The BLM is an agency in the US Department of the Interior that manages approximately one-quarter billion acres – more than any other Federal agency. This 

land, known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. Approximately 27 million acres of BLM 

administered lands make up the collection of National Conservation Lands, also known as the National Landscape Conservation System. These include BLM 

National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, 

and National Scenic and Historic Trails. The mission of the National Conservation Lands is to 

conserve, protect, and restore these nationally significant landscapes that are recognized for 

their outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values.

Title of Resource/Resource Use

Bureau of Land Management

US Department of the Interior

Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment EIS

NEWSLETTER #5 - Alternatives Selected for Detailed Study 

June 2016

Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument

BLM

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

Thank you for your interest in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument’s Livestock Grazing Monument 

Management Plan Amendment (MMP-A) and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) is preparing the MMP-A/EIS with assistance from several cooperating agencies.

We asked for your comments during the scoping period from December 2013 to January 2014, and again in January 

2015. Then we developed preliminary draft alternatives and then further refined them using feedback from the public 

and stakeholders, as well as the State of Utah, Kane and Garfield counties, American Indian tribes, and the National 

Park Service. The BLM and cooperating agencies completed review of the preliminary alternatives, and have 

developed five distinct alternative grazing management strategies that will be analyzed in detail in the EIS. The 

alternatives consider different scenarios for managing livestock and improving land health in the planning area. They 

are briefly summarized here, and more information is available on the Monument's Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment 

website at http://blm.gov/pgld.

We wanted to make sure we heard what the public was saying, so we included two opportunities for public input. 

We’ve heard a full range of ideas related to livestock grazing: from closing the entire area for grazing to opening the 

entire area for grazing. BLM is required by law to use the best available science and policy to make decisions that are 

in the interest of all citizens of the United States.

 We are not seeking further feedback at this time; however, the public will have an opportunity to comment when the 

draft EIS is released, currently planned for the end of 2016. The draft EIS will also provide analysis of each alternative. 

Sincerely,

Cynthia Staszak

Monument Manager

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
Page 2 - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #5 - June 2016

Planning Area Defined

The planning area includes all public lands within Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument (GSENM) and public lands for 

which GSENM has livestock grazing administration responsibility. 

These include BLM-administered lands within GSENM and other 

public lands in parts of both the BLM Kanab and Arizona Strip 

Field Offices as well as lands managed by the National Park 

Service (NPS) in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (Glen 

Canyon). 

Cooperating Agencies 

Established

While the BLM has overall responsibility for the MMP-A/EIS, a 

number of other federal and local agencies have significant 

interest in this project. Several agencies and American Indian 

tribes were invited to participate as cooperating agencies. 

Agencies that have agreed to help manage the study include the 

NPS, the State of Utah, Garfield County, Kane County, and the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. These cooperators have 

been working closely with BLM on every aspect of the study, 

including the alternative development process. 

 Common Acronyms and 

Abbreviations

AUM - Animal Unit Month

BLM - Bureau of Land Management

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

FLPMA - Federal Land Policy Management Act

Glen Canyon - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GSENM - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

MMP - Monument Management Plan

MMP-A - Monument Management Plan Amendment

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

NPS - National Park Service
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #5 - June 2016 - Page 3

History & Background: 

What’s Happened So Far?

Project Purpose and Need Defined

The plan amendment is focused on management of livestock 

grazing in and around GSENM. The plan will identify lands both 

available and unavailable for grazing. The amendment will also 

provide clearer guidelines for allotment management, prescribe 

the amount of forage available for livestock, and provide direction 

for other grazing practices as required by law and rule.

This plan amendment also intends to provide both BLM and 

ranchers the flexibility to adapt to new and emerging issues and 

opportunities for livestock grazing based on new information and 

monitoring.

Preliminary Alternative Grazing 

Management Strategies Developed

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that 

environmental and social impacts of federal actions are carefully 

examined and federal agencies develop a range of reasonable 

alternatives that “must be rigorously explored and objectively 

evaluated.” What constitutes a range of reasonable alternatives 

depends on the nature of the proposal and the facts in each case. 

People in this region care a great deal about how livestock grazing 

is managed, but opinions vary greatly. Studying a range of 

alternatives allows us to consider various ways to manage grazing 

and address other resource issues. 

When we first started talking with local communities and 

interested stakeholders, some people called for the BLM to close 

the entire area to grazing while others wanted to open the entire 

area to livestock grazing. Because livestock grazing has been 

central to the local economy for more than 100 years, some 

people feel very strongly that it should continue uninterrupted, 

while others think that the protection of the natural, cultural and 

recreational resources of GSENM should take precedence over 

livestock grazing.

