There are some key points requiring clarification from the Salt Lake Tribune article published Nov. 27.  First, the standard comment period for Environmental Impact Statements is 45 days, in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations.  BLM’s guidance provides double that time—90 days--for planning documents, and, as an example, the Moab Draft RMP/EIS has a 99-day comment period.

BLM’s Resource Management Plans (RMPs) are important documents, forming the basis of how we manage the land for years to come.  Formulating draft RMPs is done with intensive involvement from both the public and cooperating agencies.  As elected representatives, county and state governments – BLM’s cooperators – participate extensively in formulating the draft plan.  For example, one county commissioner attended over 60 meetings on just one component of the plan.  Other federal agencies are also involved as cooperators.

Within the framework of a representative government, these cooperators are “the voice of the people” representing the public at the planning table.  BLM and the cooperators work together closely to craft a range of alternatives, using information provided by the public during the scoping period.  Though there are groups who object to the standing granted cooperating agencies, having elected representatives at the planning table provides for greater coordination and representation in the critical activity of planning, and is required by law.

Since 2003, when planning for new Moab RMP began, there have been four years of direct public involvement in various aspects of this process.  Unless BLM completes these plans, we face the very real possibility of having spent millions of taxpayer dollars with virtually no product to show for it. 

If the plan is not updated, BLM is legally bound to use the current resource management plans with its lack of “crystal ball” foresight.  Just as an example, recreation trends – such as OHV use, bicycle use, and extreme sporting events - have far surpassed anything planners in the 1980s could have anticipated.   Many of the court challenges BLM Utah has faced in recent years are based on questioning the adequacy of BLM’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  Shoring up BLM’s decision making basis with updated science and analysis is a key component of the new RMPs.

As State Director, I made it a priority for BLM Utah to complete these plans in a timely manner.  Field Office personnel and cooperators have worked diligently to make the priority a reality.  Field Office personnel have provided – and will continue to provide - extra assistance for groups and individuals in helping guide them through the draft plan and EIS.  I have spoken with many groups, and though some continue to call for a time extension, I think many more have found the comment period sufficient.  In the interest of completing these plans in a timely manner, I think it is prudent that BLM proceed within our current timeframes for the draft RMP/EISs and Supplemental Drafts.  We have received, and continue to receive, substantive public comments which will help guide us in our planning decisions. 

I appreciate that change is difficult, but BLM has to make changes to improve and update how we manage the extraordinary natural resources that are Utah public lands.

Selma Sierra
State Director
BLM Utah