Meeting Called to Order on October 16, 2012 at 1:00 P

Meeting Called to Order on October 16, 2012 at 1:00 P

Grand Staircase Escalante National MonumentDesignated Federal Official: Cindy Staszak

Advisory Committee (MAC)

November 3 & 4, 2016 Meeting MinutesRecorder: Larry Crutchfield

______

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Advisory Committee Meeting

November 3, 2016

Kanab, Utah

Meeting called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Monument Manager Cindy Staszak, the Designated Federal Official for the GSENM Advisory Committee (MAC); and MAC Chair Link Chynoweth.

MAC Members in Attendance: Link Chynoweth (Livestock Permitee/Chair), Wes Thompson (Geology), Mike Friedman (Outfitter/Guide), Kevin Heaton (State), Julie Howard (Archaeology), Norm McKee (Wildlife), Doug Reagan (Systems Ecology), Ganaver Timican (Tribal Interests)

Present by phone - Dirk Clayson (Kane County Commissioner), Phil Hanceford (Environmental), Randall Irmis (Paleontology), Keith Watts (Education)

MAC Members Excused from Meeting: N/A

MAC Members Not Attending: Leland Pollack (Garfield County Commissioner)

Monument Staff In Attendance: Cindy Staszak, Monument Manager/DFO; Larry Crutchfield, Public Affairs; Matt Betenson, Associate Monument Manager; Sean Stewart, Acting Assistant Monument Manager, Resources; Amber Hughes, Environmental Coordinator

Non-Monument BLM Personnel in Attendance: None

Other Agency Personnel in Attendance: None

Members of the Public in Attendance: None

Agenda

Welcome/Introductions/Role Call: Staszak

Administrative Remarks: Crutchfield

  • Lunch arrangements.
  • Turn in Hotel receipts/mileage claims before departing.

MAC Business: Chynoweth (MAC Chairman)

  • Review/Discuss/Approve August 4, 2016 MAC Meeting Minutes
  • Discussion: Reagan requested clarification regarding conduct of the meetings; specifically, who was/is responsible. DFO/Committee Chair jointly run the meetings with support from Monument Staff.
  • Motion to Approve the Minutes – Heaton/Howard
  • Motion Approved – Unanimously
  • Review/Discuss Subcommittees: Staszak
  • Checked with Washington Office FACA Committee Liaison; subcommittee meetings must be noticed in the Federal Register.
  • Question was asked if minutes needed to be kept and posted. Yes, but GSENM staff will confirm.
  • ACTION ITEM: Confirm need to keep/post subcommittee minutes - Crutchfield
  • By-laws
  • Committee discussed updates to by-laws. Suggested additions/changes to the by-laws were provided by members.
  • ACTION ITEM: Crutchfield will prepare draft by-laws for the committee to review at tomorrow’s session.

Manager’s Report: Staszak

  • This section of the meeting will inform the committee on the inner workings of the Monument – what we face from a management standpoint, and what we do at the Division levels; giving members a better perspective of the Monument, which in turn, will allow each of you to better understand how you may help.
  • Personel:
  • WO: Director
  • Deputy Director, Operations-Steve Ellis retiring (Jenna Whitlock-Acting)
  • UTSO-Director-Ed Roberson (meetings-Feb MAC/ Dec 2 Open House-Escalante/Dec 9 Open House Kanab)
  • GSENM
  • Matt Betenson-Associate
  • 3 Assistant Monument Manager positions
  • Sean Stewart, Acting Resource Division
  • ??? Acting Visitor Services
  • ??? Acting Planning & Support Services
  • P&EC - Amber Hughes
  • GIS - Paul Ledbeder
  • Science Program Administrator-Interviews
  • Maintenance position-Interviews
  • Budget:
  • Continuing Resolution until December
  • Working from a PTA (30% of spending/ based on last year’s allocations)
  • Projects identified: Salinity Control, REA Step Down, Climate Trend Monitoring, Water Quality Inventory & Monitoring, Threats to Water Sources, AIM, VC Operations (½ of what we need), Class 1 Archeology Overview, Paleo Helicopter Lift, Karparowits Fossil Resource Protection & Salvage, Christmas Bird Count, Youth Employment/Interns, Native Plant Project, Youth Camps.
  • Projects:
  • Dark Sky Sanctuary Recognition
  • NEPA Projects – Hughes will cover in next segment
  • Ongoing:
  • Acoustic Monitoring
  • Recreation Baseline
  • Backcountry Monitoring
  • LWC Inventory
  • Range Improvement Projects
  • AIM Monitoring
  • REA Stepdown

