Utah Recreational Land Exchange (URLEA)
Utah Recreational Land
Exchange (URLEA) Defies Spirit of the Law
The legislative legacy of
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) rests with the
Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act (URLEA)
of 2009. At that time, the bill received
accolades from both the Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance (SUWA)
and the
Grand Canyon Trust. In 2009, the bill
received unanimous approval by the U.S. House of
Representatives and passed the U.S. Senate. In
2009, an
executive summary of the bill stated, “H.R.
1275 (now Public Law 111-53-Aug. 19, 2009) would
authorize the exchange of approximately 41,000
acres of land owned by the State of Utah and
approximately 46,000 acres of U.S. federal land.
Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior
would be required to accept the exchange if it
is offered by the State.”
The
exchange was to be an “equal value” land swap
between the Utah School and Institutional Trust
Lands Administration (SITLA) and the federal
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In concept, The
BLM would receive prime recreational acreage
around Moab and throughout Grand County. SITLA,
on behalf of the State of Utah, would receive
prime mineral extraction lands in Uintah County.
Upon development of mineral rights in Uintah
County, all of Utah’s school districts would
receive benefit of payments from the interest
and mineral royalties accrued to SITLA.
According to a recent posting on the BLM
website, “The BLM will acquire 58 parcels with
high conservation and recreation value, totaling
25,034 acres, primarily in Grand County. These
parcels will expand the BLM backcountry with
world-class recreation sites like Corona Arch
and Morning Glory Arch. This exchange will
improve the quantity and quality of recreational
experiences for visitors to public lands and
waters managed by the BLM. The State will
acquire 34 parcels with
high mineral development potential, totaling
35,516 acres, primarily in Uintah County. The
state expects development of these high
potential parcels to boost public school funding
across Utah.”
By
titling their URLEA webpage the “Utah
Recreational Land Exchange”, the BLM makes the
agreement sound like a “win – win” situation for
all concerned. Tourists will see a bit more
protection for Greater Canyonlands, near Moab.
Schoolchildren throughout the state will see
school funding rise by an undetermined amount.
Regarding the URLEA, BLM declared a “Finding of
No Significant Impact” (FONSI). Thus, according
to BLM, an acreage exchange totaling 60,550
acres is not a “major federal action” and “will
not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment”.
Uintah County, as well as the State of Utah,
takes its name from the portion of the Ute
Indian tribe that lived in the Uintah Basin.
Among the 32,588 residents of Uintah County, the
URLEA FONSI statement might raise a few
eyebrows. Whether it is air pollution or water
pollution, Uintah County has been the dumping
ground for “the unwanted” since the mid
nineteenth Century. Today, Uintah County
features the most significantly
degraded environment in the State of Utah.
In fact, the degradation of both the human and
natural environments of Uintah County is
legendary.
Unlike
most of Utah, Mormons did not settle Uintah
County. In 1861, Brigham Young sent a scouting
party to the Uintah Basin and received word back
the area was “good for nothing but nomad
purposes, hunting grounds for Indians and to
'hold the world together'". That section of
country lying between the Wasatch Mountains and
the eastern boundary of the territory, and south
of Green River country, was “a vast contiguity
of waste and measurably valueless”. Young made
no further effort to colonize the area. Instead,
he decided to send Ute Indians there.
That same year, President Abraham Lincoln
created the Uintah Indian Reservation, thus
beginning the relocation of many Utah and
Colorado Indians to the Uinta Basin. In the
1880s, the federal government created the
Uncompahgre Reservation (now part of the Uintah
and Ouray Reservation) in the southern portion
of Uintah County. The Uintah and Ouray Indian
Reservation comprise a significant portion of
west Uintah County. There is relatively little
private land in the county.
Uintah
County's economy is based on extracting natural
resources, including petroleum, natural gas,
phosphate, and uintaite, which is a natural
asphalt more commonly known by its trade name,
Gilsonite. In the 1860s, Samuel H. Gilson
initiated mineral extraction in Uintah County.
In the early twentieth century, Gilsonite became
the base for the black paint on Henry Ford’s
Model T automobiles. In the early twentieth
century, coal was the focus of mineral
exploitation. Although now defunct, the Dyer
Mine, Little Water Mine and Uteland Mine each
laid waste to lands within Uintah County. Today,
the county features branch offices of several
petrochemical companies, including Halliburton
and Schlumberger.
The February 2014 URLEA Decision of Record
states, “The overwhelming majority of the
non-Federal lands in the exchange are within
areas designated through the land use planning
process for special management for conservation
and recreational purposes.” What that document
does not say is that the overwhelming majority
of the Federal lands in the exchange are within
areas designated “Open” for
oil, gas and
tar sands development. Even so, the BLM
FONSI statement ignores the potential impact by
saying that mineral extraction on over 35,000
acres in Uintah County “will not significantly
affect the quality of the human environment”.
