U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman’s bill to block plans to manage 3.7 million federal acres in southwest Wyoming undermines the public’s right to participate, a U.S. Bureau of Land Management official said last week.
BLM Principal Deputy Director Nada Wolff Culver made those comments to the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands, where she testified on Hageman’s H.R. 6085, which would prohibit implementation of the Rock Springs resource plan revision. The BLM proposed a conservation alternative for the high steppe country between the Wind River Range and Rock Springs.
Wyoming communities dependent on oil and gas drilling, mining, grazing and other uses say the conservation alternative would harm their economy and lives. They charge the government with not engaging affected communities enough and then choosing a plan they disfavored.
The BLM “strongly opposes” Hageman’s bill that would block any plan, Wolff Culver said. The conservation alternative would safeguard valuable wildlife habitat, including the richest greater sage grouse habitat in the world, she said. Migration routes for pronghorn and deer traverse the area.
H.R. 6085 “would undermine the public’s right to provide input on the management of public lands, as well as the BLM’s ability to steward them,” she told the subcommittee.
Evaluating comments
The BLM has accepted public input and is in the process of evaluating comments as it finalizes the Rock Springs Area Resource Management Plan Revision, Wolff Culver told the panel. At Gov. Mark Gordon’s request, the BLM extended the comment period. Interested parties had about five months to weigh in, she said.
“All of these efforts are already underway,” she said of BLM’s outreach, “reflecting thousands of hours of engagement by many people who care about their public lands.”
Hageman, a Republican, has called the proposed BLM plan “an illegal land grab.” But the plan — and another that’s being challenged by U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) — grew from the agency’s adherence to federal laws, Wolff Culver said.
“I don’t think it is ultimately going to get to the president’s desk.”
U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse
“These [Hageman and Boebert] bills contravene [the Federal Land Policy Management Act] and would prevent the BLM from managing public land resources on millions of acres,” Wolff Culver said.
Conservationists oppose Hageman’s bill, Julia Stuble, Wyoming state senior manager for The Wilderness Society, told WyoFile.
“We know BLM is seriously considering [changes] and will be making adjustments,” she said of the planning process. “It just doesn’t make sense at this stage to get in the way of that.”
The leading Democrat on the committee, U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colorado), observed that Hagemen was absent for Wolff Culver’s testimony.
“It’s a shame our colleague from Wyoming isn’t here,” he said as he questioned the BLM official about public engagement. Area residents want that engagement with the BLM to continue, a Rock Springs area representative said.
“We have long worked with the BLM to balance productive uses of federal lands, including solid conservation efforts,” Sweetwater County Land Use Director Eric Bingham told the panel. “Cooperators are amenable to sitting at the table with the BLM to engage in a collaborative process to develop a plan that balances multiple uses.”
Three Wyoming lawmakers and a county commissioner opened a dialog with BLM director Tracy Stone Manning in Washington D.C. earlier this month, advocating for grazing, mining and other uses, according to the Rocket Miner. They will continue to engage state BLM officials as the plan is finalized, the Rock Springs news site reported.
As it developed the plan, the BLM told cooperators that the conservation alternative was one of two “bookend” alternatives, the other bookend favoring development. Starting in 2017, local collaborators and the BLM worked mostly on a compromise plan they were told would be the preferred path, Bingham said.
The BLM chose the conservation option last year.
“This dramatic shift … negates the decade-long collaboration efforts of both BLM and cooperating agencies,” he said. If adopted, the conservation alternative would prevent development of a new trona mine and cripple oil and gas production with a corresponding impact to tax revenues and communities at large, he said.
Stuble, with The Wilderness Society, said the plan will likely change to accommodate local interests.
“Clearly Sweetwater County is going to depend on mineral extraction in the future,” she said. “The decisions in the [Resource Management Plan] don’t preclude that. Existing production and mining will continue and expand.”
Bill is doomed
Even if Hageman sees some success in advancing her measure, it likely won’t become law, Democrat Neguse said.
“I don’t think it is ultimately going to get to the president’s desk,” the Colorado representative told Wolff Culver and the committee.
“I just hope that this is not par for the course and doesn’t become standard practice over here,” he said of Hageman’s process-stopping bill. “Your door has always been open,” he told Wolff Culver, “and members are free to engage you in these processes rather than introducing legislation to stop it in its tracks.”
bobo and hags would oppose Yellowstone!
I thought folks like Hageman and Bobert were all about property rights! Has it escaped their attention than the people of Wyoming do not own these BLM-administered lands. If the owners of a property decide to direct their managers in certain ways, it’s only courteous to ask the neighbors what they think, but to demand control over land one doesn’t own (or in which one only has a tiny ownership share) is about as un-American as it gets, no? What part of property rights am I failing to understand?
It is the citizens land. Not blm land. Did you miss that in civics?
You all must realize that the BLM is entrusted to managing those Federal acres for the benefit of all US citizens, not just for the extractive industries of WY. There actions seem much more justified when viewed through that lens.
I still think we are missing the elephant in the room. 99.8% of the landowners of the land in question in the Rock Springs area do not live in Wyoming. And they shouldn’t have a say? The people of America own this land. One in 500 lives in Wyoming. Seems like we need to do some educating outside Wyoming’s borders. Another perspective: Wyoming people contribute .02% to the budgets of the BLM, Forest Service, and National Parks. And we think we should be able to tell them what to do?
I forgot to add: SB 44 which was almost passed in the last legislative session, would have excluded the county commissioners and the affected neighbors from having the opportunity to comment at open public hearings. That’s right – cut out of the decision making process for mining projects like small gravel pits – does Casper Mountain ring a bell?? It isn’t just the Federal government that attempts to exclude public comment it also includes State government – we had to force DEQ to put on public hearings about the Moneta Divide water discharge permit renewal. I thought my comments were too harsh concerning the BLM – but when you live in small town Wyoming, State government – and the legislature – can stomp on your rights to participate in the decision making process as well and we just saw a concerted effort to do so with SB 44.
