Dino North Travel Management Plan: A Different Kind of Travel Plan

For years, Utah Public Lands Alliance has argued that Travel Management Plans should not become exercises in simply reducing motorized access. If routes exist on the ground, serve a public purpose, and can be managed responsibly, they deserve an honest evaluation—not automatic closure.

The Draft Dinosaur North Travel Management Plan is different.

Unlike many recent travel plans that focused primarily on reducing access, the Dinosaur North proposal evaluates an existing transportation network that is far larger than the routes designated in the 2008 Vernal Resource Management Plan.

Our analysis of the Draft Environmental Assessment shows that the current inventoried route network contains approximately 700 miles of existing routes, yet only 279 miles were formally designated in the 2008 Travel Management Plan. That means roughly 421 miles—about 60 percent of today’s inventoried network—were never officially designated for motorized use in 2008. The Draft EA explains that those undesignated routes are treated as closed under Alternative A because they were never formally evaluated or designated. That makes Dinosaur North fundamentally different from most recent Travel Management Plans.

More Than a Closure Analysis

In recent years, much of UPLA’s work has focused on defending existing access against unnecessary closures. That work remains critically important.

Alternative B would still close many existing routes that riders, hunters, campers, photographers, rockhounds, and other public land users value. If you use those routes, your comments remain essential.

However, Dinosaur North also presents something we have long encouraged the Bureau of Land Management to do. It is one of the first major examples where the BLM is proposing to formally designate existing inventoried routes that were not included in the 2008 travel network, almost 400 miles. Rather than simply deciding which routes to eliminate, the agency has evaluated hundreds of miles of existing routes that have long existed on the landscape but were never officially designated. Alternatives C and D would incorporate many of those routes into the official designated transportation system.

That represents the kind of comprehensive route evaluation UPLA has advocated for years.

Your Comments Can Make a Difference

Most people naturally focus on routes proposed for closure. You absolutely should.

If Alternative B proposes closing a trail that provides meaningful recreation, access to hunting areas, campsites, overlooks, historic sites, or connects other important routes, tell the BLM exactly why that route should remain open.

But don’t stop there.

The 400 miles of newly proposed designations deserve your support as well. If a route appears on UPLA’s Newly Designated Routes worksheet and you believe it should become part of the permanent designated transportation system, tell the BLM why that designation is important.

Use TrailSaver.com to format your comments to describe how you use the route, what destinations it provides access to, why it contributes to a connected and sustainable trail system or why formally designating the route improves responsible public access.

Positive comments supporting appropriate route designations are just as valuable as comments opposing unnecessary closures.

Make Your Comments Substantive

Simply saying “keep this trail open” or “I oppose closures” carries very little weight during the NEPA process.

To influence the decision, your comments should be substantive. That’s exactly why UPLA developed TrailSaver.com.

TrailSaver walks you through a series of simple questions about the specific route you use. Based on your answers, it generates a detailed, route-specific comment that addresses the kinds of information land managers are required to consider during the decision-making process. The better your answers and more details you provide, the stronger your comment becomes.

Whether you’re commenting on a route proposed for closure or supporting one of the newly designated routes, TrailSaver helps you create comments that are far more likely to be considered substantive rather than general expressions of support or opposition.

A Better Conversation About Public Lands

Travel management should never be viewed as a choice between opening everything and closing everything.

Good travel planning identifies the routes that provide meaningful public access, protects sensitive resources where necessary, and creates a transportation system that is both sustainable and usable for future generations.

The Dinosaur North Draft TMP provides an opportunity to accomplish exactly that.

Where the BLM proposes unnecessary closures, UPLA will continue advocating to keep valuable routes open.

Where the BLM proposes to formally designate long-existing inventoried routes that were never included in the 2008 travel network, we believe those proposals deserve careful public support when they improve responsible public access.

Both deserve your attention.

UPLA’s Expanded TMP Analysis

To help the public better understand this planning effort, UPLA has expanded its TMP Analysis System to identify not only proposed closures, but also Newly Designated Routes—existing routes that were not designated in the 2008 Travel Management Plan but would become officially designated under Alternatives B, C, or D.

We encourage everyone reviewing the Dinosaur North Draft TMP to look beyond the closure statistics. Study the routes proposed for closure. Study the routes proposed for new designation.

Then use TrailSaver.com to prepare detailed, substantive comments supporting the routes that matter to you.

We are finally beginning to win this battle, but we need your support and engagement to bring it over the finish line.

Thank you for all your Support!

Loren Campbell
President

Utah Public Lands Alliance (UPLA) is proud to celebrate a major victory for public land access and the future of multiple-use management across America. With the Bureau of Land Management’s final rescission of the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule — commonly referred to as the “Public Lands Rule” — the voices of public land users, local communities, and responsible recreation advocates were finally heard.

For more than a year, UPLA worked tirelessly to oppose the rule and educate the public about its far-reaching consequences. From the beginning, UPLA warned that the rule threatened to fundamentally alter the multiple-use mandate established by Congress under FLPMA by elevating “conservation” as a dominant use capable of restricting recreation, access, grazing, energy development, and other lawful public uses of BLM lands.

