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!

What is R.S, 2477? RS 2477 is a federal law that authorized construction of roads across federal public lands that was passed in 1866. It helped settle the West for 110 years. Residents of Utah, visitors, pioneers, and settlers created and used thousands of roads across public lands for farming, ranching, hunting, recreating, mining, and connecting communities. We continue to use many of these routes daily and some occasionally or seasonally.

Although Congress repealed R.S, 2477 in 1976 when they enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Section 701 preserved all R.S. 2477 rights of ways that existed at the time FLPMA was passed and preserved them for public use.

There is no formal administrative or judicial process under FLPMA, but in 2012 the Utah Attorney General filed lawsuits relating to R.S. 2477 rights of wa

y. In 2015, the Utah Federal District Court entered an order that established a process for processing 12,500 right of way claims throughout the state. One of the requirements was that Utah had to submit proof of county maintenance or public use of claimed right of way for a period of at least 10 years prior to October 21, 1976.

It is important to note that R.S. 2477 routes can be across both private and public land, which is especially important to protect access to public land that crosses over privately owned land. This is becoming even more important as development increases throughout Utah.

PLPCO’s Role The Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (PLPCO) is a state agency that provides research and litigation support for R.S. 2477 claims. One of their first tasks was to document each of the 12,500 Utah roads, which is available publicly on their Access Map 360° , which shows not only the route, but also video tours of the routes to show the condition of their existence.

How to get Help If a route is threatened near you, and you want to see if R.S. 2477 may help in keeping it open, follow these steps.

• Check the Access Map 360° to see if the route is catalogued
• If it is catalogued, build a statement giving all relevant facts such as the Road #, who and why is threatening closure, and documentation that the road is still in public use. Send an email with all your documentation to PLPCO, and please also copy UPLA
• PLPCO will contact you about your claim.

PLPCO has Attorney Generals in their office that will assist in working the claim, often working with your local County Attorney General to resolve the matter.

Utah Code 72-5-104 also provides protection for Prescriptive Easements for public roads in use for more than 10 years. Iron County recentlly passed an Ordinance that makes it illegal to close “public” roads, notifying land owners to reopen the road or face administrative action from the County. I recently testified at a Washington County Planning Commission hearing where they adopted an Ordinance that requires owners include any R.S. 2477 roads be disclosed in their applications to ensure they remain open. UPLA will be pursuing the Washington County Commissioners adopt a similar Ordinance as that of Iron County.

Be sure to let UPLA know of R.S. 2477 issues or pending legislation in your area.

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

On March 24, 2022, the Grand Canyon National Park Service (NPS) announced that they were beginning “civic engagement” to seek public comments for a proposed 3 year advance reservation system in a press release. The Press Release caught the attention of the St George News, which featured an article about the proposed plan that same day.

On March 30, Utah Public Lands Alliance published an article about the proposed Reservation System, asking our members and interested parties to learn more about the limits on usage, and to ask them to submit comments to the National Park Service. Our Facebook posts alone reached a new record of 38,803, by far surpassing the interest of our viewers on any other subject. Many of our members and guests submitted comments before the April 6 deadline.

The NPS received 333 comments during the short 13 days public comments were open. They classified the comments into six primary topic areas and published their comment responses here. It should be noted that in the first paragraph of their response document, they were still referring to the reservation system as “proposed.”

Mid July, UPLA learned that the National Park Service had implemented the reservation system without any changes as a result of the comments that were submitted, now requiring advance reservations to visit the Tuweep area, including Toroweep, Vulcan’s Throne, Kanab Plateau, and Tuweep.

Some of the highlights about the new reservation system are:

• Reservations can be made on https://www.recreation.gov/timed-entry/10089462
• Daily Limits are
  • 2 Slots are available for Commercial Tour Operators
  • 18 Slots are available for Private Vehicles
    • 6 are available from 3 to 120 days in advance of your visit date
    • 12 are available up to 2 days in advance
    • You can only reserve for one vehicle
  • 10 Slots are available for Backcountry permits for camping
• Cost to make a reservation is $2 per vehicle.
• The previous limits of only 4 vehicles/11 people remain in place

On further investigation, Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC) learned that the change was done through a Categorical Exclusion (CE) that was drafted on March 9, and signed by Edward T Keable, Park Superintendent, on March 15, 2022, 2 weeks prior to their announcement of accepting public comments. A Categorical Exclusion is a process that bypasses the need for the legal protections afforded by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Staff made the decision in a backroom, then attempted to sell the illusion they were open to comments from the public to influence the policy.

We determined that our best course of action for the time being will be to work with the NPS staff on the details of the 3 year study rather than to pursue a legal challenge at this time. At the conclusion of the study period, NPS has stated that any final changes will go through the NEPA process, when we will be fully engaged in the fight.

We will work with our NPS representative on influencing the study parameters, including asking that No Shows be tracked as a part of their stats (We are concerned that people will make reservations and then not show up, depriving someone else the opportunity to visit.)  In addition, we will work on getting periodic update reports, and perhaps work on  shortening the study from the current 3 years.

The NPS advised us that for the first year, people arriving without a reservation will be educated, but allowed to enter the area and not be cited. If you have any difficulties visiting the area, or if you have trouble getting a reservation, please email us at info@utahpla.com with the details.

Finally, even though we did not get the objective we wished on this plan, the importance of taking action by making public comments about topics that are of concern to you is extremely important. Blue Ribbon Coalition is a very important ally in our fight to retain access to our public lands. In the last year alone,  BRC has influenced 180 planning processes in 17 states, you are instrumental in that process with 7,500 comments from members to Land Managers.

Thank you for your support, let’s work together to Fight for Every Inch!