In
Grand County, with its Arches National Park,
Canyonlands National Park and the now endangered
Greater Canyonlands, the BLM paints a rosy
picture of tourist dollars enhanced by the
transfer of SITLA lands to BLM stewardship. On
their webpage, they say, “Nearly six million
annual visitors recreating on Utah’s public
lands have boosted local economies and
contributed to community job growth through
recreation tourism. Public lands managed by the
BLM in Utah contribute significantly to the
state’s economy and, in turn, often have a
positive impact on nearby communities. In fact,
recreation on BLM-managed lands in Utah provided
$490 million in local and national economic
benefits in 2012.”
Again, if we look deeper, the picture is not so
clear. In July 2013, Cushman & Wakefield
completed the Appraisal reports for the Federal
and non-Federal lands identified in the URLEA.
The reports included a mineral evaluation of the
exchange parcels "previously screened and
identified by the State and the BLM" as having
potential mineral values. Thus, if neither SITLA
or BLM had previously identified the mineral
resources on a given parcel, the Appraisal
ignored the value of any minerals present. In
fact, the Appraisal found that BLM would
“experience a net gain of lands with potential
for potash and sand and gravel and a net loss of
lands with potential for oil and gas and tar
sands”. Therefore, as SITLA and Uintah County
experience a net gain of lands with potential
for oil and gas and tar sands, BLM and Grand
County will receive several natural arches and
other sensitive sites, plus the potential for
more new sand, gravel and potash mining.
In
2013, BLM claimed that it had no choice but to
issue
permits for potash exploration near the
Hatch Point Anticline Overlook. If the Moab
District Resource Management Plan Map (RMP)
designated an area as “Open”, BLM said it was
obligated to issue the exploratory
drilling permits. Other questionable acts by
the
Moab BLM Field Office include the 2013
issuance of a commercial filming permit in the
Desolation Canyon Wilderness Study Area.
Apparently, the local BLM office saw filming of
a “MythBusters” television episode as being
wholly compatible with “wilderness study”.
At Hatch Point, in what had been an undisturbed,
spiritual environment, drill rigs now dot
the landscape. Each mineral exploration foray
into Greater Canyonlands lessens the future
chances of creating a
Greater Canyonlands National Monument, also
known as Bears Ears National Monument. If the
extraction companies can lay waste to sufficient
territory, they can effectively destroy the
undisturbed environment necessary for national
monument status. Meanwhile, the Moab BLM Field
Office stands ready to issue permits for filming
and mineral extraction on an expedited basis.
Other
than brief a mention on Page Seven of the URLEA
Decision Record, there is no indication of where
in Grand County those "sand, gravel or potash"
resources lay. If the sand, gravel and potash
deposits mentioned in the URLEA are in areas
designated as “Open”, we can expect to see a
boon in BLM permits issued for their immediate
exploration and extraction. In the case of Hatch
Point potash, the Moab BLM Field Office has
already demonstrated blind allegiance to its own
Resource Management Plan.
Under URLEA, we can expect any "Open" lands
transferred to BLM purview to become immediately
available for mineral exploration. In Moab, once
exploration begins, it is only a matter of time
before
exploitation follows. That outcome would be
in direct opposition to both the spirit and the
letter of this law. Each parcel conveyed from
SITLA to BLM should contain stipulations that
include no future mineral development. Only then
shall we see an actual increase in protection
for Greater Canyonlands.
A
major premise of the URLEA is that the land
exchange between Utah (SITLA) and the BLM shall
be of "equal value". If that is true, how can
25,034 acres of non-Federal lands with largely
recreational or environmental uses be equal in
value to 35,516 acres of Federal lands targeted
for mineral extraction? Grand County itself is
going through a binge of
land clearing and drilling activity unseen
since the days of Charlie Steen, the "Uranium
King".
In their official Appraisal, Cushman & Wakefield
valued each parcel according to its “highest and
best use”. Even with 198 parcels included in the
URLEA Appraisal, BLM contact Joy Wehking at the
BLM-Utah State Director's office told me that
representatives of Cushman & Wakefield visited
every site. Upon returning to their offices,
correlating their field observations with the
existing parcel descriptions was a daunting
task. Despite their apparent best attempt, or
perhaps because both BLM and SITLA failed to
identify its mineral potential, Cushman &
Wakefield missed badly on at least Parcel 32.
According
to all the positive publicity, the intention of
the URLEA is to preserve and enhance recreation
and to protect environmentally sensitive lands
in Grand County. That such preservation and
enhancement comes at the expense of an
underrepresented rural county to the north is
URLEA's “dirty little secret”. In Nevada, there
is a secret place called “Area 51”, which is
wrapped in myth and mystery. In Grand County,
URLEA “Parcel 32” is equally mysterious. In a
counter-intuitive move, the BLM proposes to
transfer a prime Grand County parcel to SITLA.
Once it becomes part of SITLA lands, Utah can
then lease it to the highest bidder or sell it
outright.
