The tragic loss of 317 miles of roads and 120 dispersed campsites in Moab should serve as a call to action for all of us, and if we don’t rally to make a difference, it is likely the losses that lie ahead may be even worse. We have always been more concerned with losses laid out in Alternative C, but Moab’s Decision was much closer to Alternative B. Future decisions will definitely address the recreation aspects of the routes, but becoming more important are the resource impacts of each trail. We need to shift our focus to comment on the routes you love by taking note of the Resource Impacts that BLM has determined for each route. I’ll provide a link where you can find the BLM Route Reports with this information below.

Once again this will be going out again and riding the trails and documenting your findings with substantive comments.  We are working on a consolidated reporting tool to help draft your comments,  but more on that later.

So What is a Substantive Comment? A substantive comment identifies an issue you have with the document, says why it’s a problem, and offers other factual and unbiased information for BLM (or Forest Service) to consider. Substantive comments must be answered by the BLM, nonsubstantive comments are ignored.

Here are some qualities of what makes a substantive comment:

• References document pages, chapters or sections and uses objective information.
• Uses facts to question the adequacy, accuracy, methodology, or assumptions of the analysis.
• Presents traditional or ecological knowledge.
• Proposes a reasonable new alternative or revision to the alternatives presented.
• Identifies a passage in the document that is unclear or wrong.

Here’s some tips for making a substantive comment:

• Include any knowledge, experience, or evidence as it relates to your observations and comments.
• Provide GPS readings or landmarks, if possible, when referring to specific locations
• Present new information
• Share issues relevant to the environmental analysis.
• Suggest alternatives to the proposed project and the reasons why they should be considered.
• Avoid comments like “I do (or don’t like this”
• Remember that identifical comments are treated as one comment, including form letters. If you use a form letter, paste your personal comments at the very beginning of the form letter to make them stand out. Changed comments in the body of a form letter are likely to be overlooked.

Here is a list of comments that are not deemed substantive and won’t be answered

• Stating that you want your comment recorded as “substantive.”
• Crafting an emotionally compelling story without facts
• Stating only that you agree or disagree with a policy, resource decision, analysis finding, or presented alternative.
• Asking vague or open-ended questions
• Commenting on unrelated projects.

Here’s a couple good examples of substantive comments (fictitious, for example only)

Route SS1024 (Route Report Page 60) is identified for closure in Alternative B.C. This is an important connector route as listed in the Report, and leads to many activities including camping. to enable a loop route, rather than only an in and out trail. In and Out trails are far less desirable for users and the extra traffic resulting on In and Out Roads causing more of the negative impacts identified in the Route Report.

Crosses Washes or within 100 meters of an intermittent stream are listed as Resource impacts, but travel in the desert almost always involves crossing multiple washes and intermittent streams, that is the natural drainage system of the desert. Why are these crossings more impactful than others? Please clarify the potential negative impacts associated with vehicles crossing dry washes or streams.

 There are 8 Special Status Species listed in the report, but we observed none of these on our most recent trip. What mitigations have you considered to minimize these concerns; would seasonal closures minimize the impact on the species? Additionally, what mitigations have you considered for the PFYC Class 5 area of the trail? Can it be rerouted around the area of concern? Attached is a GPX file of the route we took, along with selected photos.

I disagree with closing Route SS1024 because it is the only way I have to access my private land.

Question? So What Should I Do?