NEPA Workload/Projects: Amber Hughes

  • National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
  • The National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States Environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment and established the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). -Eccleston, Charles H. (2008) NEPA and Environmental Planning
  • NEPA’s most significant outcome was the requirement that all executive federal agencies prepare environmental assessments (Eas) and environmental impact statements (EISs). These reports state the potential environmental effects of proposed federal agency actions. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (December 2007).
  • Eplanning Website
  • https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do
  • Completed projects in FY2016
  • 8 Categorical Exclusions
  • 26 Determinations of NEPA Adequacy
  • 4 Environmental Assessments
  • 38 Documents Total
  • Environmental Assessments
  • Deer Creek Campground Improvements
  • Whitehouse Campground Improvements
  • South Central Fiber Optic Line from Buckskin Mtn. to Page, AZ
  • Camp4 Collective Filming
  • Determination of NEPA Adequacy
  • 20 DNAs for 36 Special Recreation Permits
  • DOI-BLM-UT-0300-2011-0002-EA Programmatic EA for Issuing Special Recreation Permits within GSENM (October 11, 2012)
  • Seven DNAs for 7 Film Permits
  • DOI-BLM-UT-USO-2006-004-EA No-Impact Commercial Filming on Utah BLM w/in WSA and the GSENM (September 2006)
  • Dinosaur Excavation
  • DOI-BLM-UT-0300-2006-0016-EA Programmatic EA for Small-Scale Dinosaur excavations in Poorly Vegetated Badlands
  • Escalante River Watershed Partnership
  • DOI-BLM-UT-0300-2011-0009 Programmatic Noxious Weed & Invasive Plant Management (August 29,2015)
  • Categorical Exclusions
  • Four road ROW renewals
  • Two Water ROW renewal
  • UDOT/Hwy12 road repair
  • Cattle guard placement
  • Current EA Projects
  • Buckskin to Kanab & Fredonia Transmission Line
  • Calf Creek Recreation Area Improvements
  • Deer Springs Fuels Reduction – USFS MOU
  • Current EA Projects
  • GRSG Habitat Restoration
  • Field Trip
  • Dry Fork Trailhead
  • Merrill’s Bench Corral
  • Current DNAs and CXs
  • Five Mile Mtn. DNA
  • SRP DNA
  • Film DNA
  • Kane Co. Johnson Canyon Emergency Watershed Project CX
  • Reviewed Maps of Project Areas
  • Buckskin Substation Amendment to ROW
  • Lake Powell Pipeline project - FERC
  • Navajo Generating Station