BLM’s overarching guidance, the Federal Land Policy Management 

Act, requires the BLM to balance livestock grazing with other uses. 

The alternatives selected for detailed study in the EIS reflect a 

range of opinions and approaches and were developed in 

consultation with the public and local governments.

Preliminary Alternatives Refined 

Through Public Input

Scoping is a public process that helps to frame the issues to be 

addressed through the EIS as well as the range of alternatives that 

might resolve those issues. Public scoping meetings and 

workshops were held in December 2013 and January 2014, and we 

asked for additional input on the preliminary alternatives a year 

later. Public comments have been analyzed and included in the 

Preliminary Alternatives Comment Report. This report is available 

as a hardcopy at the BLM Office in Kanab (669 S. HWY 89A, Kanab, 

UT 84741) or in Escalante at the Interagency Visitor Center (755 W. 

Main, Escalante, UT, 84726). It is also available on the Monument 

project website at http://blm.gov/pgld.

Most comments BLM received related directly to livestock grazing 

and forage. We also heard concerns about impacts on soils, effects 

on the local economy and lifestyle of long-time ranchers, 

compatibility of grazing with recreation, and concerns about 

natural, biological, and cultural resources. Some people expressed 

concerns about GSENM “Objects ” (as identified in the Monument’s 

Proclamation), Glen Canyon “Values and Purposes,” noxious weeds 

and non-native invasive plants, historic and prehistoric resources, 

paleontological resources, public health and safety, tribal interests 

and American Indian religious concerns.

Over the past two and a half years, BLM has received a great deal of 

information from local residents and other stakeholders, including 

scientific studies, which are contributing to this effort.

Alternatives to be Studied in 

Detail in the EIS

Descriptions and comparisons of the preliminary alternatives were 

published in December 2014. The finalized alternatives are the 

same or very similar to the preliminary set. The five alternatives to 

be analyzed in detail in the EIS are briefly summarized here. 

Changes and refinements that have 

occurred over the past year are 

bolded for comparison. The main 

changes have been made to 

Alternative C, which includes a greater 

initial reduction in livestock grazing 

than the preliminary alternative. 

The five alternatives represent a broad 

range of options for analysis of 

impacts. For example, the acreage 

available for livestock grazing ranges from 0 to approximately 

2,135,300 acres, and the associated animal unit months (AUMs) 

range from 0 to approximately 107,955. Areas closed to grazing 

for a variety of environmental and social reasons range from 

approximately 106,900 acres to 2,242,000 acres.
Page 4 - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #5 - June 2016

Alternative A 

Alternative A is the “no 

action” alternative required 

to be analyzed by NEPA. 

Alternative A would continue 

the current management 

direction and level of grazing 

intensity contained in the 

2000 Monument 

Management Plan, the four BLM 

Management Framework Plans, and the 

1999 Grazing Management Plan for Glen 

Canyon. Livestock grazing would continue 

at current permitted levels and areas 

currently closed to livestock grazing 

would remain unavailable to grazing. 

 Alternative B

Alternative B was 

developed in response to 

public comments that suggested most or all 

of GSENM and Glen Canyon be closed to 

grazing due to perceived impacts on natural 

ecosystems, cultural resources, and 

recreation experiences. Under Alternative 

B, all livestock grazing would be 

discontinued in the planning area. 

Permittees would receive a two-year 

notification that livestock grazing would be 

discontinued and provided federal 

compensation for improvements within the 

allotments. 
 Alternative C 

Alternative C was developed in 

response to public and 

stakeholder comments received 

during scoping. This alternative 

would reduce the total acres 

available for livestock grazing 

and the amount of forage 

allocated to livestock compared with current 

management. The updated Alternative C 

includes more closures than those identified 

in the preliminary alternative. Initially, BLM 

would implement several large closures to 

address resource concerns in areas that do 

not meet rangeland health standards, have 

sensitive soils or biological soil crusts, and 

present major recreation conflicts. After the 

initial closures, a process of voluntary 

relinquishments or retirements would occur 

over time to achieve the objectives of this 

alternative. These objectives include 

restoring areas that are not meeting 

rangeland health standards; establishing 

ungrazed reference areas for research, 

conserving sensitive Monument objects like 

biological soil crust, riparian areas, and native and special status species; protecting significant historic and prehistoric resources; 

preserving water quality; and reducing recreation conflicts. Alternative C would go beyond BLM’s regular rangeland health standards by 

establishing additional criteria to manage livestock grazing. The alternative provides a mechanism to establish larger ungrazed 

“reference areas” over time in order to study ecosystem recovery in the absence of livestock grazing. This alternative would prioritize 

native species diversity, and thus, existing rangeland seedings would be restored for ecosystem health with a preference for locally 

derived native species. Areas that are currently unavailable and unallotted for grazing would remain that way. This alternative would 

resolve some conflicts by closing several high use recreation areas to livestock grazing. 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #5 - June 2016 - Page 5
Page 6 - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #5 - June 2016

Alternative D 

Alternative D prioritizes the 

historic and cultural importance 

of the livestock industry while 

still supporting multiple uses. 

