Join UPLA and DRATS for an update about the Sand Mountain Land Exchange, and get your questions answered. Loren Campbell from UPLA and Jeff Bieber will be taking your questions via chat during the call.

We are getting great comments being submitted, but like anything of great importance, there are lots of rumors that we want to do our best to answer.

This Zoom event is limited to the first 100 people, but you must preregister. Register Here

If the event fills up, we will either post the recording or reschedule a repeat session.

Scoping is underway for the proposed Land Exchange for the Washington County Water Conservancy District to obtain 1050 acres of land from the Western portion of Sand Mountain OHV area near Warner Valley. Part of this may be to provide land for the new reservoir, to which we have no objection, but we are in opposition to the addition of the land east of Warner Valley Rim which would affect West Rim and Ridgeline Trails. We are also opposed to the loss of disbursed camping in both Warner Valley and on the Pipeline Road. The camping on Pipeline Road is incomparable for the remote locations and incredible views, and is truly irreplaceable. You can learn more about the latest details at www.UtahPLA.com

What is Scoping? The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), to involve the public in the planning process and seek their input through a scoping process, which is one of the first steps of the process. It will be followed by BLM’s preparation of a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) , and you will have another opportunity to add substantive comments. Effective NEPA scoping comments for BLM should ask these kind of questions, some thought starters have been included in italics, but come up with your own questions, please don’t just copy this list, put it into your own words.

1. Provide specific information about the proposed action, including its location, purpose and need, and potential environmental impacts.
   1. We understand the purpose of the reservoir use, but what is the purpose of the large acquisition east and north of the reservoir?
   2. We asked the Water Conservancy District and City of Washington what they plan to use the land for, and their response has been they have no plans or it’s too early to have thought about it. BLM should demand a clear direction from the City of Washington as to their involvement and precise plans for the future.
   3. My understanding is that the exchange has only the purpose of providing for the acquisition of the designated critical habitat for the Mojave desert tortoise. Although there has been much talk about the reservoir, it is my understanding that the proposal for the reservoir is only speculative, and it is not even mentioned in your public scoping notice. It is also my understanding that the BLM has determined in their EA that all 1047 acres of BLM land proposed for the exchange is also suitable for the desert tortoise population. Simple math would indicate that giving up 1047 acres of land proposed to be speculatively used for a reservoir in exchange for 89 acres would result in a net loss of 960 acres of tortoise habitat, which might actually hurt the desert tortoise population. This might be a simplistic view,  explain the science behind this exchange on how much the net effect of this exchange will be on the desert tortoise population.
   4. How specifically will it affect visitors and their economic impact to the region?
   5. Adjoining lands that are managed by different agencies often cause conflicts because of differences in rules governing that use, and law enforcement. If the “disbursed” camping is eliminated at Washington Dam, law enforcement issues may rise with those people desiring free camping will arise in other areas, i.e. our Waddy’s Corral staging area may have people trying to camp there, especially after we pave the road to it. Last weekend there were probably 250-300 people camping in the valley. Hurricane Area RV parks are expensive, starting around $75 and going up to $158 per night for the new Jellystone Park. Sand Hollow State Park RV camping is often full. Where are the people that have enjoyed free camping for many years in Warner Valley going to go, or will they be unable to continue the recreation they have enjoyed? This seems that it may severely impact low income communities. Provide your analysis of this problem, and the mitigations you suggest to solve it.
   6. Much of the increase in OHV recreation has come from UTV/ATV users that need staging areas to unload and park their machines. Where do they go if Washington Dam is closed? What will you need to do to prevent users from parking in unsafe or unauthorized areas? What law enforcement agency will be responsible for this?
   7.  What will be the Visual Resource Impacts of the exchange. Currently, most of Sand Mountain is classified as Class 2, but it appears from Map 2.14 in the BLM St George Field Office 1999 Recreation Management Plan that the West Rim is classified as Class 3. How will you ensure that the basic characteristics and visual appearance will be maintained if the exchange is approved?
   8. In the Agreement to Initiate a Land Exchange, BLM agreed not to encumber the land without first notifying WCWCD and giving them an opportunity to comment. This will affect all future  the consent of WCWCD. This affects all Special Recreation Permits to limit their term from the standard 10 year period to only 2 years. This further burdens the applicants and the BLM in the processing and review of new permits. What steps can BLM take to ensure this burden is not passed on to Applicants in extra paperwork, expense, and potential delays?
2. Identify any alternatives that the BLM should consider, including no action, and explain why they would be preferable or less impactful.
   1. What other locations have been considered for the exchange located north and east of the reservoir? Explain why you came to the conclusion that this is the best of those alternatives.
   2. I have been told the reason for the expansion of 169 acres to the original proposed exchange was because a survey had already been done. How much would it actually cost to survey a better defined area?
   3. What alternatives have been considered that eliminate portions of the 1047 acres?.
   4. Have you considered replacing our area of concern with land to the south of the proposed reservoir location, where WCWCD is planning for recreation already.
   5. What other alternatives have you considered for acquiring the 89 acre Non Federal parcel?. Did you apply for a grant from the Land and Water Conservation Fund? What were the results of that application?
   6. If no action is recommended as an alternative, please provide precise details what that means.
3. Highlight any potential significant impacts that may result from the proposed action and suggest ways to mitigate or avoid them.
   1. Without knowing what the new use will be, how will you clearly analyze potential impacts or mitigations.
   2. How do you propose to resolve impacts such as user conflicts between OHV and development, noise or traffic concerns.
   3. Although WCWCD does not want to manage the area for recreation, they indicated that their intent is that recreation would be allowed and managed by another agency. What types of commitments would bind these other managers to abide by the terms of any agreement with the OHV/Disbursed camping communities?
   4. Although a State Park, California’s Oceano Dunes OHV users have been attacked by new residents building communities adjacent to the Dunes because of User Conflicts. What consideration have you given that the transfer could lead to even further losses if undetermined future users complain about current OHV use such as noise, traffic, or blowing sand.
   5. Open OHV areas like Sand Hollow are rare. Even though OHV use has been increasing dramatically, it seems that more areas are being closed to OHV use than opened. Please provide your analysis of the land currently available, what it was  5 years ago, and any projections in the next 5 years in Utah for each of the following designations:
      1. Open OHV use
      2. Open for Use on Existing Roads and Trails
      3. Open for Use on Designated Roads and Trails
      4. Closed to OHV Use
      5. Change in OHV Registration Data Over the same period
4. Provide relevant scientific data, studies, or other sources of information to support the comments.
   1. Oceano Dunes is a great example of how user conflicts were created that led to further losses to OHV. In many communities, airports have come under attack from new communities built around them that complain about the noise, ultimately resulting in the closure of 378 airports since 1990, almost 7% of the total. Explain what measures you are taking to ensure that OHV does not suffer a similar fate.
   2. Explain how you quantify the value of land used for recreation, including significant factors that influence that valuation?
5. Address the scope of the proposed action, including any indirect or cumulative effects that may result from the action.
   1. How will continued access to the public lands on top of Warner Ridge and West Rim be accomplished.
   2. What will be the impact of the loss of staging and dry camping in the area?
   3. What will be the impact on OHV traffic patterns from the recently constructed Waddy’s Corral Staging area and other Sand Mountain trails?
   4. Why are you giving more land than needed for the reservoir?
   5. Where will the people that use the disbursed camping sites on Pipeline Road go to?
   6. Where will the campers using Washington Dam free camping area go?
   7. There are often many conflicts when different land managers are in charge of adjacent areas, who is going to manage the acquired land, and what is their experience working in conjunction with BLM?
   8. How will the view sheds from the West Rim trail and above be impacted by the change?
   9. The OHV Area loss from this is 1050 acres, plus an additional loss of almost 400 acres if the reservoir project proceeds in a future request. This is in addition to the indirect and direct cumulative effects from various options from the 2016 Lake Powell Project proposal, ranging from 60 to 290 additional acres of land being closed to OHV use. This brings the total OHV loss to 1740 acres from the Sand Mountain SMRA. What other options have you considered?
6. Identify any potential environmental justice concerns that may arise from the proposed action, such as impacts on low-income or minority communities.
   1. Explain your scientific analysis of the impact of potentially losing the free and disbursed camping affect users of lower income?
7. Discuss any potential cultural or historical impacts on Native American tribes or other affected communities.
   1. What cultural, anthropological, and historical impacts will result from this Proposed Exchange, and how will they be mitigated?
8. Offer specific suggestions for how the BLM can address public concerns and incorporate feedback into the decision-making process.
   1. While we appreciate the extension for comments of 6 days, there are many visitors that come at different times of the year, and it will take time to get the word out to people interested in the outcome. Have you collected user data by month to see what the most frequent periods the land is used? What do you need to justify an extended comment period for future comments?

 

Scoping is not about stating opinions or venting, it’s about developing the questions that should be answered in the EA or EIS. Framing your comments into questions are the best way to elicit consideration for that question to be addressed in future evaluations. No comment is worthless, but comments that are very broad such as “I don’t want this exchange to happen” are not very helpful if not supported by specifics. If you have detailed and specific comments, I encourage you to submit comments using Option 1 below. If are limited in time and want to make quick comments, I suggest you make your comments using the Blueribbon Action Alert Option 2, it has an excellent set of comments that cover a wide range of subjects. When you submit using the Blueribbon Action Alert, copies will be sent to BLM and Congress. The best option is to submit them both ways.

We have received many excellent copies of comments already submitted, but one from the Capital Trail Vehicle Association from Helena, MT is very well written and may give you more ideas. You can see their comments here….

Now is the time to submit your comments, visit www.UtahPLA.com for the very latest information.  

• Submit Your Comments Electronically using your choice of methods:
  1. By email sent to blm_ut_sgfo_comments@blm.govwith a copy to StopSandMtnSale@gmail.com
  2. Visiting Blueribbon Coalition’s Action Alertat https://www.sharetrails.org/stop-the-sale-of-sand-mountain/#/104/ 

Comment Period Closes at Midnight on April 19, 2023

You can submit comments as often as thoughts arise, but start submitting today!

The Capital Trail Vehicle Association provided excellent comments for the proposed Land Exchange, and has given UPLA permission to share them with you. As said before, these should be thought starters to write your own comments, not to see how skilled you are at copying and pasting. The text of their comments is copied here in it’s entirety, but if you would like a clean copy, please click here

Thank you CTVA and your 240 members, families and friends for your thoughtful comments

Sincerely,

Loren Campbell
Utah Public Lands Alliance

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

CAPITAL TRAIL VEHICLE ASSOCIATION (CTVA)

P.O. Box 5295

Helena, MT 59604-5295

 

April 6, 2023

 

Attn: Red Cliffs/Warner Valley Land Exchange Bureau of Land Management

Stephanie Trujillo, Realty Specialist 345 East Riverside Drive

St George, UT 84790 blm_ut_sgfo_comments@blm.gov

 

Re:       Sand Mountain Land Exchange Dear Project Team,

We have assembled the following comments, information and issues from our members and other motorized recreationists for the project record. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments for the proposed Sand Mountain Land Exchange. We enjoy riding our OHVs on primitive trails and roads in our public lands. All multiple-use land managed by the Bureau of Land Management including the Sand Mountain area provides a significant source of these OHV recreational opportunities. Sand Mountain is a unique motorized recreational opportunity that the public will travel thousands of miles to experience. Moreover, the pandemic has reconnected visitors to our public lands as a critical way to counter the stresses of ever day life. Ninety-eight percent of these visitors are looking for multiple-use activities including OHV recreation. We are passionate about OHV recreation for the following reasons:

 

Enjoyment and Rewards of OHV Recreation

• Opportunity for a recreational experience for all types of
• Opportunity to strengthen family
• Opportunity to experience and respect the natural
• Opportunity to participate in a healthy and enjoyable
• Opportunity for relief from the
• Opportunity to experience a variety of opportunities and
• Camaraderie and exchange of
• We like to build and maintain trails for use by
• We enjoy observing flora, fauna, and
• For the adventure and “flow” of

 

Acknowledged Responsibilities of Motorized Visitors

• Responsibility to respect and preserve the natural environment. We are practical environmentalists who believe in a reasonable balance between the protection of the natural environment and the human environment.