Greater Sage Grouse Plan Amendment

  • Great Sage Grouse EIS
  • The EIS amends 14 BLM and 6 Forest Service land use plans. It described and analyzed six alternatives for managing Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) habitat on approximately 3.4 million acres of BLM-administered and National Forest System lands in Utah and southwestern Wyoming, as well as approximately 0.7 million acres of BLM-administered subsurface federal mineral estate beneath non-federal surface ownership in Utah.
  • The Monument Management Plan was Amended September 2015 for GRSG.
  • Habitat Objectives added to GSENM Management Plan
  • Goal SSA-1 Maintain and/or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in collaboration with other conservation partners.
  • Objective SSA-3 In all GRSG habitat, where sagebrush is the current or potential dominant vegetation type or is a primary species within the various states of the ecological site description, maintain or restore vegetation to provide habitat for lekking, nesting, brood rearing, and winter habitats.
  • Objective SSA-4 Within PHMA, increase the amount and functionality of seasonal habitats by:
  • Maintaining or increasing sagebrush in perennial grasslands, where needed to meet the Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse (Table 2-2), unless there is a conflict with Utah prairie dog.
  • Reducing conifer (e.g., pinyon/juniper) from areas that are most likely to support GRSG at a rate that is at least equal to the rate of encroachment.
  • Reducing the extent of annual grasslands.
  • Maintaining or improving corridors for migration or movement between seasonal habitats, as well as for long-term genetic connections between populations.
  • Maintaining or improving understory (grass, forb) and/or riparian condition within breeding and late brood-rearing habitats
  • Outside PHMA (in adjacent opportunity areas) improve and restore historical GRSG habitat to support GRSG populations and to maintain or enhance connectivity. Statewide, complete a decadal average of 170,200 acres of mechanical treatments and 33,000 acres of annual grass treatments. Prioritization is for completion of treatments within PHMA before treating areas outside (GRSG-ARMPA-2015, Objective SSS-4).

Lunch – Watched a BLM video on vegetation restoration methods.

Field Tour - Sage Grouse Habitat: Cameron McQuivey

  • MAC Members in Attendance: Link Chynoweth (Livestock Permitee/Chair), Wes Thompson (Geology), Mike Friedman (Outfitter/Guide), Kevin Heaton (State), Julie Howard (Archaeology), Norm McKee (Wildlife), Doug Reagan (Systems Ecology), Ganaver Timican (Tribal Interests)
  • Monument Staff In Attendance: Cindy Staszak, Monument Manager/DFO; Larry Crutchfield, Public Affairs; Matt Betenson, Associate Monument Manager; Sean Stewart, Acting Assistant Monument Manager, Resources; Amber Hughes, Environmental Coordinator; Cameron McQuivey, Wildlife Biologist; Ken Bradshaw, Hydrologist/Soils Specialist; Allan Bate, Rangeland Management Specialist; Raymond Brinkerhoff, Botanist
  • The group toured the following sites: Ford Pasture Overlook (Discussed Sage Rouse Habitat needs and received a broad scale view of the area and potential treatment locations); Cutler Point (Discussed/compared treated and untreated areas; healthy rangelands vs. unhealthy; and soil health); and Mark Point (Discussed treatment methods, ecological sites and biological soil crusts).
  • Discussion after the field trip: Committee members and GSENM management discussed various options on how the MAC could participate in various planning efforts including upcoming sage grouse projects. Any recommendations from the MAC must come be voted on and approved by the MAC; however, individual MAC members are always welcome to submit their comments as individuals. One idea was a single letter containing a recommendation with the pros & cons stated. Also discussed how the MAC could hold telephone conference meetings to approve recommendations. Also discussed when is the best time to do a sage grouse project; late fall is preferred. GSENM will work with DWR to determine the best time.

Public Meeting: The MAC meeting was opened at 5 p.m. for public comment. No members of the public were in attendance.

Motion to adjourn: Heaton/Thompson

Motion approved: Unanimously

Meeting Adjourned at 5:35 p.m.; reconvene at 8 a.m., November 4, 2016

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Advisory Committee Meeting

November 4, 2016

Kanab, Utah

Meeting called to order at 8:05 a.m. by Monument Manager Cindy Staszak, the Designated Federal Official for the GSENM Advisory Committee (MAC); and MAC Chair Link Chynoweth.

