At times it seemed the Moab City Council couldn’t see the forest for the trees at the Nov. 14 meeting when they discussed at length the U.S. Forest Service’s draft environmental impact statement regarding its long overdue land management plan.

The council wrestled with four competing letters, one each written by Councilors Rani Derasary, Kalen Jones and Jason Taylor. Sustainability Director Alexi Lamm also submitted a letter for consideration.

The goal was to find consensus on one of four alternatives, but much of the discussion focused on an alternative that doesn’t exist — one with a focus on conservation advocated for by Derasary, who wrote her letter based in large measure on what the council did in October of 2021, when they adopted a a letter penned by 10 nonprofit environmental groups.

The tension was intensified because the clock was running and a Nov. 16 deadline loomed.

Ultimately, the council voted 4-1 to approve Jones’ letter, Alternative D,  with one key edit: Any reference to a previously proposed conservation alternative would be deleted. Derasary cast the lone no vote.

She argued the city would be wise to request the forest service conduct a supplemental draft environmental impact statement that would “fully flesh out” alternatives C and D so they could “stand” with alternative B.

Here’s the alternatives:  A. No action; B. The proposed forest plan focuses on ecological function for mixed uses, improving infrastructure while restoring ecological health; C. This version increases timber production and accelerates mechanical vegetation treatment to manage beetle kill and overgrowth. It favors active management to achieve goals quickly; D. This version addresses concerns of limiting human influences, favoring wilderness areas over timber production. It favors passive management. 

Alternative D is the most restrictive of the four alternatives.

If there was agreement on the plan, it would be that the council as a whole sees the city’s chief duty is to protect the watershed that supplies Grand County and the city with water.

Jones in making the motion to approve his letter thanked Derasary for her work and acknowledged his letter was based in part on what she wrote. “ … I thought it was good work,” he said. “But maybe she went a little too far and this is an attempt to rein it back in.”

Derasary said her letter did “harken back” to the city’s letter sent in 2021 in which citizens wanted the plan to address the impact of non-native mountain goats in the La Sals, as well as the practice of using dogs to chase bears.

She conceded however, that those comments could be deleted in favor of focusing on the watershed.

She warned that there is “probably a high likelihood this thing will go to court without a supplemental EIS.” She said it would be “tragic” if that happened as the plan was last thoroughly revised and adopted in the mid-1980s. Attempts to update the plan have been met with repeated legal challenges.

There are myriad issues that could affect the quantity and quality of the watershed, such as grazing, wildfire and the impacts of climate change.

Councilor Luke Wojciechowski ultimately put forth a successful motion for the city to advocate for alternative D with the removal of a conservation alternative since that isn’t an option.

He agreed with Derasary that a “protracted legal battle” is likely without a supplemental EIS to make alternatives C and D more robust.

Councilor Jason Taylor was the most critical of the letter. “I feel we really missed the mark with this letter,” he said. The fact it focuses on an alternative that isn’t available was his chief concern. Taylor later made it clear he isn’t against conservation and questioned why the Forest Service didn’t offer it as an alternative in 2021.

Derasary said residents have made it clear their primary concern for the future of Moab is water quality and quantity. “Our watershed is tied to the mountains,” she said. “We have to have a say in the forest plan. I feel like we as elected leaders are not doing our jobs.” She said the council has to be “as careful as possible” and seek out the best information available to actively protect the watershed.

“I feel like we’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” said Taylor. “We could say we want alternative D, which s the most restrictive, but we’re saying ‘no, we want to go back to the drawing board.’” Taylor suggested the city not send any letter. “All we’re doing is complaining.”

Councilor Tawny Knuteson-Boyd agreed with Taylor. “He’s right. We’re saying we don’t like the process.”

“We’re just asking for a supplemental [environmental impact statement],” said Derasary. “It’s the most responsible thing to do.”

After more discussion, Knuteson-Boyd hypothetically asked what would happen if the city didn’t send a letter, as Taylor suggested. According to City Manager Carly Castle, nothing good.

“Two things come to mind,” said Castle. “As the Forest Service evaluates everyone’s input, they wouldn’t have our insight on what’s important to us as a cooperating agency.” The second point was more nuanced. “We would lose the opportunity to potentially change their minds on a specific path forward.”

With that in mind, the council agreed to advocate for alternative D with any reference to conservation omitted.