According to URLEA maps and documents, Parcel 32
consists of 352 acres of Federal land adjacent
to
Canyonlands Field (Moab
Airport). The “Oil and Gas Leasing
Stipulations” for Parcel 32 are “Open Subject to
Standard Stipulations”. Despite its obvious
potential for commercial or petrochemical
development, Cushman & Wakefield appraised the
“highest and best use” of the entire parcel as
“grazing land”. According to URLEA documents,
Alan Swenson, Russell Stansfield and Fred
Hunzeker do hold a grazing permit named
“Bigflat-Tenmile”, but for only eighty of the
352 acres. That grazing permit expires in 2018.
Elsewhere, in the URLEA section titled
“Interests to be Conveyed or Reserved”, Parcel
32 reserves (and contains) county and U.S.
highways and
Union Pacific rail access, as well as a
Fidelity Exploration &
Production
Co. “pipeline” and a Pacific Energy and
Mining Company (PEMC) “gas pipeline”. Despite
its “Open” status for oil and gas leasing, by
identifying it as grazing land, Cushman &
Wakefield erroneously appraised Parcel 32 as
being worth only $780,000.
Other than the transportation
interests in the property, what do we know of
the current occupants of Parcel 32? Recently,
Fidelity Exploration began increased
culinary water purchases from the City of
Moab, ostensibly for use on their rapidly
expanding gas field near Dead Horse Point. Moab
City Manager Donna Metzler says the amount of
water the town sells to drillers is “not a big
hit on the system,”. Metzler went on to say, "I
don’t know exactly where they take the water. I
don’t know exactly what they’re using it for...
You would expect a small motel to use about that
much water."
For their part, Pacific Energy, is one of the
more secretive oil and gas operations in Grand
County. Although they do have a website, it is
identified only by their internet URL address,
not the name of the company. Although their
website looks professional enough, the PEMC
"Oil" webpage links to a Chevron Oil Company
"Crude Oil Marketing" webpage. The PEMC
"Investors" webpage links to a Yahoo Finance
stock listing for the company.
Listed
as "Over the Counter - Other", in the past year,
PEMC has traded at between one cent per share
and $.35 per share. Its latest close, on
February 3, 2014 was three cents. Most stocks
that I watch do not fluctuate by 350% in a
single year. In any event, PEMC looks like a
penny stock that is ripe for speculation.
Had Cushman & Wakefield appraised Parcel 32 for
its potential as an oil and gas production site,
or as a railroad and highway terminal or
transfer-station for two of the largest oil and
gas producers in Grand County, its value could
have gone as high as $10 million. Not
ironically, over 20,000 SITLA-owned acres, which
were valued at $10 million, recently disappeared
from the land swap in order to adhere to the
“equal valuation” clause of the agreement.
If the current version of URLEA becomes law,
what will future airline passengers and
motorists see as they approach Moab from the
north? As early as 2019, if the Moab BLM Field
Office holds to their own Management Resource
Plan, visitors can expect to see a 352-acre
petrochemical production facility adjacent to
Canyonlands Field. Based on its existing
Management
Resource Plan, and the BLM Moab Field Office's
history of granting any and all conforming
mineral exploration permits, the last chance to
stop exploitation of Parcel 32 is to either
remove it from the land swap or force SITLA to
pay "equal value" as indicated by its potential
for commercial or petrochemical development.
According to BLM contact Joy Wehking, SITLA is
on public record that they plan to convey Parcel
32 into as yet undetermined private ownership.
"It is the price we have to pay", she added. If
the underlying premise of the URLEA is an
"exchange of equal value", why should "we, the
people" pay anything to assist private
development of land designated by the URLEA as
"cattle grazing land"?
Unless the BLM receives hard-copy, written protests prior to the close of comments on March 24, 2014, URLEA Parcel 32 will soon thereafter transfer to Utah/SITLA at a grossly undervalued price. If my evaluation is correct, SITLA should immediately reintroduce the remaining 20,000 acres originally targeted for inclusion in the land swap. Only with the inclusion of all $10 million worth of non-Federal parcels recently withdrawn, can the BLM claim that URLEA represents an "exchange of equal value". If SITLA refuses a fair appraisal for Parcel 32, BLM could void the URLEA and produce the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that it should have conducted in the first place.
As
of this writing, it is too late for "comments".
Even sending an email to BLMwill not help. The
only action that will halt this land-grab is if
"interested parties submit written protests to
the BLM-Utah State Director".
Sadly, the BLM webpage for URLEA
does not include the mailing address of the
BLM-Utah State Director. During a telephone call
to BLM contact Joy Wehking, she informed me that
the appropriate mailing address is listed at the
top of the "Notice of Decision" page.
Since the BLM did not see fit to put that
address on their main URLEA webpage, I will
publish it here: Attn. Joy Wehking, United
States Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), Utah State Office, 440
West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah
84101-1345. Ms. Wehking informed me by telephone
that as of March 7, 2014, no written protests to
URLEA were then on file. With my mailing a copy
of this document to her, that situation will
soon change. Author's
Note: July 2024. Times change, people change and
this issue is now dead and buried in the BLM
archives.