MAC Members in Attendance: Link Chynoweth (Livestock Permitee/Chair), Wes Thompson (Geology), Mike Friedman (Outfitter/Guide), Julie Howard (Archaeology), Norm McKee (Wildlife), Doug Reagan (Systems Ecology), Ganaver Timican (Tribal Interests)

Present by phone - Dirk Clayson (Kane County Commissioner), Phil Hanceford (Environmental), Kevin Heaton (State), Randall Irmis (Paleontology), Keith Watts (Education)

MAC Members Excused from Meeting: N/A

MAC Members Not Attending: Leland Pollack (Garfield County Commissioner)

Monument Staff In Attendance: Cindy Staszak, Monument Manager/DFO; Larry Crutchfield, Public Affairs; Matt Betenson, Associate Monument Manager; Sean Stewart, Acting Assistant Monument Manager, Resources; Amber Hughes, Environmental Coordinator; Allan Bate, Rangeland Management Specialist; Ken Bradshaw, Hydrologist/Soils Specialist

Non-Monument BLM Personnel in Attendance: None

Other Agency Personnel in Attendance: None

Members of the Public in Attendance: None

Agenda

Welcome/Introductions/Role Call: Staszak

Administrative Comments: Crutchfield

  • Please turn in your hotel receipts and round-trip mileage for reimbursement to me or Tami Clark, GSENM Travel Coordinator, before you depart the area.

Overview of GSENM Visitation/RMIS: Graig Tanner

  • Recreation Management Information System (RMIS) – BLM’s official record for outdoor recreation information on public lands
  • What is counted:
  • Visitor Center Counts (October 2015 – September 2016)
  • 192,690 visitors walked into the visitor centers
  • Traffic and Foot Counters – We do not count highway percentages; In the past, counted UDOT by % formula.
  • GSENM has 32 foot and vehicle counters: Escalante Canyons and Hwy 12 receives roughly 50% of use; Kanab and Highway 89 receives 15%; Paria Hackberry roughly 25%; rest is scattered across other areas
  • Compiled in the Traffix System
  • Vehicle Counters:
  • Divide by 2 (accounts for enter and exit)
  • Multiply by 2.5 people per vehicle
  • Foot Counters:
  • Divide by 2
  • Backcountry Permits
  • Trailhead registers
  • Fee Envelopes
  • In 2016: 925,713 Visitors were counted
  • Discussion: MAC members had significant discussion regarding GSENM Visitor Centers closing because of a lack of funding to man the centers year-round. Members brought up that the MAC once wrote a letter to the BLM Utah State Director requesting additional funding for the centers; would it help to do it again?
  • Budgets are slimmer than they were at that time. As an agency, we cannot lobby for additional funds; but the MAC can make recommendations regarding funding.
  • Look at ways through additional fees to get additional funding; look for more revenue streams outside of government.
  • We have limited opportunities on GSENM to charge fees.
  • Partnering is another way to obtain additional funding.
  • Why not collect entrance fees?
  • Too many entry points
  • Too costly to create infrastructure to collect
  • GSENM is taxpayer-supported, but may need to consider user-fees.
  • Congress may be looking at creating a “BLM Foundation,” which would be another way of collecting additional fees/obtaining funding.
  • Perhaps the MAC could invite the BLM State Director to attend a MAC meeting to give the MAC the opportunity to express its concerns directly to the SD.
  • We have invited him to attend the MAC and our upcoming holiday open houses.
  • Consider charging fees at Dry Fork (like Calf Creek); justified by new facilities being provided.
  • There are specific amenities that must be present for BLM to justify fees.
  • Question was asked if all fees are kept to support locally. At the moment, yes. Two buckets of money – SRP holders & Calf Creek. Money must be spent to support these two programs.
  • Question: Was their growth in backcountry use? This year, 13%. No fees for backcountry camping; only in established campgrounds.
  • ACTION ITEM: Invite local congressional representation to attend MAC meetings.
  • Note: Crutchfield personally invited congressional reps to this meeting.
  • ACTION ITEM: Prepare letter from MAC to DFO recommending funding for Visitor Center staffing. This will be completed at the next meeting.
  • Motion: McKee
  • Motion Approved: Unanimously
  • ACTION ITEM: Resend to MAC members the previous letter MAC sent to BLM State Director regarding staffing - Crutchfield
  • Analysis of Critical Visitor Use Management Issues in the Escalante Canyons by Dr. David Cole
  • Internal workshops to identify key resource issues, impacts, and options for resolving issues
  • Key Issues
  • Dispersed Camping Impacts
  • Graffiti and Vandalism
  • Human waste and water quality
  • Crowding and congestion
  • Mgmt. actions might include recreation management prescriptions in new NEPA for SRMA planning or education, permits, allocations, site rehabilitation, user fees, and law enforcement, etc.)
  • Increase Staff Capacity
  • 2017 Projects
  • Escalante VC:
  • Exterior exhibits on trip planning and resource protection messages
  • Community exhibits on respect and protect (anti-graffiti)
  • Penn State Backcountry Research and Monitoring
  • Implementation of SRMA plans (NEPA for trailhead parking, toilets, dispersed camping etc.)
  • Volunteer outreach volunteer housing seasonal recruitment
  • SUU intern program
  • ACE agreement