UPLA’s leadership, volunteers, and members engaged in one of the most extensive advocacy efforts in our organization’s history. We submitted detailed and substantive comments during both the original rulemaking process and the rescission process, outlining legal, procedural, economic, and public-access concerns. Our comments addressed issues including:

• Violations of Congressional intent and the multiple-use mandate
• Improper expansion of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)
• The dangerous precedent of conservation leasing and privatized control of public lands
• Regulatory overreach exceeding BLM’s statutory authority
• Economic impacts to rural communities and recreation economies
• Discrimination against disabled users and those dependent on motorized access
• The threat posed to public access, tourism, stewardship, and volunteerism

UPLA’s comments were not merely submitted — they mattered.

In the BLM’s final rescission rule, many of the very concerns raised by UPLA were specifically acknowledged and ultimately agreed with by the agency. The final rescission repeatedly recognized that the rule:

• Created unnecessary regulatory burdens
• Elevated conservation in a manner inconsistent with FLPMA
• Introduced excessive procedural complexity and litigation risk
• Threatened productive uses and access to public lands
• Expanded ACEC processes beyond Congressional intent
• Created uncertainty through restoration and mitigation leasing
• Imposed unnecessary restrictions and administrative burdens on land users

These concerns closely mirrored the arguments UPLA raised throughout our comment submissions and public outreach efforts.

UPLA also worked aggressively beyond the formal comment process. Our organization directly engaged with President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, urging the administration to fully rescind the rule and restore balance to public land management. We emphasized that America’s public lands belong to the people — not special interests — and that access, recreation, stewardship, and responsible use must remain central components of federal land management policy.

This victory did not happen by accident.

It happened because thousands of public land users spoke up. It happened because organizations like UPLA refused to stay silent. It happened because substantive comments, legal analysis, public pressure, and grassroots advocacy made a difference.

UPLA thanks every member, supporter, volunteer, donor, club, business partner, and public lands advocate who participated in this fight. Whether you submitted comments, attended meetings, shared information online, donated to the cause, or helped educate others, your efforts mattered. I am especially proud for the extensive legal research and supporting documentation in preparing of our comments by our Natural Resource Consultant, Rose Winn.

This rescission is proof that citizen involvement works.

But the fight for public land access is far from over.

UPLA will continue working to ensure that public lands remain open, accessible, and managed under the true principles of multiple use and sustained yield for future generations. We remain committed to defending responsible recreation, protecting access, promoting stewardship, and ensuring that America’s public lands stay in the hands of the American people.

We Fight. We Win. We Ride.

Loren Campbell

NEPA rules that were proposed last summer have now been finalized, and they are very disturbing. The new rules dramatically reduce the requirement for Agencies to allow comments from the public, both in reductions in the stages or actions, the open period for comments (as little as 10 days), and revision of the Review Conferences to be conducted by the same person that signed the Decision rather than an independent person. These are only a few of our concerns, and we forwarded these comments to both Forest Service and elected officials.

There’s nothing you need to do at this time, but just want you to be aware of this and our pursuits.

Significant progress has been made toward preserving access to BLM and SITLA lands in the Virgin area. We have held two productive meetings with the Town of Virgin, the Washington County Attorney, and the PLPCO Assistant Attorney General for Washington County to explore viable paths forward.

As a reminder, there are two separate access rights-of-way in this area: the historic RS 2477 route and a prescriptive easement crossing Lot 10 of the Zion’s Edge subdivision. While there are valid legal claims supporting both routes, all parties generally agree that maintaining reliable access through at least one of these corridors would be sufficient.

Having multiple options improves the likelihood of preserving access, but it also adds complexity, as each potential solution affects different property owners in different ways. To allow time to work toward a voluntary and mutually acceptable resolution, we have agreed with the Town of Virgin to temporarily delay our appeal hearing.

In the meantime, all “No Trespassing” signs have been removed, and access—both motorized and non-motorized—is currently open and allowed.

UPLA submitted comments on BLM’s plan to close all the free dispersed camping near the SR9, and supplement camping by building developed camping and improving some designated camping on the South Side of the Virgin River. Another part of their plan is to close some areas near Gooseberry Mesa for restoration, and build a developed campground there.

UPLA looked at the plan, and is concerned about efforts that will end Free, dispersed camping in both area. You can read our comments here

Public comments close on December 24, so if this concerns you, please go to the BLM EPlanning website for details and to submit your comments.

UPLA submitted very detailed comments supporting the rescission of the BLM Land Conservation and Health Rule which are published below. UPLA has been working for the past 2 years to prevent this rule from being implemented, and fortunately, the current Administration and BLM have addressed our concerns by proposing rescission of the rule.

Once again, extreme conservation groups have been pretty successful at painting a false narrative that this rule is largely inconsequential, but the truth is that it could be a death blow to restricting all motorized travel on BLM land. Please don’t make your decisions based on the flood of social media content, our opposition can outspend us, but don’t let them outsmart us. It’s worth your time to read to understand the real consequences of this rule.

Protecting your access for motorized recreation is what we do. please consider joining or making a donation today at www.UtahPLA.com/help