 

• Responsibility to respect all
• Responsibility to use vehicles in a proper manner and in designated
• Responsibility to work with land, resource, and recreation We are committed to resolving issues through problem solving and not closures.
• Responsibility to educate the public on the responsible use of motorized vehicles on public

 

Motorized recreation represents and supports many different visitor interests. Supporting motorized recreation is the best way to support diversity of uses and multiple-use. This over-arching fact should be adequately addressed in the purpose and need and adequately considered in the analysis and decision. We are representative of the needs of most visitors who recreate on public lands but may not be organized with a collective voice to comment on their needs during the public input process. These independent multiple-use recreationists include visitors who use motorized routes for family outings and camping trips, weekend drives, mountain biking, sightseeing, exploring, picnicking, hiking, ranching and grazing, rock climbing, skiing, camping, hunting, RVs, shooting targets, timber harvesting, fishing, viewing wildlife, snowmobiling, accessing patented mining claims, and collecting firewood, natural foods, rocks, etc. Mountain bikers have been observed to prefer OHV trails because we clear and maintain the trails and the trails have a desirable surface for biking.

 

Multiple-use also provides for the needs of physically challenged visitors including the elderly and veterans who must use wheeled vehicles to visit public lands. These multiple-use visitors use roads and motorized trails for their recreational purposes and the preferred alternative and decision should adequately consider motorized designations serve many recreation activities, not just recreational trail riding. We have observed and documented that 98% of the visitors to our public lands are represented by the activities discussed above. Ninety-eight percent of the visitors are there to enjoy activities associated with motorized access and motorized recreation.

 

We have been listening to and documenting significant issues and information from our members, families, and friends for the past 40 years. Following this letter is an outline of the significant issues and information to help the team better understand the needs of the public that enjoys motorized recreation. The agency’s decisions have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment related to motorized recreationists and the agency must give the entire human environment adequate consideration.

 

Our position is that the existing system of motorized routes in the Sand Mountain area does not adequately meet the needs discussed above. The need for high-quality motorized roads and trails in the Sand Mountain area is the over-arching significant issue. The closing of any motorized routes by way of a land exchange is contrary to the needs of the public.

 

The public greatly benefits from continued management of all of the current Sand Mountain area for multiple-uses including an enhanced system of OHV routes. We strongly oppose the land exchange if it does not include adequate evaluation of the recreational value of the area and ways to mitigate any impact to that recreation value. We are providing this information to assist you with the development of a purpose and need statement and evaluation that will fully develop and support a reasonable Pro-Recreation alternative.

 

We are looking forward to your consideration of these significant issues and your use of them to develop a reasonable Pro-Recreation Alternative for the Sand Mountain Land Exchange.

 

Thank you for considering our comments and issues. Sincerely,

/s/ CTVA Action Committee on behalf of our 240 members and their families and friends Capital Trail Vehicle Association (CTVA)¹

P.O. Box 5295

Helena, MT 59604-5295

ctva_action@q.com

 

Contacts:

Mike Sedlock, President Jody Loomis, VP

Doug Abelin Ken Salo

 

 

Attachments: Significant Issues and Information

 

1 CTVA members also belong to Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association (mtvra.com), Blue Ribbon Coalition (sharetrails.org), New Mexico Off highway Vehicle Alliance (nmohva.org), American Motorcycle Association (ama- cycle.org), Citizens for Balanced Use (citizensforbalanceduse.com), Montana 4X4 Association, Inc. (m4x4a.org), Snowmobile Alliance of Western States (snowmobile-alliance.org), and United Four Wheel Drive Association (ufwda.org)

 

FOCUSED SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AND INFORMATION FOR THE SAND MOUNTAIN LAND EXCHANGE

 

1. The agency should provide adequate specific information about the proposed action, including its location, purpose and need, and potential environmental impacts.

 

2. The agency should provide adequate explanation of the purpose of the large acquisition east and north of the reservoir.

 

3. The Water Conservancy District and City of Washington should provide adequately explanation for what they plan to use the land for. The responses to date has been they have no plans or it’s too early to have thought about it which is not adequate. The BLM should require a clear direction from the City of Washington as to their involvement and precise plans for the future.

 

4. The agency should adequately address how the proposed action will affect visitors and their economic impact to the region.

 

5. The agency should adequately address how adjoining lands that are managed by different agencies often cause conflicts because of differences in rules governing that use, and law

 

6. The agency should adequately address that if “dispersed” camping is eliminated at Washington Dam, law enforcement issues may rise with those people desiring free camping will arise in other areas, i.e., Waddy’s Corral staging area may have people trying to camp there, especially after the road to it is paved.

 

7. The agency should adequately recognize that the significant increase in OHV recreation has come from UTV/ATV users, who need staging areas to unload and park their

 

8. The agency should adequately address where OHV recreations will go if Washington Dam is closed.

 

9. The agency should adequately address the Visual Resource Impacts of the change. Currently, most of Sand Mountain is classified as Class 2, but it appears from Map 2.14 in the BLM St George Field Office 1999 Recreation Management Plan that the West Rim is classified as Class 3.

 

1. The agency should adequately address that the basic characteristics and visual appearance will be maintained if the exchange is approved.
2. The agency should adequately identify any alternatives that the BLM should consider, including no action, and explain why they would be preferable or less
3. The agency should adequately address other locations may have been considered for the exchange located north and east of the reservoir.
4. The agency should adequately address alternatives that eliminate the land exchange areas east of the reservoir.
5. The agency should adequately address replacing the area of concern to motorized recreationists with land to the south of the proposed reservoir location where WCWCD is planning for recreation already.

 

1. The agency should adequately consider other alternatives for the acquisition of the 89 acre Non-Federal parcel.
2. The agency should provide adequate explanation of the details of the no action alternative if it is recommended.
3. The agency should adequately address any potential significant impacts on the human environment that may result from the proposed action and identify mitigation or ways to avoid them.

 

10. The agency should adequately consider that without knowing what the new use will be, how can the potential impacts or mitigations be adequately evaluated.

 

11. The agency should adequately consider how impacts such as user conflicts between OHV and development or noise or traffic concerns be addressed and mitigated.

 

12. The agency should adequately consider examples such as California’s Oceano Dunes where OHV users have been attacked by new residents building communities adjacent to the Dunes because of claimed user conflict issues.

 

1. Oceano Dunes is an example of how user conflicts were created that led to further losses to OHV.
2. In many communities, airports have come under attack from new communities built around them that then complain about the This circumstance has resulted in the closure of 378 airports since 1990 or almost 7% of the total.
3. The agency should adequately consider that the transfer could lead to even further losses if undetermined future users complain about current OHV use such as noise, traffic, or blowing sand.
4. The agency should reasonably require that relevant scientific data, studies, or other sources of information be provided to support their actions.

 

13. The agency should adequately consider how the appraisal will reflect the value of

 

14. The agency should adequately consider how the scope of the proposed action, including any indirect or cumulative effects will impact the human environment.

 

15. The agency should adequately consider how access to the public lands on top of Warner Ridge and West Rim will be provided.

 

16. The agency should adequately consider the significant impact of the loss of staging and dry camping in the project area.

 

17. The agency should adequately consider the impact on OHV traffic patterns from the recently constructed Waddy’s Corral Staging area.

 

18. The agency should adequately consider why more land than needed for the reservoir is being proposed.

 

19. The agency should adequately consider that the public who use the disbursed camping sites on Pipeline Road will be displaced following the proposed action.

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that the public who use the Washington Dam free camping area will be displaced following the proposed action.

 

20. The agency should adequately consider that there are often significant conflicts when different land managers are in charge of adjacent areas.
    1. The agency should adequately consider who is going to manage the acquired land, and what is their experience at working with BLM.

 

21. The agency should adequately consider the significant impact to the West Rim trail and above viewsheds from the proposed action.

 

22. The agency should adequately consider the significant impact to OHV recreation from the proposed loss of 1,050 acres plus an additional loss of almost 400 acres if the reservoir project proceeds in a future request.

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that this significant impact is in addition to the indirect and direct cumulative effects from various options from the 2016 Lake Powell Project proposal, ranging from 60 to 290 additional acres of land being closed to OHV This brings the total OHV loss to 1740 acres from the Sand Mountain SMRA.
2. The agency should adequately consider other alternatives to the proposed
3. The agency should adequately consider any potential environmental justice concerns that may arise from the proposed action, such as impacts on OHV recreationists and under-served users.
4. The agency should adequately consider how the loss of free and dispersed camping affect the public including OHV recreationists and under-served users.
5. The agency should adequately consider impacts on cultural, historical and Native American tribes or other affected communities.
6. The agency should adequately consider cultural, anthropological, and historical impacts that would result from the proposed action.

 

23. The agency should adequately consider that the 6-day comment extension is not adequate because there are many visitors that come at different times of the year, and it will take time to get the word out to people interested in the outcome.

 

24. The agency should adequately consider collecting user data by month to see how many recreationists use the project area and the most frequent periods of use.

 

OVER-ARCHING SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED SAND MOUNTAIN LAND EXCHANGE

 

1. Develop a Reasonable Alternative to Address the Public’s Need for More Motorized Access and Motorized Recreational Opportunities

 

1. The agency should adequately review recent aerial photographs of the project area and ride the area on an OHV with all types of OHVs and skill levels to determine the routes that the public currently uses and needs in the project area.
2. The agency should adequately consider that there are over 50,000,000 OHV recreationists in the United States and over 250,000 OHV recreationists in Utah plus a significant number of out-of-state OHV visitors.
3. The agency should adequately recognize that in the big picture motorized recreationists are
4. The agency should adequately consider that motorized recreationists now include e-bike enthusiasts who have been excluded from sharing hiking, walking and mountain bike
5. The agency should adequately consider and carry forward an alternative that would provide a reasonable level of motorized trail opportunities to meet the existing and future needs of OHV
6. The agency should adequately consider that adjacent travel plans did not adequately consider the needs of motorized recreationists at the time. Moreover, conditions and information has changed dramatically as documented by our comments.
7. The Agency should adequately identify and consider the needs of motorized recreationists and OHV recreationists including those motorized recreationists that the process does not comfortably accommodate and reasonably provide for those needs.
8. The Dyrt’s 2022 Camping Report ( https://reports.thedyrt.com/2022-camping-report/ ) found that it is 3x harder to book a campground now than in pre-pandemic While over 8 million new people joined the camping community last year, the campground and dispersed camping capacity has not increased.

 

9. The agency should adequately consider the need for RV friendly campgrounds, rehabilitated campgrounds, new campgrounds, and existing and new dispersed camping opportunities in the project area in order to meet the needs of public.

 

10. The opening and closing dates for many campgrounds is too late and too early respectively for the many campers and retirees who enjoy an extended camping season. Adequate dispersed camping opportunities are critically important to these visitors.

 

11. The agency should adequately consider that the public needs to be able to camp and picnic using at least a 300-foot setback from roads for the safety of children and pets and health (dust).
12. The agency should adequately consider that E-bikes have become popular in the last 5 years including:
    1. E-bikes have significant positive impacts on the human

 

1. E-bikes do not have any greater impact on the natural environment than mountain
2. E-bikes should be allowed on all non-wilderness
3. E-bikes should be legal to use everywhere except for congressionally designated wilderness for people who are over 55 years of age or have a qualifying physical
4. The Agency should give E-bikes proper procedural consideration including public input on their use on all existing non-wilderness trails.