I suspect that the vast majority of landowners, the people of the United States, support the BLM plan. Just because that public land lies in Wyoming doesn’t mean Wyoming should make decisions about it. Certainly the likes of Hageman should have no say at all at the political level.
Suspecting is one thing, actual facts are more relevant While the land belongs to all American’s, the use the land most directly impacts the residents of this state. Therefore, we should have a more prominent say in what the BLM chooses to do vs the opinion of those on the east coast that probably cannot even tell you where the property in question even is.
No, what Wyoming has to say means no more than what the other owners have to say, preferably less…since there are far fewer Wyoming residents.
Disagree totally. Wyoming should have a say only to the extent of its relative population size.
Angus’s headline says the BLM claims that Hagemann’s bill undermines local input – what!!!! The exact opposite was true. The Draft RMP undermined local input since the most contentious provisions originated in Washington. As I said in my previous comments, if local and State governmental agencies had actively helped draft the RMP during the scoping period, we wouldn’t have had this uproar. It was the local and State input that was lacking from the Draft RMP – the BLM themselves undermined local input not the other way around – and now the BLM claims Hagemann’s bill undermines local input. THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF SPINNING THE ISSUE TO MAKE THE OTHER PARTY LOOK RESPONSIBLE.
how can public land owned and managed by the people and federal government be a blm land grab?
how can people of wyoming love their wildlife, yet not want to preserve the habitat and migration routes so necessary for healthy herds, and greater sagegrouse?
i spent time trying to understand the alternatives, attended our local stakeholders meeting, and wrote my comments. i am so proud of the blm for having a wide view and seeking a variety of opinions. will they match my visions? no, of course not, but i think they have done a very good job so far.
Don’t forget that many of these problems started since BLM Washington level dictated to BLM Wyoming what the Draft RMP should contain. There are two ways these plans can develope:
1.) Top down decision making originating some distance from the affected State and counties – top down decision making usually results in provisions far removed from the desires of the local people
2.) Bottom up decision making wherein the provisions in the plans largely originate from the State and County level and better reflect the desires of the local people,
With respect to the Rock Springs RMP, there was too much input from the national level and not enough from the local level. One comment I read said there had been no meetings of the cooperators for over 2 years – that’s a red flag to me. When you don’t have a good balance of input from all levels, national, state and local the whole process goes amiss as we have witnessed – and then, the State and local people over react causing the Governor and elected congressional representatives becoming involved when their involvement shouldn’t be required. If this whole process had followed NEPA from the beginning with cooperators having a seat at the table during the scoping period Hagemann’s intervention wouldn’t have been required. The NEPA process works when it follows the provisions in NEPA – but when Washington attempts to dictate the preferred alternative – the whole process becomes contentious. This whole matter will work its way out but it didn’t have to become so contentious – the Final RMP will balance input from national, state and local levels. Some bottom up input is required in order to produce a balanced Final RMP but too much bottom up can cause a planning wreck too. This matter should never have proceeded to the point where Rep. Hagemann felt she had to take it to the congressional level for resolution. NEPA works with balanced input – Wyoming BLM was forced to bring forth a Draft RMP which Washington favored and it blew up in their face and it caused a strong negative reaction in Wyoming – they never learn in Washington.
Hageman knows her bill has almost zero chance of becoming law. It’s another clown car side show to appeal to her orange cult supporters.
The fact she is in step with Lauren Boebert says it all.
I and many others stand behind Hageman’s bill. Wyoming isn’t ready for changing the gorgeous land scape due to development in a land grab, money greed concept. Go look at the foot hills of Colorado. Doesn’t it look serene with all that development. I think not.
Lee, may I ask for clarification? If I’m reading you correctly, you are counseling us that we don’t want to look like the Colorado foothills (and I share that sentiment). At the same time, you say you stand behind Hageman’s bill, which opens the area to greater development. I oppose not only Hageman’s bill for the impact it would have on Sage Grouse (my bestest buddies) and other animals that will be adapting to the trend in warmer temperatures (which will stress them), but also her tactic for legislating against the established pathways of land use policy. I know that many people in Wyoming resent Federal lands in Wyoming, but to me the people at the BOR, BLM, USFS, NPS remind me of UW graduates in ag, rangeland, economics. Their knowledge is hard earned, and they are hard working people. They help us use research to inform our decisions. Hageman didn’t even attend the hearing when the BLM was speaking about the damage her bill would bring to the process that Rock Springs people say they want with the BLM. Was she off fund-raising?
None of the chrumpers can provide clarification for their thinking. If there is an “R” next to their name they believe it to be the gospel. Chrumpers are not rational thinkers, they just do as they’re told and believe what they’re told to believe.
Hang em High Harriet doesn’t represent the people of Wyoming, and neither does Barrasso or Lummis. Their interest is in industry, where they get their campaign financing.
I live just across the state line in Daggett County Utah. I shop and recreate in Sweetwater County.Those federal lands belong to me, too, and I am interested in their protection, just as I’m sure you are interested in the vast federal lands of Utah.
FWIW, the Utah congressional delegation is just as dedicated to the noon-protection of public lands as your Wyoming delegation.
My entire life, I have voted primarily along conservation (as opposed to “conservative”) lines; I always vote for the protection of land, so that it can be enjoyed by future generations. My grandchildren deserve a livable earth.
That’s why they are reflected by a huge margin. Wyomingits hate them!