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

SUWA is the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, a 501c3 charitable organization with offices in Salt Lake City, Moab, and Washington DC. Their stated “Mission of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance is the preservation of the outstanding wilderness at the heart of the Colorado Plateau, and the management of these lands in their natural state for the benefit of all Americans.”

To fulfill their mission to have more lands designated as Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, or Areas with Wilderness Character SUWA has used their army of attorneys to bring countless lawsuits against the BLM and other land managers. The threat of litigation has often pushed land managers into submission when evaluating new plans in favor of SUWA’s extreme environmental policy. Their single focused dedication to wilderness is serving only a narrow segment of Americans, while depriving the vast majority of Americans from enjoying our public lands.

SUWA has significant financial resources to gain ground through the courts, but they may have a big chink in their armor when it comes to Finances.. Their latest 990 Tax Return showed they had $25M in assets at the beginning of 2022, but only $22M at the end. In addition, they have unrealized losses of $3.2M in investments, that’s a decline of almost $6M in 2022 alone, a 25% decline. Compounding the issue with their balance sheet, their total revenue decreased in 2022 by almost 50%, yet expenses increased. The result was a net loss of $46,713 in 2022, compared to a profit of $4,743,299 the 2021.

SUWA brags about their Stewardship program that engaged 145 volunteers spending 2,437 volunteer hours during 2022. Sounds impressive until you consider the work hours and money that OHV groups expend improving and maintaining public lands. UPLA’s Sand Mountain Service project last year had 175 people over 2 days working almost 1,400 hours on just that one project. In Washington County alone, UPLA, Desert Roads and Trails Society, Tri State ATV Club, and St George Jeepers spent many more work days last year working on various projects including installing a second composting toilet and building a 5 acre staging area. Countless groups through Utah invested similar volunteer and financial resources on projects not only for OHV, but many other user groups as well.

We are good at doing the work, but we have not been great at getting the credit for it.

I’d like to share a story by Scott Groene, SUWA Executive Director, that is quite revealing about some of SUWA’s exaggerated claims about the pending doom caused by motorized traffic.

“Last summer, a massive flash flood blew through Mill Creek Canyon in southeast Utah, a place I often visit. Bursts of torrential rain filled the canyon with a temporary and raging river that hauled decades-old debris downstream, rearranging the canyon floor. Wandering the canyon afterwards, I was awed by how the flood uprooted or snapped mature trees, created new slickrock bowls where thickets of willow and tamarisk had stood, and washed out heavy brush to leave a parklike stand of tall cottonwoods rising over a floor of smooth bare sand. But I know that next spring, the undergrowth will return. The soils and plants will reestablish themselves where there is now only exposed and water-sculpted stone. The canyon will return to its former state”

I find it humorous that the epic devastation described will be restored in just a few months, yet they consistently complain that impacts caused by motorized vehicles will take many years,  or never recover.

In a 2017 settlement of one of SUWA’s lawsuits against BLM, BLM agreed to revise or complete 13 new Travel Management Plans by 2025. The settlement requires BLM to expressly consider impacts to lands with wilderness character, sensitive natural resources, and cultural resources. The recent Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges plan was disastrous to OHV and dispersed camping with 317 miles (30%) of roads and in excess of 120 dispersed campsites closed. Additional Utah Travel Plans to come include Book Cliffs, Dinosaur North, Dolores Triangle, Henry Mountains, Nine Mile, Pausaugunt, San Rafael Swell, and Trail Canyon.

While it is commonly known that SUWA declared war against OHV users 40 years ago, they have carefully hidden the story of the impact this will have on other users such as equestrians, rock climbers, canyoneers, hikers, campers, paragliding, base jumpers, rock hounders, photographers, hunters, fishermen, and river users, which will be outlined later.

To really understand SUWA’s actions, it is important to understand some concepts

Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas can only be designated by an Act of Congress. An area with wilderness character can be designated by BLM, Forest Service, or National Monuments with the stroke of a pen by a mid level manager. Wilderness areas must be at least 5,000 acres in size, and have “naturalness” (where the imprints of human intrusion are “substantially unnoticeable”).