13. The agency should adequately consider and understand the needs of motorcycle single-track recreationists and adequately provide for those needs.
14. The agency should adequately consider that the public prefers dispersed camping spots and that is consistent with the need for social distancing.
15. The agency should adequately consider that there is an inadequate number of dispersed camping spots in the project area and the preferred alternative should address this significant
16. The agency should adequately consider that the pandemic and social distancing requiremen ts have significantly increased the public need for more OHV opportunities.
17. The agency should adequately consider that the pandemic and social distancing requirements have significantly increased the public need for more dispersed camping opportunities.
18. The agency should adequately recognize that closure takes away needed motorized recreational opportunities and education in place of closure can be used to address issues with existing motorized recreational opportunities.
19. The agency should adequately consider that education can be part of creating new motorized recreational opportunities.
20. The agency should adequately consider that all potential negative issues associated with non- motorized and motorized recreationists can be mitigated by education and that education of all visitors should be used as an alternative to closure.
21. The project team should include an adequate number of enthusiasts for all types of motorized recreation including OHVs, 4x4s, and e-bikes.
22. The agency should adequately consider the full recreation opportunity spectrum for motorized recreationists including e-bikes, e-motorcycles, singletrack motorcycles, ATV, SxS, 4×4, and
23. The agency should adequately consider that the public has effectively lost the use of a significant number of trails and routes each year due to inadequate maintenance including vegetation and timber projects, erosion and flood damage, blockage from beetle kill downfall, and obliteration of the trail tread and downfall from wildfires.
    1. The cumulative effect of this continual loss has become significant and should be addressed and mitigated.

 

2.  Develop a Reasonable Alternative to Address the Need for Motorized Access and Motorized Recreation for Youth

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that youth need motorized recreational opportunities that are relatively close to town.
2. The agency should adequately consider alternatives that would adequately provide motorized opportunities to replace the closure of opportunities close to town.
3. The agency should adequately consider and address the youth suicide issue that exists in every western state and the critical need that youth have for healthy activities such as OHV
4. Consideration for motorized trail riding opportunities for the youth should be given a hard

 

3.  Develop a Reasonable Alternative to Address the Need for Motorized Access and Motorized Recreation for the Elderly, Handicapped, and Disabled

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that the elderly, handicapped, and disabled need motorized recreational opportunities that are relatively close to town.
2. The agency should adequately consider that the project area is used extensively by elderly, handicapped, disabled and veterans and motorized closures significantly impact this user
3. The agency should adequately consider alternatives that would adequately provide motorized opportunities to replace the closure of opportunities close to town.
4. The agency should adequately consider reasonable alternatives that would adequately provide motorized opportunities that adequately meet the needs of the elderly, disabled and
5. Consideration for motorized trail riding opportunities for the disabled, elderly, and veterans should be given a hard look.

 

4.  Adequately Address the Impacts on and Benefits of Motorized Recreation on the Human Environment

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that the human environment needs significantly more positive experiences.

 

2. The agency should adequately consider that use of the existing network of motorized roads and trails is part of our culture and pioneer heritage and traditions which all rely on adequate access to the land.

 

3. The agency should adequately consider that historic mines, cabins, settlements, railroads, access routes and other features used by pioneers, homesteaders, loggers, settlers, and miners are important cultural resources for motorized recreationists and must be

 

4. The agency should adequately consider that the public looks forward to retirement and being able to enjoy using OHVs in many different states and places but now we find that an excessive amount of those places has been closed to us and our retirement experience has been significantly impacted by inadequate consideration by the agency.

 

5. The agency needs to implement readily-available user-friendly visitor maps in both paper and digital formats in order to expect the public to follow the current land use planning. See https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jMOc-Wrb5LR58qVj28lud-fvaY0QjCKH/view for a good example of a user-friendly map.

 

6. The agency should adequately recognize that motorized recreationists have a significant history of working on and maintaining trails.

 

7. The agency needs to adequately consider that all of the motorized closures to date have eliminated a significant number of our happy places which has significantly impacted the quality of life and the human environment.

 

8. The agency should conduct the scoping process so that all significant issues relating to human environment including the significant impact of motorized closures are identified for adequate and reasonable evaluation.

 

9. The agency should adequately consider that motorized recreationists have been under-served during the past 40 years.

 

10. The agency should adequately consider the significant impact on the public when there is inadequate motorized access and motorized recreation on public lands.

 

11. The agency should adequately consider the need for OHV opportunities close to population areas so that youth have adequate OHV education and recreation opportunities.

 

12. The agency should adequately consider that many of OHV recreationists prefer Backcountry OHV opportunities.

 

 

4.a  Human Environment and Mental Health Crisis

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that supporting the human environment is an important function of our public lands and must be considered equally in management actions.

 

2. The agency’s management plan should adequately recognize that humans and their needs are different and diverse.

 

3. The nation is in a mental health crisis as demonstrated by Sandy Hook, Buffalo, Uvalde, and
   1. We need more positive mental health activities for everyone including youth and
   2. OHV recreation is a positive mental health
   3. Everyone needs to learn how to share public lands so that we all have adequate recreational opportunities.
   4. We all need to do our part by sharing and creation of opportunities in order to address this problem.
4. The agency should adequately consider that the Rocky Mountain states rank high in the nation for suicides.
5. The agency should adequately consider that the significant closing of motorized routes in the project area should meet the basic requirement of the NEPA act of 1969 as stated in “Sec. 101

 

(b) (5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities”.

6. The agency should adequately consider that a healthy human environment includes adequate motorized access and motorized recreational opportunities as required to meet the needs of the public.
7. The agency should adequately recognize its propensity to reduce motorized access and motorized recreational opportunities and that this partiality is contrary to the needs of the
8. The agency should adequately consider the needs of the human environment including recognition of the fact that 97-98% of the visitors to our public lands rely on some form of motorized access and motorized recreation.
9. The agency should adequately consider that the public needs robust access to all forms of recreation for a healthy state of mind including adequate stress relief.
10. Motorized recreationists now include e-bike enthusiasts who have been excluded from sharing hiking, walking and mountain bike trails.
11. The analysis should adequately consider the human environment. Adequate consideration of the human environment is woven into many of our significant issues. The agency should avoid decisions that make relatively insignificant improvements to natural resources at a cost of significant impacts to the human environment. The agency’s decisions should be based on impartial consideration of all The agency’s decisions should be made with a reasonable sense of magnitude. The public will be significantly impacted if the agency only considers natural resources without reasonable consideration of the human environment. One-sided consideration of issues is not acceptable for public lands and especially for those designated for multiple-use.
12. The agency’s project team should adequately consider that NEPA 1969 directed consideration of the human environment and the natural environment. The agency should adequately consider the value of motorized recreation opportunities on the human environment using site- specific data and analysis addressing social and economic values and impacts; the need for recreation and healthy activities; the need to experience “flow” and nirvana; the need to exercise our culture; and the need to address obesity and suicide issues, and the need to address physical and mental health needs. NEPA 1969 was intended to protect and promote all environments The depth and breadth of site-specific data and analysis of the human environment should be equal to that of the natural environment.
13. The agency should adequately consider the needs of the human environment. The public needs more not less motorized access and motorized recreational opportunities including dispersed The pandemic has demonstrated the significance of this issue and need.
14. The agency should adequately consider that seeking control is a good thing but only up to a point. Beyond that point, the determination to control every little thing can make you https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_losing_control_make_you_happier
15. The agency should adequately consider an alternative that would maximize recreation opportunities in proportion to the needs of actual visitors to the project area.
16. The agency should adequately consider an alternative based on spending more of its NEPA budget directly on trail maintenance which would have a greater benefit to both the natural and human environment.

 

1. The agency should adequately address how its large NEPA budget produces significant impacts on the human environment through recreational closures including motorized. The agency should adequately mitigate these impacts and modify its future budgeting

17. The agency should adequately consider that mental health needs for youth is at extremely high levels, continues to rise, and needs to be addressed with healthy activities. https://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/montana-youth-mental-health-needs-on-the- rise/article_c9ad3613-68b8-591d-91fc-5dae86b9b364.html
18. The agency should adequately consider that the current lack of adequate positive recreational opportunities is producing a significant impact on the human environment including suicide and mental illness.

 

4.b  Enjoyment and Rewards of Motorized Access And Recreation

 

• Opportunity for a recreational experience for all types of
• Opportunity to strengthen family
• Opportunity to experience and respect the natural
• Opportunity to participate in a healthy and enjoyable
• Opportunity for relief from the
• Opportunity to experience a variety of opportunities and
• Camaraderie and exchange of
• We like to build and maintain trails for use by
• We enjoy observing flora, fauna, and
• For the adventure and “flow” of

 

1. The agency’s evaluation of the human environment should include the significant value of flow that is provided by motorized recreation. OHV riding is our time to relax and find the “flow”. “Flow is a state of mind in which a person becomes fully immersed in an activity. Positive psychologist Mihály Csíkszentmihályi describes flow as a state of complete immersion in an activity. Being immersed can be defined as a state of focus in which a person is completely absorbed and engrossed in their work.” It often occurs when you are doing something that you enjoy and in which you are quite skilled. “This state is often associated with the creative arts such as painting, drawing, or writing. However, it can also occur while engaging in a sport, such as skiing, tennis, soccer, dancing, or running.” OHV riding that provides a balance of skill versus challenge allows one to get so focused that time stops and anxieties, worries, apathy, and boredom disappear.

 

 

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-flow-2794768 https://youtu.be/8h6IMYRoCZw https://youtu.be/fXIeFJCqsPs

 

 

4.c  Acknowledged Responsibilities of Motorized Visitors

 

• Responsibility to respect and preserve the natural environment. We are practical environmentalists who believe in a reasonable balance between the protection of the natural environment and the human environment.
• Responsibility to respect all
• Responsibility to use vehicles in a proper manner and in designated
• Responsibility to work with land, resource, and recreation We are committed to resolving issues through problem solving and not closures.
• Responsibility to educate the public on the responsible use of motorized vehicles on public

 

1. Motorized recreation represents and supports many different visitor interests. Supporting motorized recreation is the best way to support diversity of uses and multiple-use. This over- arching fact should be adequately addressed in the purpose and need and adequately considered in the analysis and decision. We are representative of the needs of most visitors who recreate on public lands but may not be organized with a collective voice to comment on their needs during the public input process. These independent multiple-use recreationists include visitors who use motorized routes for family outings and camping trips, weekend drives, mountain biking, sightseeing, exploring, picnicking, hiking, ranching, rock climbing, skiing, camping, hunting, RVs, shooting targets, timber harvesting, fishing, viewing wildlife, snowmobiling, accessing patented mining claims, and collecting firewood, natural foods, rocks,

 

etc. Mountain bikers have been observed to prefer OHV trails because we clear and maintain the trails and the trails have a desirable surface for biking.

2. Multiple-use also provides for the needs of physically challenged visitors including the elderly and veterans who must use wheeled vehicles to visit public lands. These multiple-use visitors use roads and motorized trails for their recreational purposes and the preferred alternative and decision should adequately consider motorized designations serve many recreation activities, not just recreational trail riding. We have observed and documented that 98% of the visitors to our public lands are represented by the activities discussed above. Ninety-eight percent of the visitors are there to enjoy activities associated with motorized access and motorized

 

 

4.d  Public Safety

 

1. The agency should adequately consider public safety by forcing camping, picnicking, and other motorized access activities in close proximity to well-traveled roads.
2. The agency should adequately consider public safety by squeezing motorized activities into limited miles of roads and trails.

 

 

5.  Should Not Over-Represent the Public’s Need for More Wilderness

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that less than 3% of the visits to our public lands are for wilderness recreation and 97% of the visits are for multiple-use.
2. The agency should adequately consider that management of our public lands should reflect the ratio of visitors and meet their needs in an equal manner.
3. The agency should adequately consider that wilderness is not managed for beneficial use and health and to create more defacto wilderness only compounds the problem.
4. The agency should adequately consider that the current planning process is being used as a backdoor process to create defacto wilderness areas by closing motorized access and motorized recreation on lands designated for multiple-use.
5. The agency should adequately consider that the acreage set aside for wilderness and wilderness study areas is significantly greater than the needs of less than 3% of the
6. The agency should adequately consider that a sense of magnitude for public needs should be used when managing wilderness versus multiple-use land.
7. The agency should adequately consider that the evaluation and decision should consider the acres per wilderness visitor (3% of the observed visits) versus acres per motorized visitor (97% of the observed visits).
8. The agency should adequately consider that lands designated by congress for multiple -use should not be managed by wilderness standards.
9. The agency should adequately consider the acres per wilderness visitor versus acres per multiple-use visitor both before and after the proposed action.

