Is the sky really falling this time?

If the proposed BLM Conservation and Landscape Health Rule is adopted, the sky will fall for Utah BLM land visitors that enjoy the use of any kind of motorized or wheeled vehicle. This will devastate your use of not only Off Highway Vehicles, but also access to trail heads for equestrians, base jumpers, and rock climbing routes. This is a Federal Rule, so BLM lands across our nation will be affected.

Comments are due by July 5, and now is the time to speak out against this rule.

SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO BLM BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK

The stated purpose by the BLM Director for the Rule is to “Protect the Best and Restore the Rest” They will achieve this by doing all of the following:

1. The extreme environmental groups behind this Rule have long sought to designate more land as Wilderness. This most restrictive designation will mean that not only OHV users, but mountain bikers, rock climbers, base jumpers, rock hounders, snowmobilers, and even equestrians will be denied access to our lands. If you’re handicapped, leave your wheelchair at home because any type of “wheeled vehicles” are also prohibited. The Red Rock Wilderness Act in the Senate will also designate 8 million acres land as wilderness in Utah, that’s 35% of BLM land in Utah.
2. Expansion of ACECs- There are already 70 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in Utah. The rule will direct BLM to aggressively identify even more areas to be designated ACEC and will allow the Director to make these designations largely without any public input. It will then require BLM to aggressively adopt rules against all the negative impacts caused by grazing, mining, Off Highway Vehicle Use and many others. There are already many horrible impacts being caused by this, in Oregon private homeowners have cut off access to their homes because the road crossed ACEC boundaries.
3. Restoration-It will require BLM to focus on conservation efforts to return areas back to natural conditions, wiping out roads and dispersed camping-the first step in a wilderness designation.
4. Land Conservation Leases- Rules allows BLM to grant Land Conservation Leases to “qualified individuals, companies, or organizations” to manage the land to achieve the desired conservation measures.
   1. There is no definition of what “qualifications” are required, but in addition to the potential impact of allowing extremist conservation groups to further restrict access, there is also a strong threat to national security because it could allow control by foreign interests. For example, if our grazing or farming lands are controlled by foreign interests, our food supply and national security will be impacted.
   2. Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) are likely to be used to state the objectives and responsibilities associated with the leases, but the Federal Government has far more failures associated with enforcing MOUs than successes. That means once they are granted, the rules can be thrown out the window.
   3. Companies that have negative impacts on the environment will be permitted to offset their negative impacts by entering into Conservation Leases on what previously were “public lands” They will be encouraged to aggressively restrict as much use as possible to achieve the maximum offset for their harmful activity elsewhere.
   4. The BLM specifically requests public comment on the following aspects of the conservation lease proposal in the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule.
      • Is the term “conservation lease” the best term for this tool?
      • What is the appropriate default duration for conservation leases?
      • Should the rule constrain which lands are available for conservation leasing? For example, should conservation leases be issued only in areas identified as eligible for conservation leasing in an RMP or areas the BLM has identified (either in an RMP or otherwise) as priority areas for ecosystem restoration or wildlife habitat?
      • Should the rule clarify what actions conservation leases may allow?
      • Should the rule expressly authorize the use of conservation leases to generate carbon offset credits?
      • Should conservation leases be limited to protecting or restoring specific resources, such as wildlife habitat, public water supply watersheds, or cultural resources?

The Rule is unnecessary and illegal. SUWA has claimed that conservation has not been adequately addressed by BLM in their land use decisions, yet this is just untrue. Every land use decision has to run through a gamut of checklists, and 90% of those items concern conservation or protection items. There are already dozens of Acts of Congress that must be complied with including requirements of the Wilderness Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Antiquities Act, Endangered Species Act, Archeological Protection Act, and NEPA.

UPLA has commented, but UPLA can’t vote. We need you to take action to submit comments online before July 5. Be sure to tell them to remove the Rule, but also  give them your reasons for doing so.

Don’t be confused about Congress taking action to protect us. 2 bills have been introduced in Congress that would overturn the power of BLM to adopt a rule like this, but they have only been introduced, not passed. Get your comments done today or quit complaining when your favorite trails and routes are closed.

One final request, share this message with everyone you know on social media, email, or conversation. Make sure if you’re part of a club or organization that everyone knows about this Rule and the impact it will have.

Sincerely,

Loren Campbell
UPLA President

.wpedon-container .wpedon-select, .wpedon-container .wpedon-input { width: 380px; min-width: 380px; max-width: 380px; }