The area must be entirely roadless, no OHV, but also no highways through the area. The proposed Alternative D of the Grand Staircase National Monument would add 559,000 acres as Wilderness, and encompasses an area the size of the State of Delaware, yet allows on 5 roads to traverse the entire area.

The Red Rock Wilderness Act was originally introduced into Congress in 1989, and has been reintroduced every year since without passage. It will add 8 million acres of Wilderness to the 1.8 million currently existing in Utah, an increase of more than 500%

Permitted Uses are non-motorized recreation including horseback riding, non-commercial herb gathering, hiking, camping, fishing, and hunting. Note that bicycles of all types are not allowed. What is not spoken of is that many of these allowed activities  will be impacted because of the new difficulty getting near the area to recreate. A fisherman’s favorite fishing hole may be far less attractive if they have to hike 8 miles to get there. Equestrians will be faced with a much longer ride to get to their favorite areas because of the lack of roads and staging areas. These factors will also likely affect rock climbers, canyoneers, snowmobilers, hikers, campers, paragliding, base jumpers, rock hounders, photographers, hunters, and fishermen.

Prohibited uses include use of motorized vehicles in wilderness including trucks, cars, bulldozers, snowmobiles, off-road vehicles, helicopters, and other motorized equipment such as chain saws cannot be used within wilderness areas. Grazing is allowed only if the permit existed continuously prior to the designation of the area as a wilderness. Additional restrictions apply in other areas, in the Grand Staircase, grazing is currently not allowed on 125,000 acres, under Alternative D, it will not be allowed on 1,092,000 acres, a 50% reduction.

SUWA’s strategy seems to be well thought out, and it’s been effective at restricting access to public lands for many users, and as they work to expand the interpretation of FLPMA in new ways, they will continue to be one of our strongest foes. First, they eliminate roads of all types in an area, that is why there is a focus on eliminating duplicate roads to get an area to exceed that 5,000 acre target where it can be considered for wilderness designation. Next, they need to close campsites that are permanent in nature, this includes bear boxes and fire rings, and of course any campsite accessed by any type of road. Eliminating grazing, mining, and extraction of fossil fuels is next. After these are accomplished, they will have the area designated as having wilderness character, which requires BLM to manage it to prevent any disruption in that character.

The proposed BLM Landscape Health and Conservation Rule, which SUWA was a strong supporter of, will be the magic bullet to make these steps much easier to accomplish without Congressional action, including all of the following:

• The ability to sell Conservation Land Leases to almost anyone to manage land with the rules they establish, and for as long as it takes to achieve the stated goal of returning it to it’s natural intact landscape. They can also be used to “mitigate” other actions, very similar to the carbon offset rules currently used by major polluters to offset their actions. State and local governments are not eligible to purchase the leases, but foreign governments, corporations, and even a new publicly traded security known as a Natural Asset Corporation is being considered by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
• Direct that BLM must designate new ACECs-Area of Critical Environmental Concern. We already have 70 ACEC’s in Utah, but BLM is required under the rule to designate more, regardless of whether it is necessary. The Rule is intended to be perpetual, meaning that even after doubling that to 140 by 2030 or even 1000, they would still be required to designate more.
• Adding annual reporting requirements to BLM State Directors about their progress in establishing more ACECs is overly burdensome, and will become a great tool to terminate management that is not compliant with establishing more ACECs.
• Establishment of new terms such as the priority to preserve or restore “intact landscapes” without any clear definition of what that means.
• The requirement that decisions be based on “high quality science” will eliminate comments made without expensive science studies may be considered not substantive, which means they don’t have to address them under NEPA.
• Grazing will be seriously curtailed in many more areas, leading to concerns with our food supply and thus potential national security issues.
• Allows BLM to levee fees or taxes without Congressional approval, and under the terms of a lease, those NACs and foreign countries can set their own fees for use of the land.
• The Rule will have a disparate impact on those individuals impacted by the Americans with Disabilities act in emphasizing the priority of wilderness, even though only 3% of visitors are to wilderness areas.