 

6.  Properly Consider Roadless Areas

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that any conversion of lands designated by congress for multiple-use to defacto wilderness lands circumvents congressional laws regarding multiple use and the wilderness designation process.

 

7.  Adequately Consider and Disclose the Cumulative Impact of All Motorized Closures

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that many of its land management decisions made during the past 40 years have significantly reduced motorized access and motorized

 

2. The agency should adequately consider that development of mining claims and other private lands has had a significant cumulative impact on public access to dispersed camp sites and

 

3. The agency should adequately consider, evaluate, and disclose those trends to the public including the significant cumulative impacts of closure and reduced use on the health of the public land and the health of the public including the significant need for motorized access and
   1. The health of the human environment must be given a hard
   2. Nothing in NEPA and CEQ guidance says that the health of the natural environment should prevail over the health of the human environment.
   3. The health of the human environment must be given consideration equal to the natural environment.
   4. The agency should adequately consider that it has created significant cumulative impacts on the human environment by closing an excessive amount of multiple-use land to motorized access and motorized recreation.
   5. The agency should adequately consider that motorized recreationists have been hammered by motorized closure after motorized closure in Utah and surrounding
4. The agency should adequately consider that travel planning and other planning actions have closed 25 to 75% of the historic motorized routes and all cross-country opportunities since the 1960’s.
5. The agency should adequately consider that the analysis should adequately disclose and evaluate the amount of motorized access and motorized recreation that has been lost to public use since the 1960’s.
6. The agency should adequately consider and mitigate the significant negative cumulative effect of all motorized closures on the public.
7. The agency should adequately consider and mitigate the significant negative cumulative effect of all motorized closures on the youth, disabled, elderly, and veterans.
8. Every weekend we talk to fellow motorized recreationists, and they ask us where they can go to ride trails and camp in dispersed The agency should adequately consider that the public has been squeezed into too small of an area with too few motorized routes.

 

9. The agency should adequately consider that the cumulative effect of this action combined with many other similar motorized closure decisions significantly affects our pursuit of happiness and the quality of the human environment.
10. The agency should adequately consider that the continual closure of motorized access and motorized recreation on lands managed demonstrates the intent to eliminate motorized access and motorized recreation without adequately disclosure of that intent.
11. The agency should adequately consider that significant cumulative effects have occurred because motorized recreationists cannot successfully change or challenge the Agency’s predisposition to motorized closures.
12. The agency should adequately consider that motorized closures since 1985 meet the NEPA and CEQ test for significance with respect to cumulative effects and cumulative effects should be adequately considered in the analysis.
13. The agency should adequately consider that agency actions and mining claims are closing much needed dispersed camp spots during a pandemic when the public needs more dispersed camp sites.
14. The agency should adequately consider that a sense of magnitude should be used to identify the significant cumulative impact that motorized recreationists have experienced over the past 40 years.
15. The agency should adequately consider that the analysis and decision should consider the massive amount of multiple-use land originally used for beneficial use that has effectively been converted to defacto wilderness and limited or exclusive-use land.
16. The agency should adequately consider that it uses every opportunity to close dispersed camp sites, motorized spur routes, and motorized roads and trails and has not adequately evaluated and considered the cumulative impact of that trend on the human environment.
17. The agency should adequately consider that all of the defacto motorized closures that have resulted from vegetation and timber projects, erosion and flood damage, blockage from beetle kill downfall, and obliteration of the trail tread and downfall from wildfires have a significant impact on the public’s opportunity to enjoy motorized access and motorized recreation.
    1. The cumulative effect of this continual loss has become significant and should be addressed and mitigated.

 

18. The Agency must adequately evaluate and disclose significant cumulative effects that their management decisions have created.
19. The agency should provide full and adequate disclosure of the cumulative effects of all motorized closures on the public so that the decision does not marginalize motorized recreational opportunities.
20. The agency should adequately consider that multiple-use is now squeezed into an unreasonably limited area.
    1. Every weekend we talk to fellow motorized recreationists, and they ask us where they can go to ride trails and camp in dispersed areas. The agency should adequately consider that the public has been squeezed into too small of an area with too few motorized routes.
    2. The agency should adequately consider that motorized recreationists have been squeezed into an inadequate area because of other users including hikers, equestrians

 

and mountain bikers who find motorized opportunities, refuse to share with motorized recreationists, and then force motorized recreationists out so that they have exclusive use.

21. The agency should adequately consider that its past actions have converted a vast amount of multiple use land to limited-use land to the advantage of small numbers of visitors demanding exclusive-use.
22. The agency should adequately consider how the continual conversion (cumulative effects) of multiple-use land to defacto wilderness land impacts the public including a cumulative effects analysis of all of the motorized opportunities available prior to BLM and USFS planning guidance and rules established in the 2000’s compared to the reduced level available today and with the proposed action.
23. In order to adequately evaluate the cumulative effect of all route closures, the agency should adequately consider all mapping that displayed roads and trails in use by the public going back to the 1800’s including agency maps and aerials, RS 2477 maps, GLO maps, County Maps, and USGS 15” and 7.5” quadrangles.
24. The agency should carefully consider that the current trend of massive, motorized closures has minimized OHV opportunities to the extent that many remaining OHV destinations look like over-crowded refugee camps.

 

25. The agency should adequately consider the significant amount of data on cumulative Forest Service Road closures that the Montana Environmental Quality Council assembled for the 2015 House Joint Resolution 13 study.

https://leg.mt.gov/content/Committees/Interim/2015-2016/EQC/Committee-Topics/hj-13/hj13- finalreport.pdf

 

26. The agency should adequately consider the significant cumulative impact of motorized closures that have been enacted since 1990 on national forest lands. For example, in Montana the HJ 13 study reported that 21,951 miles of roads were closed which is a significant percentage (about 1/3) of the total motorized routes that were available to the public in 1990.

 

27. The agency should adequately consider that the Forest Service in other regions have implemented a significant level of motorized closures estimated to be about 1/3 of routes available to the public in 1990.

 

28. The agency should adequately consider the significant impact of motorized closures on other public lands including those managed by the Bureau of Land Management because they are similar in significant cumulative impact to the motorized closures enacted by the Forest Service and estimated to be about 1/3 of routes available to the public in 1990.

 

8.  Recognize the Need for Long-Distance Motorized Trail Systems

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that it has developed many long distance non- motorized trail systems including the CDNST and PCT and has not developed any long- distance trail systems for motorized recreationists.
2. The agency should adequately consider that long distance motorized trail systems would see far more use than non-motorized trails.

 

3. The agency should adequately consider that long distance motorized trail systems would provide far more benefit to the human environment including therapeutic recreation and economic benefit than non-motorized trails.
4. The agency should adequately consider OHV back country discovery routes, OHV byways, and long-distance trails for motorized recreationists so that we have opportunities equal to existing non-motorized opportunities.

 

 

9.  Adequately Identify and Address the Imbalance of Motorized Trail Opportunity in our Public Lands including State Parks, National Forest, BLM, and NPS.

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that with unrestricted cross-country access, the opportunity for non-motorized recreationists is infinite.
2. The agency should adequately consider the miles of non-motorized trail and cross-country opportunity provided in wilderness and defacto wilderness areas to non-motorized
3. The agency should adequately consider the comparison of non-motorized trail and cross-country opportunity to motorized trail opportunity including the miles of trails, quality of experience, costs and conditions, and number of users.
4. The agency should adequately consider that every Agency action creates more non-motorized trail and cross-country opportunities.
5. The agency should adequately consider that:
   1. Non-motorized recreationists have hundreds of potential opportunities in the project area including cross-country travel to any desired location.
   2. Motorized recreationists are limited to a small system of designated

 

10.   Provide for a Reasonable Level of Multiple Use

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that motorized access and motorized recreation are the #1 use of the project area.
2. The agency should adequately consider that the lands in the project area are designated by congress for multiple-use.
3. The agency should adequately consider that lands designated by congress for multiple -use should not be managed by wilderness standards.
4. The agency should adequately recognize that signs of human use such as roads, trails, and dispersed camp sites are reasonable for land designated for multiple-use.

 

5. The agency should adequately consider that sharing should be the expectation on all multiple- use land otherwise multiple-use land becomes exclusive-use land.
6. The agency should adequately consider that the action should not illegally convert lands designated for multiple-use by congress into defacto wilderness areas.

 

7. The agency should adequately consider that the existing routes, mines, historic use, current use, and greater needs of the public demonstrate that the proposed non-motorized areas do not qualify as wilderness and, therefore, should not be treated as wilderness.
8. The agency should adequately consider that Congress recognized that management for multiple-use best meets the needs of the public and provided that direction in their multiple-use
9. The agency should adequately consider that management for multiple-use best meets the overall needs of the public.
10. The agency should not apply wilderness standards to lands designated for multiple-
11. The agency should adequately consider that some visible use of the land for the good of the public is reasonable and acceptable.
12. The agency should not convert congressional designated multiple-use lands to defacto
13. The agency should not circumvent congressional law and the wilderness designation
14. The agency should adequately consider that equality needs to be restored to public lands by restoring wide-ranging multiple-use management to all multiple use lands.
15. The agency should adequately consider that multiple use land should be used for the greatest good and not manipulated for elite and exclusive use only.
16. The agency should not reward those that demand exclusive use of
17. The agency should adequately consider that public land is for the benefit of all the public (not just exclusive uses) which can only be reasonably accomplished by management for a broad spectrum of uses (multiple-use).
18. The agency should adequately consider that it is not reasonable to reward individuals unwilling to share multiple-use lands with exclusive-use of those lands.
19. The agency should adequately consider that the project area is not designated wilderness and that some visual use of multiple-use land is reasonable and acceptable.
20. The agency should adequately consider that managing lands designated by congress for multiple uses by wilderness standards is not legal.
21. The agency should adequately consider that there is a shortage of multiple-use land to meet the needs of 97% of the public because too much has been converted to wilderness or defacto wilderness which only benefits 3% of the public.
22. The agency should adequately consider that during the past 40 years federal agencies have created a shortage of multiple-use land by management action that have created an excessive amount of wilderness, defacto wilderness, segregated-use, and limited-use land.
23. The agency should adequately consider that it is acceptable and reasonable to put lands designated for multiple-use to beneficial use including putting people to work and providing quality recreational opportunities for the public that owns them.
24. The agency should adequately consider that beneficial use should be the #1 goal for all multiple-use lands.

 

25. The agency should adequately consider that developing and selecting a robust multiple-use alternative as opposed to a marginalized multiple-use alternative would better serve the over- arching needs of the public.
26. The agency should adequately consider the acres per wilderness/non-motorized visitor versus acres per multiple-use visitor both before and after the proposed action.
27. The agency should seek to develop an alternative and analysis that would provide a reasonable level of multiple-use and a decision that would provide more motorized access and motorized recreation.
28. The agency should adequately recognize that everyone has a duty to participate in sharing of public resources and especially on lands designed for multiple-use by congress.
    1. The agency should adequately recognize that OHV recreationists are willing to share recreational opportunities with all other recreationists.
    2. The agency should adequately recognize that motorized recreationists are not rewarded for their willingness to share.
    3. The agency should adequately recognize that other users are rewarded for non-sharing
    4. The agency should adequately recognize that sharing of public resources by all users is a better solution than segregating all users and was not given a hard look.
    5. The agency should adequately recognize that motorized recreationists are the only ones to lose opportunities in this planning action and every other planning action and the justice issues associated with that trend.
    6. The agency should adequately recognize the issue associated with the statistic that a motorized route closed by the agency has never been re-opened even when needs and conditions have changed.

 

29. The agency should adequately recognize that citizens should be able to recreate on public lands without the need to create and be part of well-funded influence organizations.
30. The agency should adequately consider that in the big picture its actions have significantly converted the land of multiple-use for the majority of users to the land of exclusive-use for a limited number of users.