1. Select an Area that has routes that are marked on the map as targeted for closure in Alternative B. Write down the route numbers.
2. Go to the BLM Route Report, for the Swell you can find it here. Just use the Search Bar on the webpage to find the Route Report for your trail, generally they will be about 4 pages long. Print it out, and try to understand what their resource concerns are. How do you determine what things mean in the Route Report? Google should be able to give you answers to abbreviations in the report. For example, I googled “What is PFYC Class 5?” and “What are abbreviation T E S T in BLM route reports for negative impacts” and it gave me all the answers.
3. Schedule time to go out and run the trail. Take your route report. Look for areas or conditions mentioned in the Route Report. Take photos along the route, especially noting any possible resource impacts they may have cited and think about alternatives when you’re on the trail.
4. When you get home, write your comments on the route. Be as specific as you can. 2 or 3 paragraphs on a route is an ideal length, include photos and gpx tracks. Videos are not recommended because of the large file size. If Archeological or Paleontology is listed, you won’t get a specific answer as to where that concern is located, but you can ask questions about possible mitigations around the concern such as rerouting the trail, informational signing, barriers to narrow trail to prevent stopping, etc. It is ok to mention how long you’ve been using the trail, with whom, etc, but this should be like the dessert to your meal, maybe delightful to you, but shouldn’t be the main course.
5. Submit Your Comments if the comment period is open. We will give you more details on how to copy us on your comments, please stand by on this until we work out the details. If the comment period is not open, get them ready to submit right after your ride while it’s clear in your mind. Again, stay tuned for more information on this.

Summary When you look at the comments required for one route, it seems like a lot, but when put in the scope of things, it might take you 20-30 minutes to write a good comment. Compare that to the fun you had running the trail, the people you enjoyed the company of on the trail, the overnight camping you did, and being able to enjoy this trail for generations to come and I hope you’ll agree it’s a good investment of your time. Please do your research and get out there and help save our trails!

This interactive map shows the open and closed routes in each of the San Rafael Swell Travel Management Alternatives. To display different results, click on the button in the upper right corner of the map. Thank you to AZ Backroads for this great tool.JTNDaWZyYW1lJTIwc3R5bGUlM0QlMjJ3aWR0aCUzQTEwMCUyNSUzQmhlaWdodCUzQTUwMHB4JTNCYm9yZGVyJTNBbm9uZSUzQiUyMiUyMHNyYyUzRCUyMmh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGbWFwcy5hemJhY2tyb2Fkcy5jb20lMkZtYXBzJTJGc2FuLXJhZmFlbC1zd2VsbCUyRmluZGV4Lmh0bWwlMjMxMSUyRjM4Ljg2NDMlMkYtMTEwLjgzOTAlMjIlM0UlM0MlMkZpZnJhbWUlM0U=

The Preliminary Alternatives for the San Rafael Swell were released today, and both Alternatives B and C have a huge number of routes proposed for closure. I have been in contact with the Price Field Manager and will report when we get further details and develop a plan of action. These Preliminary Alternatives are an extra step in the process before they issue the Draft EA. This gives us extra time to be able to analyze these routes and be ready to comment before the Draft EA is released. You can view the alternatives here by clicking here

The hearing for a stay or temporary injunction of the Moab Labyrinth Canyon/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan was held on February 21before the Honorable Dale A. Kimball in Salt Lake City. The OHV community turned out in force to observe the hearing, which Judge Kimball mentioned that it was good to see so many concerned citizens turn out to fill his courtroom.

This hearing was for the Federal lawsuit filed by BlueRibbon Coalition, Patrick McKay, and Colorado Off Highway Trail Defenders against BLM. The judge allowed SUWA to act as an intervenor in the case. Plaintiffs were represented by Matt Miller and Nate Curisi with Texas Public Policy Group, defendants were represented by Paul Turcke and Steve Bloch. Final prehearing briefs from both attorneys are attached if you’d like to read them.

To qualify for an injunction, four elements must be proven:

• That Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits. Matt Miller presented four counts for violations and the reasons that plaintiff was likely to prevail on all 4 of them. It is only necessary for the Plaintiff to prevail on one of the counts.
• That Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if relief is not granted. Substantial focus, including questions from Judge Kimball, surrounded the impact of BLM’s intent to “obliterate” the trails in their plan. Another focus was that some of the arguments in the 4 counts were constitutional violations, which automatically qualify them as being irreparable.
• That the Plan was arbitrary and capricious in it’s evaluation and implementation. BLM is required to take a “hard look” at the impacts from implementation of the plan, and cannot consider factors not intended by Congress. Many examples of infractions occurred including improper analysis of science and the failure of BLM to respond to significant and relevant comments, including the impact to recreation, including Elderly and Disabled users. Another important example was the inclusion of user conflicts citing noise without any precise definition of what noise levels were acceptable or unacceptable.
• That relief is not adverse to the public interest and that plaintiff’s injuries outweigh any alleged damage to defendants. Since the current TMP has been in effect for 15 years, delaying the effective date of the new plan will not result in any new harms to BLM, while without relief, the many users, including those that are elderly or handicapped, are deprived of the opportunity to enjoy these areas is both substantial and irreparable. One of the largest Off Road Events in the world, Easter Jeep Safari, had 9% of it’s historic trails closed by this Plan. In addition, public interest has been demonstrated by both the volume of public comments, and efforts by Federal and Utah legislators who have introduced legislation to overturn this Plan.

So what does this mean? Judge Kimball closed the hearing after about 2 hours of arguments and will issue his ruling in “short order.” Judge Kimball has a reputation for a strong understanding of land use issues in the 10^th Circuit, and also for issuing rulings quickly, so we hope to see his ruling in a short period of time. It should be noted that this Injunction Hearing is only the first step in this effort, regardless of this ruling, the Federal Lawsuit will still be heard at a later date.

I am not an attorney, but my lay opinion was that Matt Miller did a much more persuasive job than Turcke and Bloch, and Judge Kimball’s questions seemed to bolster Miller’s presentation, while they seemed more critical of BLM’s arguments.

I’ve learned that nobody can predict the outcome of any court hearing, but I’m both optimistic about our potential for success in this first step and proud and grateful of the actions taken by BlueRibbon, Patrick McKay, and Colorado Offroad Trail Defenders for standing up for our rights. Please make sure you let them know that you support them too.

Join and Support Utah Public Lands Alliance

Join and Support BlueRibbon Coalition

UPLA, BlueRibbon Coalition, SLOREX, and At Your Leisure are cosponsoring a Workshop to be more effective in preserving access to our Public Lands. We need you to invest 3 hours to learn how you can make a difference.

Even though motorized OHV has always had a strong relationship with BLM and Forest Service staff, and been quick to volunteer to complete projects on public lands, we have been at a disadvantage in Travel Management Planning because we have not been as effectively engaged as our opponents. If we fail to improve our strategies,  these closures will expand to affect every outdoor recreationist. Equestrians, campers, rock climbers, base jumpers, snowmobilers, hunters, fishermen, boaters, and mountain bikers will all be affected as more public lands are designated as wilderness, areas with wilderness character, or Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) The elimination of roads and dispersed camping areas will limit access to staging and parking areas, making your favorite areas further and further from accessible roads. Even those clamoring for more wilderness experiences will have much longer treks to get to their favorite areas, a weekend trip now will become a week long trip in the future. Cyclists, rock climbers and canyoneers are currently facing rulings that propose elimination of e-bikes and fixed anchors in National Parks. As remote areas are more limited with accessibility, injuries and rescue attempts will increase and be even more expensive, resulting in further restrictions or closure.

In Utah, there are 25 Travel Management Areas on BLM’s calendar for development or reevaluation of current plans. More are in store for Forest Service and National Monuments.

The importance of understanding the NEPA process, and being able to proactively and effectively participate in the process has never been greater, and we must become smarter and more effective at working together to influence the NEPA process.

Utah Public Lands Alliance, BlueRibbon Coalition, Salt Lake Off Road Expo, and At Your Leisure are cosponsoring a workshop on February 29 to help us all understand how we can make a difference. Our workshop presenter will be Tammy Pike, a retired BLM Travel Management Planner, who is a renowned expert in the NEPA process. Her experience spans 30 years, the last 25 focused on trails, off highway vehicles and travel management planning while both conserving our natural resources AND providing the best recreational opportunities for the public to enjoy now and in the future. She has won countless awards from not only BLM, but the Forest Service, Arizona State Land Department, and many OHV and other recreational groups.  She earned a National Customer Service Award from BLM, one of the highest possible commendations.

Tammy will help us develop a strategy to communicate clearly in the NEPA process at all levels to get our views considered in the process. We believe she is the best person to teach us how to restore balance to a system that has been heavily weighted against us. Making comments is a critical step in influencing final outcomes, and she will teach us how to make comments that are both substantive and effective. Questions and answers are an invaluable part of any discussion, because it allows you to ask your questions  and get answers from an expert. We have a full hour at the end of the program allocated just to your questions and answers where she will be joined by panelists Ben Burr and Simone Griffen from BlueRibbon Coalition, as well as Rose Winn, our new UPLA Public Policy Consultant.

For us to change the tide, we must all come together, and we must start acting as Big As We Are. If you really care about making a difference in keeping our lands accessible, make plans to attend this workshop the day prior to SLOREX opening.

What:            NEPA Comments Training Workshop

Where:          Mountain America Expo Center, 9575 State Street, Sandy UT

When:           February 29 1:30 -4:30

Space is limited, RSVP and submit questions and topics you would like included in the presentation.

#default-btn-0ba25f9254324fbab1bc6d4d029ab966.ico-right-side > i { margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 8px; } #default-btn-0ba25f9254324fbab1bc6d4d029ab966 > i { margin-right: 8px; } RSVP To Attend Here

February 20, 2024 Update-I met with Matt Preston, Deputy Utah State Director for BLM to discuss upcoming Travel Management Planning (TMP) for Utah. We went over each of the following 5 areas that I spoke to Dave Jacobson about, and some general considerations in the planning process. Matt indicated that the primary objective for BLM planning is resource management, and that comes from the very top of our government. While recreation will remain an important factor in decisions, increasing weight is being placed on decisions for ways to protect and/or mitigate effects on the environment. Matt has already setup contacts for me with the next 2 Travel Management Area (TMA) project managers, and I will be getting more information from them within the coming days.

He also explained that for the SUWA Settlement TMPs, there is an extra step in the process where they will release Preliminary Alternatives before the Draft EA. This will include a map of the tentative routes for each alternative. This will give us an important tool to begin the process of doing detailed evaluation of all the routes. The Preliminary Alternatives for the San Rafael Swell were released today. You can view the four alternatives by clicking here. We will ask for better maps on our calls in the coming days. There are over 2,000 miles of routes in the Swell, and a lot of lots slated for closure in Alternatives B and C. This will require a lot of concerted effort to begin the process of surveying the trails and preparing comments. This will be the test bed of our process to accomplish this.

The general descriptions for the various alternatives can be described as the following:

• A=No Changes to Current Plan
• B=Conservation focused, largest OHV closures or restrictions
• C=Balanced alternative between OHV and Conservation
• D=OHV Focused Alternative, little closures and perhaps some additions

The Preliminary Alternatives will proceed the release of the Draft EA, so we will have more time to prepare our research.

I asked him about the general direction of BLM in their Alternative decision, and he said that we should expect to see less reliance on BLM selecting an Alternative, but rather a route by route analysis and decision on each route individually. This will require us to take a much wider focus on routes, including an additional focus on B alternative routes. You should stay tuned on some new tools UPLA is working on to assist us in this process.

I met with Dave Jacobson on February 5, the newly appointed Travel Management Plan Manager for Utah. I wanted to get an updated listing of all of the TMPs and RMPs coming down the pike so we can get ahead of them. There are 24 TMPs in Utah, and one more RMP to come in the Grand Staircase. Here’s the map that shows each area.Utah TMP and Field Office Map

Here’s the breakdown of Plans around the corner.

1. Priority List of TMPs coming and expected next date for comments and estimated final date
   1. San Rafael Swell (Price)-Comments should reopen around March 1, with Final by November 2024
   2. Bears Ears (Monticello)-Comments should open February 2024, Final by end of 2024
   3. Henry Mountains & Freemont Gorge (Richfield)-Comments should open around May 2024, with Final by November 2024
   4. Trail Canyon (Kanab)-Comments should open in April 2024 with Final end of 2024
   5. Delores River (Moab)-Very small, it will go fast, expect final January 2025

Start running trails on this Priority List, record the tracks, take photos, and put together your stories about what the trail means to you. We will address each TMP separately as we get information.

One other request that Dave thought would be very helpful is to volunteer to your local BLM office to take them out on a field trip so they can see the land, how we use it, and how we take care of it. It is suggested you contact your local District Field Manager or you can email Dave Jacobson and he will arrange some staff to join you. This will be a great way to get to know your local managers.