Summary: Ben Burr, Executive Director of BlueRibbon Coalition, has said repeatedly, “we need to start acting as big as we are.”  UPLA’s mission is to protect access for all responsible users, not just a privileged few. All the various users using our public lands may have slightly different beliefs, but we should all join together in fighting for access for everyone and stop the divide and conquer philosophy that detracts from our collective power.

Here are some critical steps you can take to make a difference:

• Take the time to understand land actions and make substantive comments on them. Under FLPMA, if a comment is not made during the open comments period, you do not have standing to bring an action in court. Comments by all users are one of the most important steps you can take as an individual in preserving our joint access. UPLA is organizing a Comments Training Workshop in Salt Lake City the day before SLOREX opens (February 29). Watch for more details and sign up to attend.
• Join groups such as UPLA that fight for access for all users, and when able donate to them to fight for you.
• Share news to others about actions of concern, and plead for your friends to take action. If you see a post or article of interest, share it with your friends.
• Organize or participate with local groups to enhance and protect resources on public lands. Consider stepping out of your particular recreation field and work on other projects of importance to others. Cleanups or repairs are generally welcomed and supported by Land Managers, contact them for approval and assistance. The Utah Department of Natural Resources has a fantastic Grants program that can provide both money and volunteer resources to complete projects in your area.
• Take the Credit! When scheduling a project, be sure to notify your local media about the event with a Press Release. After the event is over, send them photos and a report about how many participated, what was accomplished, and if you know what your next project will be. Email that information to UPLA so we can use it when we need it.
• Don’t Give Up! SUWA is clearly one of our most potent enemies and they are emboldened by our current political climate, we must start to ACT AS BIG AS WE ARE.

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

Loren Campbell

Sources and References:

SUWA 2022 Annual Report

SUWA 2022 Tax Return

BLM Landscape Health and Conservation Rule-UPLA Comments

BLM Landscape Health and Conservation Rule-UPLA link to Rule and Concerns

Today, a coalition of off-road groups took their challenge to the federal government’s arbitrary and illegal closure of over 300 miles of trails near Moab, UT, to federal district court for the District of Utah. The federal court filing follows a ruling by the Interior Board of Land Appeals to deny a stay of the closures earlier this month. Now it will be up to a Utah federal judge to decide whether the trails will remain closed while the litigation is pending, or whether they will be open and available to the hundreds of thousands of Jeepers, mountain bikers, dirt bike riders, and others who have enjoyed them for decades.

The coalition, which consists of the BlueRibbon Coalition, Colorado Off-Road Trail Defenders, and an individual named Patrick McKay, is asking the federal court to issue a preliminary injunction that will allow the trails to remain open while the litigation is ongoing.

“The government has already announced that they would begin re-vegetating, bulldozing, and otherwise erasing these trails the moment they were closed,” said Matt Miller, a Senior Attorney at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and lead attorney on the case. “That is why an immediate injunction is necessary. If these closures are not immediately reversed, there could be no trails left after this litigation concludes, even after the plaintiffs win.”

“The federal government’s closing of these world-class routes ignores the evidence on the ground, the needs of the community, and the rich history of off-road recreation in the area,” added TPPF Attorney Nate Curtisi. “Worse yet, this government overreach was done in violation of a myriad of constitutional and statutory protections that were made specifically to avoid these kind of arbitrary and capricious actions.”

“After reviewing the legal deficiencies with this decision, we committed to our members that we would do everything we can to keep these popular trails open,” said Ben Burr, BlueRibbon Coalition Executive Director. “Now that they are closed and the Bureau of Land Management will get to work erasing these trails from the landscape, the irreparable harm to our members will be difficult to quantify. It’s impossible to place a value on generations worth of traditions, experiences, and meaningful connections to these spectacular lands. The BLM didn’t just close 317 miles of trails, they closed 317 miles of some of the best trails, and we are prepared to do what it takes to keep them open.”

Please show your support to the sponsors of these actions!