 

11.   Avoid the Unreasonable Use of Climate Change as a Reason to Eliminate Motorized Access and Motorized Recreation

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that motorized recreation is not a significant contributing factor to purported climate change.
2. The agency should adequately consider that if CO2 is a significant factor, then wildfires and prescribed burns are creating a significant impact and this impact should be adequately addressed and mitigated.
3. The agency should adequately consider that if wildfires are a significant contributor to CO2 and the agency can do something about controlling wildfires.
4. The agency should adequately consider that it is responsible for wildfire smoke which is creating a significant impact on the climate.

 

5. Climate Change is really Climate Cycle that has naturally occurred every day since the earth was created.
6. The agency should adequately consider that the climate is always changing and that the last ice age was about 12,000 years ago which is not significant in geologic time.
7. The agency should adequately consider that climate change over the past 12,000 years has significantly reduced the pine forests that once existing in Utah and Nevada, created the rise and fall of the great Salt Lake, and is in the process of reducing them in the central mountains of Idaho.
8. The agency should adequately consider that climate change is an issue without adequate and impartial scientific basis.
9. The agency should adequately consider that climate scientists will find only what their minds are looking for (confirmation bias).
10. The agency should adequately consider that climate change nonscience and hysteria should not be used to close motorized recreational opportunities.
11. The agency should adequately consider that 100 years of weather data is not adequate to evaluate the trends of climate change and any conclusions made on this basis are
12. The agency should reasonably consider that using average and/or median climate statistics misleads the public because these statistics misrepresent rainfall, temperature, streamflow, as being relatively constant. Instead, the agency should show complete robust data sets and the natural extremes that they contain.
13. The climate has always been unpredictable and changing during the time frame of human existence. The agency should adequately consider that while we would like to have a controllable and predictable climate, that desire is not a reasonable expectation.
14. The agency should adequately consider that a sense of magnitude must be used to properly identify natural changes that earth has experienced during the time frame of human
15. The agency should adequately consider the big picture climate trends, i.e., there were no humans living in the project area 14,000 years ago due to a sheet of ice and it has been getting warmer and drier ever since that time.
16. The agency should adequately consider applying the laws of thermodynamics, i.e., the total heat energy (enthalpy) of a thermodynamic system (including earth) will always be
17. The agency should adequately consider Paleo climatology, e., the earth is still in the warming cycle following the last ice age.
18. The agency should adequately consider that humans did not cause the ice age climate cycle 12,000 years ago.
19. The agency should adequately consider that it’s not just about carbon, the earth has always trapped solar energy and mass is always being converted to energy.
20. The agency should adequately consider that the enthalpy of the earth (total heat content) has always been increasing.
21. The agency should adequately consider that earth’s climate has never been
22. The agency should adequately consider that the southern limits of western forests have been moving northward since the end of the last ice age.

 

23. The agency should adequately consider how its wildfires and the Let-It-Burn policy are creating a significant amount of the earth’s current climate change.
24. The agency should adequately consider how changes in the output of the sun including the current hyperactive solar cycle and the earth’s change magnetic field produce a significant amount of climate change that is not CO2 https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/09/why-solar- geomagnetic-storms-destroy-satellites-like-spacex-starlink.html
25. The agency should adequately consider the significant impacts that the massive release of CO2 from wildfires has on the natural and human environment.
26. The agency should adequately consider that it would be unjust to restrict the recreational activities of S. citizens as a means to address climate change created outside of the U.S.

 

27. The agency should adequately consider a plan that avoids burning (both wildfires and planned fires) due to the significant release of CO2 and the significant impact that CO2 is purported to have on the climate.

 

28. The agency should recognize that the most effective means to control any documented human- induced climate changes is to maintain the world’s population at a sustainable level.
29. The agency needs to adequately consider the effects of the earth core slowing down, reversing and the 70-year cycle on climate change. https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/41996/20230123/earths-inner-core-reversing-direction- slowing-down.htm

 

30. The agency should reasonably consider that climate change should not be used by some as a pretext to control the lives of others.

 

 

12.   Provide Adequate Coordination with Local and State Government

 

1. The agency should adequately consider coordination with all surrounding counties is required and should be adequately provided.

 

13.   Adequately Recognize and Address RS2477 Route Standing

 

1. The agency should adequately consider RS2477 route standing and perpetuating those routes for public motorized access and use as originally allowed by the laws and customs in place at the time of their creation.

 

14.   Arbitrary and Capricious Analysis and Decision-Making

 

1. The agency should adequately consider the true cause and effect for all purported impacts by using adequate and reasonable scientific data and analysis.
2. The agency should adequately consider that people are consumed with the expectation that there will be no change in the universe, earth, climate, flora, and fauna but the environment has never been static.
3. The agency should adequately consider that a truthful scientific analysis is based on open- minded evaluation of all possible causes and effects using appropriate scientific data.

 

4. The agency should make decisions based on accurate data and evaluations that represent the needs of the public and not on political agendas.

 

14.a  Site-Specific Data and Evaluation

1. The agency should adequately consider that sound decisions cannot be made without sufficient data and analysis of the entire spectrum of issues so that all significant causes and effects are adequately identified and evaluated.

 

2. The agency should adequately monitor all decisions and eliminate those based on beliefs that are not substantiated by adequate site-specific data and analysis of the entire spectrum of issues so that all significant causes and effects associated with the proposed action are accurately evaluated and verified.

 

3. The agency should adequately consider that repeating a statement until you believe it is true is not a replacement for site-specific data and For example, there is no site-specific data supporting the statement that wildlife is negatively affected by OHV trails. There is data that supports wildlife using motorized routes and promoting their movement such as the Swan Valley grizzly bear study where bears preferred to travel on logging roads. Therefore, motorized routes can enhance the movement of wildlife through forested areas that are impassable by downfall.

 

4. For assessment of negative and positive impacts on the natural environment, the agency should develop site specific data, evaluations and comparisons by:
   1. Collection and development of site-specific data including monitoring for each route,
   2. Development of site-specific positive and negative impact evaluations for each route,
   3. For both positive and negative impacts on the natural environment, the test of significance should be made using a comparison to the natural level of impacts occurring on each route.
   4. The agency should adequately consider that impacts on fish and wildlife should not be assumed based on beliefs and impact analyses should be based on adequate site-specific data and studies and then verified.
   5. The agency should adequately consider only site-specific data that demonstrates that closures of motorized and dispersed camping opportunities produce significant benefit to the natural environment.
   6. The agency should adequately consider that the road density impact criteria are not site-specific and, consequently, not valid for the project area.
   7. The agency should adequately consider the need for site-specific data and the value for decision-making as demonstrated by 6 years of monitoring in Yellowstone National Park which demonstrated little impact to wildlife from snowmobiles.
5. For assessment of negative and positive impacts on the human environment, the agency should develop site specific data, evaluations and comparisons by collection and development of site- specific data and evaluations for each route including:
   1. Interviews with motorized recreations to find out their needs and values for each motorized route,
   2. Document why motorized recreationists enjoy this route,

 

1. Who is using each road and trail by development of a Need Factor for each
   1. The Need Factor should be based on category of user (non-motorized or motorized), observed number of users during a reasonable monitoring period, and divided by the total number of users.
   2. For example, 90 motorized visitors and 10 non-motorized users observed over 4 weekends equals a Need Factor of 90 for motorized users and 0.10 for non-motorized users.

• Route availability should then be based on these Need

1. Is this motorized route part of a network or destination?
2. Research to document the history of the route including historic wheeled use and historic pioneer and mining use.
3. Quality of the route,
4. Alternatives that would allow sharing of the route,
5. Document who is working to maintain the route,
6. Site-specific data for each of the claimed negative impacts from motorized access and motorized recreation on the natural environment,
7. Site-specific data and analysis of e-bike recreation,
8. The agency should adequately consider that motorized recreation and dispersed camping opportunities should not be closed without site-specific data and analysis as required by NEPA, and CEQ guidance,
9. and benefits to the human environment including flow by use of the

 

6. The agency should adequately monitor evaluations and decisions so that they are not made based on beliefs and are made on site-specific data and analysis and then verified.
7. The agency should adequately monitor the use of an adequate sense of magnitude in the evaluations and decision-making so that decisions are not arbitrary and capricious by comparing naturally occurring levels of impact to the impacts of human use established by verified site-specific data and analysis.
8. The agency should adequately monitor whether the purported negative impacts of motorized recreation including e-bike have sufficient and appropriate site-specific data and studies and are being compared to natural levels.
9. The agency should adequately monitor whether site-specific data that compares any purported impact of significance from motorized recreation and dispersed camping to the naturally occurring levels of impact and change is being used.
10. The agency should have their recreation team visit the project area during the weekends and seek out motorized recreationists so that they have site-specific information on needs necessary to adequately evaluate the number of motorized recreationists, types of motorized recreation and visitors accessing the project area.
11. The agency should use adequate site-specific data and evaluations to support more motorized recreational opportunities in the decision-making and record of decision.

 

12. The agency should revisit any motorized closures that were enacted without adequate site- specific data and analysis.

 

14.b  Employ a Sense of Magnitude

1. The agency should adequately consider that the public is losing a lifetime of motorized access and motorized recreational opportunities for reasons that are not significant when judged with a reasonable sense of magnitude.
2. The agency should adequately consider that a sense of magnitude for public needs should be used when managing wilderness versus multiple-use land.
3. The agency should adequately consider that a sense of magnitude should be used to identify the significant cumulative impact that motorized recreationists have experienced over the past 40 years.
4. The agency should adequately consider that a sense of magnitude must be used to properly identify natural changes that earth has experienced during the time frame of human
5. The agency should adequately consider using a sense of magnitude the significant impacts that foreign conditions have on our climate.
6. The agency should adequately consider that the analysis and decision-making for claimed impacts should be based on an adequate sense of magnitude which can only be established by comparing impacts based on site-specific data and scientific analysis to natural levels.
7. The agency should adequately consider that a sense of magnitude should be used in the evaluations and decision-making so that decisions are not arbitrary and capricious by comparing naturally occurring levels of impact to the impacts of human use established by verified site-specific data and analysis.
8. The agency should adequately consider analysis and evaluations based on site-specific data and studies that support an unbiased view and sense of magnitude regarding the impacts of motorized recreation on the natural environment.
9. The agency should adequately compare impacts from all types of visitors to natural impacts in order to demonstrate a true sense of magnitude for all impacts and so that impacts are not over-stated.
10. The agency should adequately consider that a sense of magnitude should be used in the evaluations and decision-making so that potential impacts on the natural environment including fish and wildlife are compared to the naturally occurring range of impacts and that this approach is necessary in order to keep impacts from being over-stated and decisions from being arbitrary and capricious.
11. The agency should adequately consider that impacts from all user groups should be adequately compared to the natural level of impacts in order to demonstrate and use a true sense of magnitude for analysis and decision-making.
12. The agency should adequately consider a sense of magnitude in the evaluations and decision – making so that potential impacts on the natural environment are compared to naturally occurring impacts and decisions avoid being arbitrary and capricious.
13. The agency should employ an adequate sense of magnitude so that the record of decision provides a reasonable level of multiple-use and motorized recreation.

 

14. The agency should employ a reasonable sense of magnitude so that decisions with relatively insignificant improvement to natural resources do not cause relatively significant impacts on human resources.
15. The agency should adequately consider that vegetation management actions other than burning reduce the fuel loading and result in less damaging wildfires and less CO2
16. The agency should adequately recognize that impacts from motorized recreationists that are less than the natural level of impacts should not be considered significant.

 

14.c  Other Areas

1. The agency should adequately consider that theories based on impartial data and studies to back them should not be used to close motorized opportunities.
2. The agency should adequately consider studies that support OHV recreation or provide an unbiased analysis of OHV recreation.
3. The agency should adequately recognize when bogus issues based on an anti-motorized bias are presented as justification to close valuable motorized access and motorized recreational
4. The agency should adequately consider that by assigning equal impacts to single-track motorcycle/e-bike trails versus ATV trails versus gravel roads versus highways that the road density criteria is flawed and should not be used.
5. The agency should adequately consider that:
   1. Activities other than OHV recreation have a greater impact on wildlife,
   2. Repeating and exaggerating nontruths about the negative impacts of motorized recreation does not make them true and represents arbitrary and capricious decision-making.
6. The agency should adequately develop site-specific Need Factors for each route and the decision establishing the amount of non-motorized versus motorized opportunity should be informed and reliable.

 

15.   NEPA and Environmental Justice Issues

 

1. The agency should adequately listen to the needs of all of the public and act on those needs on an equal basis.
2. The agency should adequately consider justice for the closure of motorized recreational opportunities that were made without adequate and credible scientific data and analyses and/or without adequate comparison to natural impacts and change.

 

15.a  Flawed Purpose and Need Process

 

3. Motorized recreationists need trail opportunities similar the abundant hiking and mountain bike trail systems. The purpose and need process circumvented identifying and addressing this critical issue.

 

4. The agency should adequately recognize that restricting comments to only those that address specific routes does not adequately address the overarching significant issues that are negatively impacting motorized recreationists.
5. The agency should not use comment rules so that significant issues and comments from motorized recreationists are dismissed.
6. The purpose and need developed by the agency should adequately address the needs and significant issues associated with motorized recreation.

 

15.b  Travel Management Rule

 

1. Prior to the BLM Travel Management Rule, motorized recreationists had a reasonable opportunity to enjoy motorized access, motorized roads, and motorized Now with nearly 20 years under the travel management rule motorized recreationists are subject to motorized closure upon motorized closure and the cumulative impact associated with those closures has become significant yet ignored by the agency.
   1. Motorized recreationists did not expect the travel management rule to be a massive closure action and accepted it on that basis.
   2. Motorized recreationists did not expect the travel management rule to be a massive closure action, but the agency has chosen to implement the travel management rule that way.
   3. Motorized recreationists did not expect the travel management rule to be a massive closure actions, but the agency has chosen to implement the travel management rule that way.
   4. The travel management rule were not adequately evaluated and disclosed to the public as massive, motorized closure actions.
   5. This implementation and the ultimate significant end impact of the travel management rule on the public was not adequately identified, was not adequately evaluated, was not adequately disclosed, and was not adequately mitigated.
   6. The agency’s implementation of the travel management rule must be corrected to address these deficiencies.
2. The Supreme Court released a decision in West Virginia vs. EPA ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf ), that established when federal agencies are exceeding their regulatory powers. This decision should result in opportunities for examination of existing regulatory powers for federal For example, if Congress hasn’t given explicit authorization to create Subpart C travel management rules to regulate OHV and snowmobiling recreation, then the agency may not have the regulatory authority to create these rules.

 

15.c  Inadequate Disclosure

 

1. The agency should adequately disclose both in tabular and map form the miles of existing trails closed to OHV use.

 

15.d  Human and Natural Environment Not Considered Equally

 

1. The analysis and decision should consider the Human and Natural Environment equally as intended by 1969 NEPA.

 

15.e  Education – A Reasonable Alternative

 

1. The agency responsible for management of the State OHV program should be responsible for and take the lead in OHV education within that State.

 

2. The agency should adequately recognize that closure takes away needed motorized recreational opportunities and education in place of closure can be used to address issues with existing motorized recreational opportunities.

 

3. The agency should adequately consider that it is overwhelming the public with involvement requirements and catering to well-funded activist groups with paid representatives.

 

4. The Agency should adequately identify the needs of the silent majority including motorized recreationists and OHV recreationists and reasonably provide for those needs.

 

5. The agency should adequately consider that education can be part of creating new motorized recreational opportunities.
6. The agency should adequately consider that all potential negative issues associated with non- motorized and motorized recreationists can be mitigated by education and that education of all visitors is a better alternative than closure.
7. The agency should adequately address that the trail rangers should only be used with the purpose of education, mentoring and education of fellow OHV recreationists
8. The agency should adequately consider that;
   1. Education of all recreationists is a reasonable alternative and the most equitable
   2. Education as an alternative to motorized closures should be exercised and
   3. Education can be used with all ages and is especially effective with our
9. The agency should adequately consider that fish and wildlife can coexist and prosper with OHV recreation when using public education to protect them.
10. The agency should adequately consider alternatives to motorized closures such as public education that would mitigate concerns with the natural environment.
11. The agency’s education program should include OHV enthusiasts on the agency’s staff and effective outreach to individual motorized recreationists and motorized groups.
12. The agency’s education program should include a youth outreach program similar to Kids and Adults on Snowmobiles (KAOS) so that OHV use gets off on the right foot. (https://awsc.org/getmedia/22a8a18d-d1ba-4e97-a02e-da6fb92bcc79/Youth-Program-Flyer.pdf

 

 

15.f  Collaboration

 

1. Use of collaboration is reasonable only if all users benefit.

 

 

15.g  Sharing of Multiple-Use Lands

 

1. The agency should adequately recognize that everyone has a duty to participate in sharing of public resources and especially on lands designed for multiple-use by congress.
   1. The agency should adequately recognize that OHV recreationists are willing to share recreational opportunities with all other recreationists.
   2. The agency should adequately recognize that motorized recreationists are not rewarded for their willingness to share.
   3. The agency should adequately recognize that other users are rewarded for non- sharing behaviors.
   4. The agency should adequately recognize that sharing of public resources by all users is a better solution than segregating all users and should be given a hard
   5. The agency should adequately recognize that there is plenty of land for all recreation uses if we all share the land.
   6. The agency should adequately recognize that motorized recreationists are the only ones to lose opportunities in this planning action and every other planning action and the justice issues associated with that trend.
   7. The agency should adequately recognize the issue associated with the statistic that a motorized route closed by the agency has never been re-opened even when needs and conditions have changed.

 

15.h  Justice Issues

1. Motorized recreationists endorsed and accepted millions of acres of area restriction under the Travel Management Rule as a positive action to control environmental impacts.
   1. We accepted area restriction and not area Area closure is permanent. Area restriction allows flexibility as needed to address site-specific conditions. Each motorized road and trail exists because it serves some multiple-use need.
   2. Every motorized road and trail is important to some individual for some purpose. Each motorized road and trail should have adequate site-specific data and analysis to determine all of its values including motorized recreational value.
   3. Motorized recreationists gave up 97% of the area historically available to them under the travel management rule as the ultimate act of mitigation so that we would continue to have use of existing motorized routes that cover or provide access to an area estimated at less than 3% of the total area.
   4. Now motorized recreationists have been given almost no credit for our cooperation during that action and we have only been penalized for our past cooperation by current route designations, land management plans, forest plans and travel plans that seek to close 50% to 75% of the existing motorized routes.

 

1. This outcome was not part of the travel management rule and this level of closure is not acceptable to us for that The travel management rule was not made with the intention of massive closures beyond that agreement.
2. We ask that proposed action include proper recognition of the original agreements behind the travel management rule decisions which allow continued use of the existing networks of motorized roads and trails without massive motorized

 

2. The agency should adequately consider that the decision provided recreational opportunities for non-motorized recreationists in greater abundance and quality than the recreational opportunities for motorized recreationists.
3. The agency should develop site-specific data and Need Factors for each route and the decision establishing the amount of non-motorized versus motorized opportunity is uninformed and
4. The agency should not create non-motorized recreational opportunities by taking opportunities from motorized recreationists.
5. The agency should adequately consider that Anti-mechanized interests are not free of mechanized. They use vehicles in their daily However, anti-mechanized interests choose to impose their level of mechanized use on others.
6. The agency should carefully consider the social justice issues associated with imposing their will on motorized recreationists.
   1. Open-minded people do not work to impose their beliefs on other
   2. Open-minded people accept all of life’s perspectives and
   3. Open-minded people do their own thing in peace without judgement of other
7. The agency should avoid actions that allow one user group to impose their will on another user
8. The agency should adequately consider that the endless lawsuits from environmental groups is an attempt to impose their non-use agenda and is counter to the greater needs of the public for multiple-use of our public lands.
9. The agency should adequately consider that NEPA, CEQ guidance and other environmental laws are not neutral and have not worked equally for all recreation groups.
10. The agency should adequately consider the need for and use of site-specific data and evaluations for each and every motorized route including consulting with an adequate cross- section of local motorized users.
11. The agency should adequately consider the quality of the human environment including the need and value of motorized recreational opportunities.
12. The Agency should not use comment rules so that significant issues and comments from motorized recreationists are dismissed.
13. The agency should not create non-motorized recreational opportunities by taking opportunities from motorized recreationists.
14. The agency should adequately evaluate whether it is developing and maintaining motorized trails at a level equal to non-motorized trails.

 

15. The agency should adequately consider all of the requirements of the Equity Action Plan with respect to motorized recreationists.
16. https://www.whitehouse.gov/equity/#:~:text=Equity%20Action%20Plans%20were%20required, and%20partnership%20with%20all%20communities
17. The agency should adequately recognize that motorized recreationists are the only ones to lose opportunities in this planning action and every other planning action and the justice issues associated with that trend.
18. The agency should adequately consider that closing routes to motorized recreationists creates opportunities for non-motorized recreationists who already have unlimited opportunities.
19. The agency should adequately consider that the public comments and votes by how they use public land, and adequate motorized access and recreation is what the public is asking for with every visit regardless of whether they participate in a complicated NEPA process.
20. The agency should adequately consider that its past actions have converted a vast amount of multiple use land to limited-use land to the advantage of small numbers of visitors demanding exclusive-use.
21. The agency should adequately consider that “flow” should be provided to all users on an equal
22. Motorized recreationists are disadvantaged in the legal system and are not able to effectively use the legal system to protect motorized opportunities. The agency should adequately consider management approaches for public lands that do not require the public to defend their recreation opportunities in the court room.

 

23. The motorized public cannot be involved in every BLM and Forest Service action as demonstrated by the number of projects on their NEPA sites:

USFS NEPA and Planning Projects signup BLM eplanning for “Recreation only”

 

24. The agency should adequately consider that everyone’s energy would be better spent on ensuring access and education for all that wish to have an enjoyable, safe, and responsible experience outdoors.

 

25. The agency should adequately consider that the increasing population is all the more reason to support decisions that require sharing of multiple-use lands and avoid decisions that yield to limited-use.

 

26. The agency should adequately consider and refer to motorized use and access prior to BLM and USFS planning guidance and rules established in the 2000’s as “authorized and open to use unless specifically closed”. Therefore, all areas, roads and trails that existed prior to the guidance and rules established in the 2000’s were authorized and open for motorized use unless specifically closed and should not be referred to as “unauthorized routes”.

 

27. The agency should find ways to adequately involve motorized recreationists in the planning and decision processes.

 

28. The agency should carefully follow the policy of providing equal access to recreation opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized including those disadvantaged in the NEPA process, those who have physical disabilities and members of underserved motorized sectors.

 

29. The agency should make decisions based on accurate data and evaluations that represent the needs of the public and not on political agendas.

 

 

16.   Avoid Overstating the Impact of Motorized Access and Motorized Recreation on Fish and Wildlife

 

1. The agency should adequately consider analysis and evaluations based on verified site-specific data and studies that support an unbiased view and sense of magnitude regarding the impacts of motorized recreation on the natural environment.
2. The agency should adequately compare impacts from all types of visitors to natural impacts in order to demonstrate a true sense of magnitude for impacts.
3. The agency should adequately consider alternatives to wholesale motorized closures that would mitigate fish and wildlife concerns should be given a hard look.
4. The agency should adequately consider that the road density impact criteria are not site-specific and, consequently, not valid for the project area.
5. The agency should adequately consider that the road density impact criteria over-estimates the impact of motorized recreation on wildlife and does not reasonably consider mitigation measures and alternatives that could be implemented.
6. The agency should adequately consider that the road density impact criteria are not a reasonable measure of motorized impact on wildlife habitat.
7. The agency should adequately consider that;
   1. Topography is a significant factor affecting wildlife
   2. The vertical topography in the project area greatly reduces the impact on wildlife and is just as effective as or more effective than cover.
   3. The analysis should reasonably consider
8. The agency should adequately consider that:
   1. A motorized trail does not have the same impact on wildlife as a
   2. The impact analysis should not assume that one size of impact fits all motorized
   3. A criteria and impact analysis should be developed that differentiates between different tread widths and level of use including traffic counts.
9. The agency should adequately consider that:
   1. OHVs cause less severe disturbance of wildlife because the relatively low level of sound that they emit provides a soft warning of human presence compared to non- motorized recreation.
   2. For example, OHVs have never had a damaging encounter with a bear including grizzlies while hikers and hunters have had many that have ended badly for both the humans and the bear.