This alternative would promote 

rangeland health by developing additional 

range improvements. Public and local 

government comments emphasizing the 

importance of grazing to local communities 

helped develop this alternative. Alternative 

D would restore existing rangeland seedings 

utilizing both native and non-native seed 

mixes and allow for additional rangeland 

seedings using native seed and a variety of 

treatment methods and other range 

improvements to increase forage. Areas 

where livestock grazing conflicts exist would 

be addressed with a site specific solution 

(e.g., fencing or adjustment to season of 

use). More acres would be available and 

more forage would be allocated for livestock 

grazing (AUMs) compared with current 

livestock grazing levels. 

Alternative E

Alternative E emphasizes 

sustainable use through 

livestock management 

designed to ensure that 

rangeland health standards are 

achieved. Most closed areas 

would remain unavailable 

except for two currently 

unavailable areas that would be made 

available. Some currently un-allotted areas 

would be made unavailable. Compared 

with current management, slightly fewer 

acres would be available for grazing and 

less forage allocated to livestock. Existing 

seedings would be restored for the 

purposes of ecosystem health and for 

forage production. Some livestock/

recreation conflicts would be reduced by 

changing the season of use for livestock or 

limiting their access. Public and stakeholder 

comments largely contributed to 

developing this alternative. 
Evaluating Alternatives

These five alternatives will be analyzed in detail based on the 

physical, biological, economic, and social impacts of each one. The 

assessment will use the best available scientific data, comparative 

research, technical expertise, professional judgment, and 

socioeconomic information provided by stakeholders.

Factors that must be considered in the assessment of livestock 

grazing alternatives include:

 GSENM Proclamation-identified scientific and historic objects

 Resources and values for which Glen Canyon was established 

(public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment, scenic, 

scientific and historic features) 

 Vegetation, including riparian vegetation, noxious weeds, or 

non-native plants 

 Soils, including biological soil crusts 

 Local custom and culture 

 Regional economy 

 Recreation 

 Public health and safety 

The impacts of changing climate and forage availability will be 

analyzed. BLM is also assessing impacts on water resources, air 

quality, fish and wildlife, special status species, cultural and 

paleontological resources, visual resources, wild and scenic rivers, 

tribal interests, and wilderness characteristics. BLM will look at 

the direct, indirect (future consequences), and cumulative (in 

combination with all other activities in the planning area) impacts 

of each alternative on these resources. 

What’s Next?

We expect to publish the Draft MMP-A/EIS by the end of 2016. 

BLM will announce its availability for public review and comment. 

BLM will also host public meetings to present the results, answer 

your questions, discuss the details, and hear your comments. You 

will have 90 days to provide comments. Public comments will be 

addressed in the Final MMP-A/EIS that will be completed after 

public review of the draft. The Final MMP-A/EIS will be the basis 

for the records of decision detailing the grazing management 

approach to be implemented. BLM will issue a record of decision 

for the BLM lands within the planning area, and NPS will issue a 

record of decision for lands within the planning area in Glen 

Canyon. 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment / EIS - Newsletter #5 - June 2016 - Page 7

Livestock Grazing Plan 

Amendment Process

Notice of Intent to prepare the 

Monument Management Plan 

Amendment (MMP-A)/Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS)

Conduct Scoping

Analyze the Management Situation

Formulate Preliminary Alternatives

Public Review of Preliminary 

Alternatives

Analyze Effects of Alternatives

Release Draft MMP-A/EIS for 

Public Comment

Prepare Proposed MMP-A and 

Final EIS

30-day Protest Period

Prepare Records of Decision and 

Approved MMP-A

Nov 2013 

Issued NOI

Spring/Winter 

2014

Summer/Fall 

2014

Summer 2016

Winter 2014/2015

Spring 2017

Summer 2017

Winter 

2016/2017

Summer 2017

June 2014 Issued 

Scoping Report
US Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Escalante National Monument - Grand Staircase

669 South HWY 89A

Kanab, UT 84741

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

Escalante National Monument - BLM Grand Staircase

Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment/EIS 

Newsletter #5

, visit For more information

the BLM’s project website:

http://blm.gov/pgld

Bureau of Land Management

US Department of the Interior

Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment EIS

NEWSLETTER #5 - Alternatives Selected for Detailed Study

June 2016

Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument