County criticizes BLM sage-grouse plan

The Crook County Commissioners have logged concern that they are not being included in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planning process for greater sage-grouse management.

The BLMS’s Greater Sage-grouse Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and final environmental impact statement were published on November 15. The plan will address management of the bird and its habitat in ten western states, including Wyoming.

The purpose of the amended plan is to respond to updated scientific information, change land uses and provide for consistent and effective range-wide conservation, while balancing the BLM’s need to manage public lands for other uses, according to the announcement.

Last week, the commission met to approve a letter of protest.

“Our primary concerns with this decision center around inadequate engagement of county cooperating agencies in the planning process,” the commission’s letter states, also citing inconsistencies between the plan amendment and the county’s land use plan and Wyoming executive order on the species, as well as the state’s creation of the “Golden Triangle” priority habitat management areas and “insufficient analysis of socioeconomic impacts”.

According to the letter, the cooperating agency process should help maintain consistency with state and local plans and provide “a unique opportunity for different jurisdictional governments to have frank and thorough conversations”. However, the commission writes, in this case it has “generated more frustration than it has borne fruitful partnership”.

Several attempts were made to improve counties’ participation, they write, including bringing the concerns to the BLM’s national director in Washington, D.C. However, the commission feels not enough was done to include them.

“It is inappropriate that the BLM take whatever time it desires revising the [plan] yet demand cooperating agencies perform rapid analysis under duress, when the BLM sees fit to request our input,” the letter reads.

The plan’s latest iteration creates “an entirely new management area at the eleventh hour” and is just the latest example of how “failing in the process has generated substantive issues with the [plan].”

The commission’s concerns regarding the socioeconomic impact of the plan centers on the fact that it looks at “other valuable resources strictly through the lens of [greater sage-grouse] management”. This, the commission writes, pits management of the species against grazing, fluid minerals, renewable energy and more.

“Beyond creating a scarcity mindset, this lens also affects the way that impacts are described throughout the document,” they write.

The commission asks the BLM to revisit the plan, including all its concerns in the reevaluation. Among the specific requests, the commission asks that there be a supplemental socioeconomic analysis that accurately reflects the impact of greater sage-grouse management on multiple use resources and the impacts on mineral and energy development.

The commission also asks that the BLM “prioritize meaningful engagement with cooperating agencies at all stages of the process”.