 

10. The agency should adequately consider that motorized closures are being enacted using the Endangered Species Act when there is no verified site-specific data and studies documenting a significant connection between OHV and e-bike recreation and significant impacts on an endangered species.
11. The agency should adequately consider that there are other impacts on fish and wildlife including natural processes that are far more significant than motorized recreation.
12. The agency should adequately consider that adequately documented OHV impacts should be compared to natural levels and natural changes in order to avoid impacts being over-stated and leading to arbitrary and capricious decision-making.
13. The agency should adequately consider that fish and wildlife can coexist and prosper with OHV recreation when using public education to protect them.
14. The agency should adequately consider that:
    1. Human activities other than OHV recreation have a greater impact on wildlife and the natural environment.
    2. Repeating and exaggerating nontruths about the negative impacts of motorized recreation on fish and wildlife does not make them true and represents arbitrary and capricious decision-making.
15. The agency should adequately consider that a sense of magnitude should be used in the evaluations and decision-making so that potential impacts on fish and wildlife are compared to the naturally occurring range of impacts and that this approach is necessary in order to keep decisions from being arbitrary and capricious.
16. The agency should adequately consider that in many cases wildlife populations are at all-time highs and in excess of the carrying capacity of the land.
17. The agency should adequately consider that negative impacts to fish and wildlife from wildfires are thousands of times greater than OHV recreation.
18. The agency should adequately consider giving much needed motorized recreation opportunities a higher priority in the decision-making.
19. The agency should adequately consider that wildlife deaths including grizzly bear deaths are associated with hiking and hunting and that a bear has never been killed by an OHV visitor.
20. The agency should adequately consider the need for site-specific data and the value for decision-making as demonstrated by 6 years of monitoring in Yellowstone National Park which demonstrated little impact to wildlife from snowmobiles.
21. The agency should revisit any motorized closures that were enacted without adequate site- specific data and analysis.
22. The agency should adequately consider that wildlife including deer, elk, and bears are not disturbed by motor vehicles as demonstrated by the lack of concern about motorized visitors by wildlife in national parks.
23. The agency should adequately consider that predators create more significant impacts on wildlife than motorized visitors.

 

17.   Avoid Overstating the Impact of Motorized Access and Motorized Recreation on the Natural Environment

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that the analysis should develop data and studies that supports an unbiased and a balanced view of how motorized recreation impacts the natural
2. The agency should adequately consider developing and using adequate site-specific data and studies as required by NEPA, and CEQ guidance in order to justify closure of any motorized
3. The agency should adequately consider that impacts from all user groups should be adequately compared to the natural level of impacts in order to demonstrate and use a true sense of magnitude for analysis and decision-making.
4. The agency should adequately consider alternatives to motorized closures such as public education that would mitigate concerns with the natural environment.
5. The agency should adequately consider that:
   1. A motorized trail does not have the same impact on the natural environment as a
   2. The impact analysis should not assume that one size fits
   3. A criteria and impact analysis should be developed that differentiates between different treads and level of use.
6. The agency should adequately consider that there are other natural processes that create more significant impacts than motorized recreation.
7. The agency should adequately consider that the analysis of documental OHV impacts should be compared to natural levels and natural changes in order to avoid impacts being over-stated and leading to arbitrary and capricious decision-making.
8. The agency should adequately consider that the negative impacts on the natural environment from dispersed camping sites is relatively insignificant when compared to the natural level of environmental impacts.
9. The agency should adequately consider that any significant negative impacts on the natural environment from dispersed camping spots can be mitigated to a reasonable level in most
10. The agency should adequately consider that wilderness visitors deposit their waste in the wilderness and RV campers dispose of their waste at treatment facilities.
11. The agency should adequately consider that self-contained campers have an acceptable and minimal environmental impact and more dispersed camping sites need to be created to serve this popular form of recreation.
12. The agency should adequately consider a sense of magnitude in the evaluations and decision – making so that potential impacts on the natural environment are compared to naturally occurring impacts and decisions avoid being arbitrary and capricious.
13. The agency should not complain about the impact in high use areas because the agency created significant impacts on the natural and human environment by squeezing 93% of the visitors (motorized recreationists) into an inadequate number of areas and opportunities.

 

1. The agency should take responsibility and mitigate all impacts associated with this

14. The agency should adequately consider giving much needed motorized recreation opportunities a higher priority in the decision-making.
15. Compared to pre-travel management rule conditions, the agency has created a greater level of impact on the natural environment by squeezing recreationists into the smallest possible

 

18.   Motorized References Should Be Adequately Considered

 

1. The analysis should adequately consider all information and references that;
   1. Support the need for motorized recreation,
   2. Document the value of motorized recreation to both the economy and human health,
   3. Identify alternatives that mitigate any impacts that are adequately documented,
   4. Develop alternatives that enhance motorized
   5. Available motorized trail design and maintenance references include:
2. Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook USDA
3. A Comprehensive Framework for OHV Trail Mgmt USDA
4. Sustainable ATV Trails USDA
5. Designing Sustainable OHV Trails USDA
6. Keeping water off the trail USDA
7. Off-Highway Vehicle Program Route and Designation Guide USDA
8. Standard Trail Plans and Specifications USDA
9. Sustainable Trail Bridge Design USDA
10. Marshall University OHV Courses
11. https://nohvcc.org/assistance/manager-assistance/online-resource-hub/
12. https://nohvcc.org/economic-impact-studies/
13. https://nohvcc.org/assistance/manager-assistance/great-trails-projects/
14. https://nohvcc.org/education/manager-education/great-trails-guidebook/
15. ATV Route Guideline Manual
16. Wernex Report for Design Construction Maintenance AMA
17. Off Highway Motorcycle and ATV Trail Management U of I
18. https://go.campendium.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2022CamperReport.pdf
19. Slow and Say Hello
20. https://nohvcc.org/education/manager-education/great-trails-field-guide/
21. https://nohvcc.org/education/rider-education/
22. https://nohvcc.org/education/manager-education/great-trails-field-guide/
23. https://nohvcc.org/assistance/manager-assistance/online-resource-hub/
24. https://nohvcc.org/assistance/manager-assistance/online-resource-hub/webinars/
25. https://nohvcc.org/economic-impact-studies/

 

2. The agency should adequately consider that observing motorized tracks cannot always be used as evidence of motorized use because we practice “Tread Lightly” and the rain, wind, and snow erase our tracks.
3. Opening dates should be based on weekends, for example open for use on 2nd weekend in May. Closing dates should be based on a weekday, for example, closed for use on 2nd Monday in October.

 

19.   Adequately Consider Maintenance, Funding and Gas Tax Issues

 

1. The agency should adequately consider that an equitable percentage of the gas tax paid by OHV recreationists has not been returned to OHV recreation.
2. The agency should adequately consider that an equitable percentage of the gas tax paid by OHV recreationists has not been returned to OHV recreation for a very long time and the cumulative effects are significant.
3. The agency should adequately consider the significant issues surrounding the inequality of maintenance funding, design and construction funding and gas tax funding with respect to motorized recreation versus non-motorized recreation.
4. The agency should adequately consider that if motorized is removed, then motorized funds should not have been used in the area at any time in the past.
5. The agency should adequately consider that if motorized is removed, then motorized funds used previously in the area should be equitably returned for use on new motorized projects.
6. The agency should adequately consider that that there are significant new funding sources available for motorized trails at both federal and state levels.
7. The agency should adequately consider that based on the significant need and past inequalities, motorized trail maintenance should be the first priority for all available trail maintenance
8. Without public involvement, motorized route maintenance just goes away and so do rideable routes. The agency is not keeping up with motorized route Maintenance takes a long-term commitment, and this should be the agency’s priority.
9. Whether intentional or not, lack of maintenance is effectively closing motorized
   1. This trend adds to the cumulative effect of motorized
   2. This trend is counter to the needs of the
   3. The agency needs to develop a nationwide initiate to restore and enhance all recreation facilities including trails and roads (REAL).

 

10. The agency should adequately consider and practice restoring all roads and trails as part of their burned area and flood restoration actions restoration of the trail tread and removal of downfall blocking routes.

 

11. The agency should team with the Post Wildfire OHV Recovery Alliance (PWORA). PWORA is a national non-profit organization founded to protect and restore sustainable OHV recreation from the devastating effects of intense wildfires and other natural disasters. http://pwora.org/

 

12. The agency should adequately recognize and address the fact that they perform little to no maintenance on motorized routes.

 

13. The agency can significantly address erosion issues associated with motorized routes by constructing and maintaining water bars, rolling dips, etc.
14. The agency should adequately consider and address the need to adequate sign and maintain motorized routes during times when they are disturbed by timber and vegetation actions.

Scoping is underway for the proposed Land Exchange for the Washington County Water Conservancy District to obtain 1050 acres of land from the Western portion of Sand Mountain OHV area near Warner Valley. Part of this may be to provide land for the new reservoir, to which we have no objection, but we are in opposition to the addition of the land east of Warner Valley Rim which would affect West Rim and Ridgeline Trails. You can learn more about the latest details at www.UtahPLA.com

What is Scoping? The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), to involve the public in the planning process and seek their input through a scoping process, which is one of the first steps of the process. It will be followed by BLM’s preparation of a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) , and you will have another opportunity to add substantive comments. Effective NEPA scoping comments for BLM should ask these kind of questions, some thought starters have been included in italics, but come up with your own questions, please don’t just copy this list, put it into your own words.

1. Provide specific information about the proposed action, including its location, purpose and need, and potential environmental impacts.
   1. We understand the purpose of the reservoir use, but what is the purpose of the large acquisition east and north of the reservoir?
   2. We asked the Water Conservancy District and City of Washington what they plan to use the land for, and their response has been they have no plans or it’s too early to have thought about it. BLM should demand a clear direction from the City of Washington as to their involvement and precise plans for the future.
   3. How will it affect visitors and their economic impact to the region?
   4. Adjoining lands that are managed by different agencies often cause conflicts because of differences in rules governing that use, and law enforcement. If the “dispersed” camping is eliminated at Washington Dam, law enforcement issues may rise with those people desiring free camping will arise in other areas, i.e. our Waddy’s Corral staging area may have people trying to camp there, especially after we pave the road to it. Much of the increase in OHV recreation has come from UTV/ATV users, who need staging areas to unload and park their machines. Where do they go if Washington Dam is closed?
   5.  What will be the Visual Resource Impacts of the change. Currently, most of Sand Mountain is classified as Class 2, but it appears from Map 2.14 in the BLM St George Field Office 1999 Recreation Management Plan that the West Rim is classified as Class 3. How will you ensure that the basic characteristics and visual appearance will be maintained if the exchange is approved?
2. Identify any alternatives that the BLM should consider, including no action, and explain why they would be preferable or less impactful.
   1. What other locations may have been considered for the exchange located north and east of the reservoir?
   2. Have you considered alternatives that eliminate the areas east of the reservoir.
   3. Have you considered replacing our area of concern with land to the south of the proposed reservoir location, where WCWCD is planning for recreation already.
   4. What other alternatives have you considered for acquiring the 89 acre Non Federal parcel.
   5. If no action is recommended as an alternative, please provide precise details what that means.
3. Highlight any potential significant impacts that may result from the proposed action and suggest ways to mitigate or avoid them.
   1. Without knowing what the new use will be, how can you clearly analyze potential impacts or mitigations.
   2. How do you propose to resolve impacts such as user conflicts between OHV and development or noise or traffic concerns.
   3. Although a State Park, California’s Oceano Dunes OHV users have been attacked by new residents building communities adjacent to the Dunes because of User Conflicts. What consideration have you given that the transfer could lead to even further losses if undetermined future users complain about current OHV use such as noise, traffic, or blowing sand.
4. Provide relevant scientific data, studies, or other sources of information to support the comments.
   1. Oceano Dunes is a great example of how user conflicts were created that led to further losses to OHV.
   2. In many communities, airports have come under attack from new communities built around them that complain about the noise, ultimately resulting in the closure of 378 airports since 1990, almost 7% of the total.
   3. How will the appraisal reflect the value of Recreation?
5. Address the scope of the proposed action, including any indirect or cumulative effects that may result from the action.
   1. How will access to the public lands on top of Warner Ridge and West Rim be accomplished.
   2. What will be the impact of the loss of staging and dry camping in the area?
   3. What will be the impact on OHV traffic patterns from the recently constructed Waddy’s Corral Staging area.
   4. Why are you giving more land than needed for the reservoir?
   5. Where will the people that use the disbursed camping sites on Pipeline Road go to?
   6. Where will the campers using Washington Dam free camping area go?
   7. There are often many conflicts when different land managers are in charge of adjacent areas, who is going to manage the acquired land, and what is their experience at working with BLM?
   8. How will the view sheds from the West Rim trail and above be impacted by the change?
   9. The OHV Area loss from this is 1050 acres, plus an additional loss of almost 400 acres if the reservoir project proceeds in a future request. This is in addition to the indirect and direct cumulative effects from various options from the 2016 Lake Powell Project proposal, ranging from 60 to 290 additional acres of land being closed to OHV use. This brings the total OHV loss to 1740 acres from the Sand Mountain SMRA. What other options have you considered?
6. Identify any potential environmental justice concerns that may arise from the proposed action, such as impacts on low-income or minority communities.
   1. How will the loss of free and disbursed camping affect users of lower income?
7. Discuss any potential cultural or historical impacts on Native American tribes or other affected communities.
   1. What cultural, anthropological, and historical impacts will result from this Proposed Exchange?
8. Offer specific suggestions for how the BLM can address public concerns and incorporate feedback into the decision-making process.
   1. While we appreciate the extension for comments of 6 days, there are many visitors that come at different times of the year, and it will take time to get the word out to people interested in the outcome. Have you collected user data by month to see what the most frequent periods the land is used? What do you need to justify an extended comment period for future comments?

 

Scoping is not about stating opinions or venting, it’s about developing the questions that should be answered in the EA or EIS. Framing your comments into questions are the best way to elicit consideration for that question to be addressed in future evaluations. No comment is worthless, but comments that are very broad such as “I don’t want this exchange to happen” are not very helpful if not supported by specifics. If you have detailed and specific comments, I encourage you to submit comments using Option 1 below. If are limited in time and want to make quick comments, I suggest you make your comments using the Blueribbon Action Alert Option 2, it has an excellent set of comments that cover a wide range of subjects. When you submit using the Blueribbon Action Alert, copies will be sent to BLM and Congress. The best option is to submit them both ways.

 

Now is the time to submit your comments, visit www.UtahPLA.com for the very latest information.  

• Submit Your Comments Electronically using your choice of methods:
  1. By email sent to blm_ut_sgfo_comments@blm.govwith a copy to StopSandMtnSale@gmail.com
  2. Visiting Blueribbon Coalition’s Action Alertat https://www.sharetrails.org/stop-the-sale-of-sand-mountain/#/104/

Comment Period Closes at Midnight on April 19, 2023

Start Now, and Get your Comments Submitted!

There’s little doubt we made headway in our meeting yesterday, but we are still in the first inning of a game that may well go into overtime. Let me recap what changed this morning, and what steps we need to take…

What happened this morning with the Water Conservancy? Jeff Bieber, Casey Lofthouse and I met with WCWCD’s Zach Renstrom, General Manager, and Morgan Drake. We showed them the maps we prepared, and explained that our main concerns were:

• Continued use of the area east of the reservoir in the same manner it has been used for years, Open OHV.
• Restrictions that would not allow any development east of the Reservoir.
• Access from the Washington Dam via Ridgeline Trail, or some route in that area.
• Staging and Camping in the Washington Dam area.

Zach committed that he was agreeable to executing some type of agreement like a deed restriction, that would guarantee OHV Open Access would continue permanently. He also said he would also agree to a permanent restriction that would prevent any development in the same area, other than perhaps a water tank and pipeline. He also agreed that WCWCD would ensure that either the Ridgeline Trail, or a replacement trail WCWCD would construct would keep access from Washington Dam.

He explained that the last issue was more complicated because the Water District was not, and would not be in the recreation business, their interest was solely in the reservoir. Their presumption is that they would retain ownership of the land north of the reservoir, but would contract with a recreation manager,  such as State Parks or either the Cities of Washington or Hurricane. They would not select a partner until they began the process of actually building the reservoir, so it is impossible to say how it would be managed or if it there would be a fee area. He added that because the land is fairly limited between the 7 and the reservoir (there is no plan yet for where to place the dam), most of the recreation opportunities would be on the west and south sides of the reservoir.

We think there may be a way to get a fee free staging area northeast of the dam. As we were told many years ago, the large free camping area will become a thing of the past once dam construction begins.

The commitments made by WCWCD cannot be accepted without a healthy degree of skepticism, and there is no binding written agreement to rely on, but UPLA and DRATS will continue discussions with WCWCD, and begin to consult with attorneys on the best way to ensure these commitments are binding. Once those binding assurances are granted, we hope to be able to withdraw our opposition to the exchange.

UPLA, DRATS, Trail Hero, Ride Utah and many others are recommending to Oppose the Exchange. With continued negotiations, we hope to be able to withdraw our opposition, but not now.

What Do I Need to Do Next?

The Land Exchange is still a very real threat, and we need to double down on our efforts with the Scoping and EIS comments as if there is no other verbal agreement. It would be foolish to count on that to save us.

What we need to do now is as simple as 1-2-3

• Show Up for the meeting Tuesday- Be respectful and learn not only the proposal, but how to submit comments that make a difference.
• Submit Your Comments Electronically using your choice of methods:
  1. By email sent to blm_ut_sgfo_comments@blm.gov with a copy to StopSandMtnSale@gmail.com
  2. Visiting Blueribbon Coalition’s Action Alert at https://www.sharetrails.org/stop-the-sale-of-sand-mountain/#/104/
     The deadline has been extended till Midnight April 19, 2023
     We recommend you put your thoughts together, and hold off a few days before submitting them until we get more information, which we will post here.
• Stay Engaged. We are only in the first inning of an overtime game. If you’re not getting the UPLA and DRATS Emails, sign up for them today to stay informed.

The momentum created by the OHV community has been phenomenal so far, we need to be repeating that again each day in the future.

Together, We Can Win,
But We Can’t Do It Without You!

Big Positive News About Today’s Negotiations!

Scoping is underway for the proposed Land Exchange for the Washington County Water Conservancy District to obtain 1050 acres of land from the Western portion of Sand Mountain OHV area near Warner Valley. Part of this is to provide land for the new reservoir, to which we have no objection, but we are in opposition to the addition of the land east of Warner Valley Rim which would affect West Rim and Ridgeline Trails. You can learn more about the details here at www.UtahPLA.com

Recent Development  Monday Morning-VERY IMPORTANT
We had a meeting with the Washington County Water Conservancy District this morning to discuss our concerns about losing both access and Open OHV recreation on the area east of the proposed reservoir waterline. We reached an agreement a verbal agreement that WCWCD would stipulate that the area will be restricted against any development activity and that it would remain designated for Open OHV forever, regardless of who might be managing the property. In addition, they agreed to also ensure we have either continued access via the Ridgeline Trail from Washington Dam, or will cut in an alternate access. This was the outcome we were hoping for, and greatly reduces our concerns. We will take steps to ensure this stipulation is well documented. At this point, we still are taking the position to oppose the Exchange until we get further assurance. We need everyone to show up at the meeting tomorrow to show your support, 

What is Scoping? NEPA requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), to involve the public in the planning process and seek their input through a scoping process, which is one of the first steps of the process. It will be followed by BLM’s preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and you will have another opportunity to submit comments. Effective NEPA scoping comments for BLM should answer these questions, some thought starters have been included in italics, but come up with your own questions.

1. Provide specific information about the proposed action, including its location, purpose, and potential environmental impacts. We understand the purpose of the reservoir use, but what is the purpose of the large acquisition east and north of the reservoir? We have asked the Water Conservancy District and City of Washington what they plan to use the land for, and their response has been that it’s too early to have thought about it. How will it affect visitors and their economic impact?
2. Identify any alternatives that the BLM should consider, including no action, and explain why they would be preferable or less impactful. What other locations may have been considered for the exchange located north and east of the reservoir? Include alternatives in the EIS that eliminate the areas east of the reservoir.
3. Highlight any potential significant impacts that may result from the proposed action and suggest ways to mitigate or avoid them. Without knowing what the use will be, it is impossible to clearly analyze potential impacts or mitigations. Some impacts could be things like user conflicts between OHV and development or noise or traffic concerns.
4. Provide relevant scientific data, studies, or other sources of information to support the comments.
5. Address the scope of the proposed action, including any indirect or cumulative effects that may result from the action. How will access to the public lands on top of Warner Ridge and West Rim be accomplished. What will be the impact of the loss of staging and dry camping in the area? What will be the impact on OHV traffic patterns from the recently constructed Waddy’s Corral Staging area. Why are they taking more land than they need for the reservoir? Where will the people that use the disbursed camping sites on Pipeline Road go to? Where will the campers using Washington Dam free camping area go? There are often many conflicts when different land managers are in charge of adjacent areas, who is going to manage the acquired land, and what is their experience at working with BLM. How will the view sheds from the West Rim trail and above be impacted by the change?
6. Identify any potential environmental justice concerns that may arise from the proposed action, such as impacts on low-income or minority communities. How will the loss of free and disbursed camping affect users of lower income?
7. Discuss any potential cultural or historical impacts on Native American tribes or other affected communities. What are the potential cultural, anthropological, and historical impacts?
8. Offer specific suggestions for how the BLM can address public concerns and incorporate feedback into the decision-making process. Please extend scoping period to give more interested parties time to get more information and make comments. We have a large number of visitors that come at different times of the year, it will take awhile to get the word out to people interested in the outcome.Scoping is not about getting answers, it’s about developing the questions that should be answered in the EIS.

What Do You Need to Do? Attend the Public Scoping Meeting and advise them of the questions and concerns you have. next Tuesday, March 21 from 5:00 to 7:00 at the St George Library, Forsyth Community Room B, 88 W 100 S, St George, UT 84770. Drive your 4x4s, machines, and street legal dirt bikes to show support.

We will inform the media of the event and urge them to cover it, so we urge you to drive your 4x4s and street legal machines to the meeting to show the level of concern about this.

Be respectful and professional. We have a great relationship with BLM in the St George Field Office, and it is very important that you are vocal, but respectful during the meeting. Remember, the media may be there to cover it. It is very likely that the crowd may exceed the capacity of the room, so please be patient. Representatives from BLM will meet with small groups of people at a time. They will also provide Comments Forms to you and help you learn how to submit them. UPLA and DRATS will provide more instructions at the meeting via a handout.

Submit your written comments, these are extremely important, way more important than just showing up at the meeting.

To submit comments, you can do it electronically via either of 2 methods:

1. Via email to the BLM at blm_ut_sgfo_comments@blm.gov, with a copy to StopSandMtnSale@gmail.com OR
2. Visit Blueribbon Coalition’s Action Alert You can also mail your comments to:

Attn: Red Cliffs/Warner Valley Land Exchange
Bureau of Land Management
Stephanie Trujillo, Realty Specialist
345 East Riverside Drive
St George, UT 84790

Come to the Scoping Meeting on March 21 and Send in your Comments before April 13.

Together, We Can Win,
But We Can’t Do It Without You