ST. GEORGE — The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Saint George Field Office (SGFO) is trying to pull a fast one on the public that it is supposed to serve. It is shamefully misleading the public by using tortoise conservation as a “Trojan horse” to help the Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD) push through a new reservoir.

This is the latest example of the BLM SGFO pandering to county officials and development interests by seeking to circumvent adequate environmental analysis and meaningful public involvement.  

As a former environmental attorney and retired BLM National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) expert, I strongly believe that the BLM scoping notice (click here) for a proposed Red Cliffs Warner Valley land exchange is legally deficient by omitting key facts.

The BLM proposed action is also foolishly risky and unnecessarily confusing. It combines what should be two entirely different matters: tortoise conservation and a new WCWCD Warner Valley reservoir and associated development. The primary purpose is clearly to promote this reservoir and likely other development in the Long and Warner Valleys/Sand Mountain area.  

It appears that this reservoir and other development on what is now BLM land would not be possible “but for” this successful exchange and transfer of land title to the WCWCD.

It is also unlikely that the new reservoir and other development would not encounter one or more future federal nexuses in terms of diverting Virgin River water, constructing new water pipelines and power lines, and perhaps building a reverse osmosis facility that may use large amounts of energy and generate large amounts of toxic brine.

In short, even though the scoping notice ignores it, these two exchange components plus the reservoir and associated development are “connected actions” (see 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(1)). As such, they must be objectively and comprehensively analyzed under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with full public involvement and a fair comparison of feasible alternatives.   

Moreover, under the relevant CEQ context and intensity criteria, and because of Virgin River Lower Basin Colorado River Compact, threatened tortoise and endangered plant species, energy sources (especially for reverse osmosis), changes to public access and recreational uses, and other issues, I believe that an Environmental Assessment (EA) may not be legally sufficient and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be required. For an EIS, BLM must publish a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register to initiate the scoping process under NEPA.

With BLM in this area, the past can become prologue. The BLM SGFO used a previous tortoise related land deal to facilitate the controversial extension of the Long Valley road for a developer. This road was proposed through the same Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) that would be affected by the current proposed exchange and likewise which threatened tortoises.

In the EA for this proposed road extension, BLM acknowledged impacts on the ACEC and tortoises and ignored a feasible less damaging alternative. I am one of the appellants who is challenging this EA and decision in a pending appeal before the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA).

For those concerned about the integrity of BLM’s Sand Mountain Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), if BLM is so willing to sacrifice its own ACEC and threatened tortoises for a developer, then this SRMA is likely similarly in jeopardy with the county and developers now moving into this area.

This proposed exchange is a bad deal for both tortoises and taxpayers. The tortoise parcel to be obtained through the exchange is much smaller than the existing tortoise habitat that may be destroyed by the reservoir and associated development. This parcel is also sandwiched between the approved four-lane Northern Corridor Highway and a Green Springs subdivision.

The tortoise parcel is likely financially worth a lot more now because of its location next to existing development and infrastructure in contrast to the more open BLM Warner Valley land. But in the near future, as development moves closer and further infrastructure is installed, this BLM Warner Valley land will likely substantially increase in monetary value.

The BLM SGFO should withdraw this current land exchange proposed action. The two exchange components could still move forward in a more honest and efficient fashion. As has been successfully done many times over the years, the private 89 acre parcel with tortoise habitat in the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve could be acquired through the use of various federal and/or state funding sources, including the Endangered Species Act and Land and Water Conservation Fund.

If the WCWCD wishes to pursue the new reservoir and associated development on the 1,047 acres of BLM land, as has been successfully done for many other similar projects, they can apply to BLM for either a right of way (ROW) grant or Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) lease to patent.

Indeed, Washington City now has a pending BLM ROW application for a new water tank and pipeline in the same general area as this proposed exchange. The BLM EA for this Washington City proposal is open for comment and located on ePlanning at: (click here).

From my extensive NEPA background, I know that there are increased risks when BLM or other federal agencies’ managers, out of political expediency, improperly attempt to circumvent, segment, truncate, obfuscate, or piecemeal required NEPA analyses. The risks include significant uncertainty and delays, prolonged appeals and litigation, and the waste of public funds and the public’s time.

I believe that these risks can be substantially reduced if BLM withdraws the current exchange proposed action and allows one or both of its components to proceed separately under the normal, often repeated, and appropriate processes.

I’ve lived in Washington County for over twenty years, and I love our beautiful and valuable public lands.  I wish the BLM SGFO could be trusted to properly manage and protect those lands, but it cannot.

Richard Spotts, St. George, Utah

Letters to the Editor are not the product of St. George News, its editors, staff or news contributors. The matters stated and opinions given are the responsibility of the person submitting them. They do not reflect the product or opinion of St. George News and are given only light edit for technical style and formatting.