GSENM Draft Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment & EIS: Betenson

  • Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) & General Planning
  • FLPMA – Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976, giving the BLM the “multiple-use and sustained yield” management mission
  • FLPMA Sec. 202. [43 U.S.C. 1712] (a) The Secretary shall, with public involvement and consistent with the terms and conditions of this Act, develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands. Land use plans shall be developed for the public lands regardless of whether such lands previously have been classified, withdrawn, set aside, or otherwise designated for one or more uses.
  • Land Use Plans
  • Land use plans and planning decisions are the basis for every on-the-ground action the BLM undertakes. These land use plan decisions establish goals and objectives for resource management (desired outcomes) and the measures needed to achieve these goals and objectives (management actions and allowable uses).
  • The BLM will use an ongoing planning process to ensure that land use plans and implementation decisions remain consistent with applicable laws, regulations, orders, and policies. This process will involve public participation.
  • Decisions in land use plans guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions.
  • Grazing Regulations – Land Use Plans
  • 4100.0-8 Land Use Plans: The authorized officer shall manage livestock grazing on public lands under the principle of multiple use and sustained yield, and in accordance with applicable land use plans. Land use plans shall establish allowable resource uses (either singly or in combination), related levels of production or use to be maintained, areas of use, and resource conditions goals and objectives to be obtained. The plans also set forth program constraints and general management practices needed to achieve management objectives. Livestock grazing activities and management actions approved by the authorized officer shall be in conformance with the land use plan as defined at 43 CFR 1601.0-5(b).
  • Grazing Regulations – Permits
  • 4130.2 Grazing permits or leases: (a) Grazing permits or leases shall be issued to qualified applicants to authorize use on the public lands and other lands under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management that are designated as available for livestock grazing through land use plans. ...
  • Project Background & Past Planning Effort
  • Planning Area – 2,316,200 acres within Garfield and Kane Counties in Utah and Coconino County in Arizona
  • Decision Area
  • 2,253,500 acres for which GSENM has livestock grazing management responsibility:
  • GSENM
  • Kanab Field Office
  • Arizona Strip Field Office
  • Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
  • Does not include State, municipal, or private lands
  • Project Background – Past Planning Effort
  • Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan, signed Nov. 1999; Effective February 2000
  • No allocation decisions for livestock; deferred
  • Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Livestock Grazing Allotments, August 31, 2000
  • 1999-2003 Rangeland Health data collection
  • Focused on permit renewal
  • Draft EIS released October 2008
  • Grazing Background – GSENM Planning Area
  • 91 permittees
  • 96 total allotments
  • 106,202 total AUMs (106,645 in 1996)
  • 79 active allotments available for & managed for grazing
  • 76,957 active AUMs (77,400 in 1996)
  • Average 41,000 actual use AUMs
  • 17 allotments are wholly or partially unavailable
  • GSENM Range Condition:
  • Monitoring Protocols
  • Range Land Health
  • AIM
  • Long Term Trend
  • Utilization
  • Actual Use
  • Precipitation
  • Rangeland Health
  • Since 2000 GSENM ID teams have conducted Range Land Health and PFC assessments on
  • 500 Upland Sites
  • 360 Miles of Steams (Lotic)
  • 100 Seeps/Springs (Lentic)
  • Utah Standards for Rangeland Health
Top View