Following are copies of both the Lawsuit Complaint and the Injunctive Relief Request

Federal Lawsuit ComplaintMoab-District-Court-Original-Complaint

Moab-Motion-for-injunction

By Loren Campbell, President Utah Public Lands Alliance            November 2, 2023

We have been in a fight for access rights for all in Moab for a very long time, and that battle has heated up a lot in the last year as the result of a 2017 Settlement Agreement between the Department of the Interior and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance to settle a lawsuit from 2008.

In September, BLM announced their decision to close access to 317 miles of some of the most popular roads and trails in the world in Labyrinth Canyon Gemini Bridges, just north of Moab, 28% of the road network. Also affected by the decision is the closing of almost 120 dispersed camping sites located along the closed roads.

On Monday October 30, an appeal was filed by BlueRibbon Coalition, CO Offroad Trail Defenders. And Patrick McKay. Matt Miller is the senior and lead attorney at the Center for the American Future at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, who filed the appeal with almost 1800 pages of exhibits, hand delivered in boxes to the BLM Moab Field Office.  Mr. Miller said “Every American shares in the ownership of public lands, which exist for the responsible enjoyment of anyone who wants to recreate on them. BLM is trying to move use of these lands from the rights-based system that has endured for decades to a permission based system that allows bureaucrats to close these lands to serve their policy preferences.” To read the full Notice of Appeal, click here.

The State of Utah, the United Four Wheel Drive Association, and a few others also filed appeals.

The Interior Board of Land Appeals has 45 days to respond to the appeal and request for stay, during which time the closures will not go into effect, thus trails will remain OPEN!

Utah Public Lands Alliance has pledged to match the first $50,000 in donations dollar for dollar for BlueRibbon Coalition’s Legal Defense Fund when the donation is made through this link. UPLA is also looking for companies or individuals that will extend the match beyond the first $50,000. In addition, every donor will also be able to claim BRC’s Highly Acclaimed Lost Trails Guidebook Volume 2. Your financial support is essential to winning this fight, please give whatever you can. If your organization would like to learn more about increasing the match, please contact me.

Watch an excellent and comprehensive video by Marcus from CORE that explains where we are and how we get here, including a candid assessment of the BLM decision, the political bias involved at both the local and Federal level, and most importantly why we need to support BlueRibbon Coalition financially. This is a turning point in our fight against the ever increasing federal overreach of their statutory authority, and if we don’t fight to win now, every decision going forward should be expected to have the same consequences.

Visit BlueRibbon Coalition for a map of the most popular trails closed by the Plan and more information. We also encourage you to become a Member of BRC

Access the ArcGIS Map done by Patrick McKay from Colorado Trail Defenders by Clicking here

Learn what your support does

The BLM is considering a rule that could devastate our access to public lands. Watch this short video from Ben Burr at BlueRibbon Coalition to learn why you should be concerned.

The BLM is accepting public comment until June 20, 2023 on a proposal to adopt the BLM Conservation and Landscape Healtlh Rule BLM-2023-0001-0001 (Click to see the entire Highlighted Rule) which could lead to massive restrictions for public land access across all lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Following is an article that explains the basis for our concern, and will be used by UPLA as a starting point for comments to be submitted.

I enjoy accessing and recreating on public lands. I believe BLM managed lands are crucial to the health and well being of our country. Access for many different user groups is crucial. I am writing to provide feedback on the proposed conservation and landscape health proposed BLM rule. I do not support the rule as it stands and believe it will be detrimental to public land across the United States. I think FLPMA, as it stands does a sufficient job in directing management of our public lands and should not be altered with the proposed changes.

Conservation is already rooted heavily in land management, and does not need to have additional complex levels of rules that would benefit wealthy organizations rather than the US Citizen. The rule establishing that “conservation” be defined to include both protection and restoration is especially troubling.

There should not be a stated objective of BLM to prioritize designating new ACEC’s, which are often used to restrict public access. There are already substantial methods in place such as congressionally designated Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas which restrict land management uses, and there should not be more prioritization for designations of land that could harm use such as ACEC’s.

