eastern Colorado and the Uncompahgre Plateau and in the Rio Grande National Forest.  According to this article, the state and local communities are not happy.

The Trump-driven shift toward more oil and gas development on public lands worries Colorado politicians and conservation groups that are steering the state toward increased protections. Agencies within the same department seem in conflict. Long-studied plans are changing between between draft and final reports, with proposed protections fading away and opportunities for extraction growing…

“What we are seeing is the full effect — in proposed actions — of the 2016 election at the local level,” Ouray County Commissioner Ben Tisdel said.

The article goes into detail about the effects on the Uncompahgre Field Office’s proposed plan:

County commissioners from Gunnison, Ouray and San Miguel counties have filed protests with the BLM over the Uncompahgre Field Office’s proposed plan. The counties have been involved with the planning for eight years. In 2016, the counties submitted comments on the plan outlining concerns for the Gunnison sage grouse and listing parcels the agency should protect and retain as federal lands.

“Alternative E proposed doing all the things we specifically asked them not to do,” said Tisdel, the Ouray County commissioner, adding that lands his county wanted protected were listed in the 2019 plan for possible disposal by the agency. “We thought we had a pretty good product in 2016 and now we have this new alternative, Alternative E, that goes way beyond anything we had seen before and is awful in ways we never thought of before.”

With regard to the Rio Grande National Forest revised forest plan:

The move from that September 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the final version released in August has riled conservationists and sportsmen. Goals established for air quality, designated trails, fisheries management, fire management, wildlife connectivity and habitat were scaled back in between the draft and final versions.

Colorado’s governor has weighed in on the BLM plan (in language consistent with the Western Governors Association policies):

The resource management plan’s “failure to adopt commitments consistent with the state plans, policies and agreements hinders Colorado’s ability to meet its own goals and objectives for wildlife in the planning area,” Polis wrote.

The BLM had an interesting response:

“There is room to adjust within the RMP, which has a built-in adaptive management strategy,” he said. “We are ready to respond as the state’s plans are complete.”

So they plan to do whatever the state wants them to do later?  “Room to adjust within the RMP” appears to mean that they don’t have to go through a plan amendment process with the public, which seems unlikely to be legal for the kinds of changes the state appears to want.  (It definitely wouldn’t work for national forest plans.)

The Western Energy Alliance blames the governor for being late to the game:

It doesn’t get a complete do-over just because something new happens, like Gov. Polis issues a new order.”

But it does apparently get a complete do-over because a new federal government administration says so.  There may still be some legal process (e.g. NEPA) questions this raises.

More on the BLM Move Numbers- Colorado Reporting

Joey Bunch of Colorado Politics has yet another set of numbers 25 to Grand Junction and 85 to Colorado. Here’s his article.
Apparently, Bunch got his info from this letter to Senator Murkowski.

It looks to me like they are relocating 222 positions, but not all to Colorado. The letter even has a table of who is going to go where, and they explain their rationale. Certainly, you can disagree with it, but they do have one. It must also be noted that big funders are going after Senator Gardner, whose Senate seat is vulnerable, which attracts political funding like crows on an elk carcass. And yet, Senator Bennet also supports it, as does Conservation Colorado, as you can see below. Interesting that you might miss these aspects if you read The Hill version of the same story (with lots of quotes from Grijalva). (It makes me wonder what other stories might not be as partisan as they seem to be when covered by coastal press). The below excerpts are from the Colorado Politics article.

Of the 85 positions that could be moved to Colorado, 54 would be divided between the state’s existing BLM field offices and its National Operations Center at the federal office complex in Lakewood, which already employs about 500 people.

“Colorado has a diverse number of resource needs, ranging from minerals to recreation, while also serving as a hub for the Bureau’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) projects and priorities,” the BLM letter said. “As such, positions from nearly every directorate will be located in the Lakewood offices.”

BLM employs about 9,260 workers scattered across field offices mostly in the West. Besides Colorado, about 50 positions each would move to field offices in Utah and Nevada, said Sen. Rob Bishop, a Republican who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee.

Conservation Colorado, the state’s largest environmental group, praised the move, saying it would help the local economy and put agency leaders closer to the lands they manage. But the group criticized Gardner.

“It’s no surprise the Bureau of Land Management wants to relocate to Grand Junction. With a fantastic quality of life supported by our stunning public lands, the location is a no-brainer,” said a statement by Erin Riccio, Conservation Colorado’s Western Slope field organizer.

My bolding of Conservation Colorado’s statement.