The broad use of the terms “intact, native habitats” and “degraded landscapes” are troubling, vague, and unclear. Theoretically, if a person ever walked on land and left a footprint, that land could be defined as a “degraded landscape” or one that is no longer intact or native. These terms are used in key recitals in the document, without any definition of what they actually mean. Page 10 states “The proposed rule would define the term “intact landscape” to guide the BLM with implementing direction. The proposed rule (§6102.1) would require the BLM to identify intact landscapes on public lands, manage certain landscapes to protect their intactness, and pursue strategies to protect and connect intact landscapes.” Although the rule states that BLM would define the term, there is no definition present. The same is true with the terms “landscape” and “intact landscapes” on Page 11. There are many other instances of terms that are not clearly defined in the document, which means the definitions and intent of the rules will have to defined by the courts and the teams with the best lawyers.  

The proposed conservation leases make it possible for entities to essentially buy off our public lands for their own selfish purposes. The BLM should not be selling the land through these leases to the highest bidder restricting all other forms of use on public lands that benefit our nation in various ways. Only the best funded entities will have a chance to qualify and buy these leases, again removing the majority of users from participating.

We are extremely concerned that conservation extremist groups, such as Sierra Club and SUWA, would have the financial resources to bid on these leases to “restore” the land back to it’s natural condition, and to develop their own plan to “mitigate” the conservation activities by restricting access. Although the term of the leases is limited to 10 years, there are extensions allowed until the outcome is achieved. Based on prior experience, this would include removing roads and dispersed camping, which is the path to having the area declared as a Wilderness area resulting in even broader access issues.

It is also likely that this rule will be utilized as a tool for socioeconomic class discrimination. It is already common for conservation easements to be used by wealthy landowners in gateway Western communities to prevent development and turn these communities into enclaves for billionaires. The subject of this as a tool for wealthy or prospective landowners has even reached media in the Yellowstone Series. Conservation leases are used as a tool to keep the middle classes and working classes away from what eventually become private nature preserves for the wealthy. To spread this toxic outcome across the hundreds of millions of acres of BLM land is completely misguided.

The adoption of Conservation Leases should be stricken completely from the proposed rule.

Conservation is already used to restrict, regulate and deny access to public lands. By codifying conservation as a use, environmental groups will be given even more power to lock out the public from public lands. Lands are already sufficiently being conserved by various laws and Executive Orders such as NEPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Waters Act, Antiquities Act, Endangered Species and many many more. I do not believe the proposed rule is warranted or necessary. In order to gain better compliance, less complexity is needed in rulemaking, not more.

The rules requiring decisions be evaluated based on complex “high-quality science” removes the ability for all but the most well funded organizations to submit their “evidence.” Science is a study, and is generally composed of all different views of a subject. By codifying this as a requirement, it eliminates lesser funded organizations and citizens from making substantive comments that may represent a less restrictive approach to conservation. It has long been stated that if the consequences are high enough, you can always find an expert to testify on your behalf. This rule is simply not needed and will again remove the ability for users to participate in substantive comments.

Economic effects must be considered and analyzed. BLM needs to more fully analyze the effects that would result from the proposed rule. Recreation is a huge economic driver across BLM managed lands as well as other uses such as grazing and mining. These changes could greatly affect access in general for all users on public lands and that analysis and data needs to be available to the public to submit thoughtful comments. The BLM also needs to fully understand the depth of the effects from the proposed rule.

Every time motorized routes are closed, people with disabilities that require the use of motorized means to access public lands are barred from those areas forever. In the past, there has been little resource available to people with disabilities because the American with Disabilities Act does not require public land management agencies to consider disproportionate effects on the disabled community, requiring only that there is equality of opportunity. This has resulted in the BLM’s historical failure to give any real impact to the effects on the disabled community.

On his first day in office, President Biden issued an “Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” This changed the equation, now requiring focus on equality of outcome rather than the prior equality of opportunity. Allowing closures of public lands through any of the methods outlined in the Rule will further the longstanding discrimination towards American with disabilities within federal land management agencies. The entire rule should be eliminated from consideration entirely because it will adversely impact disabled users in their outcome of enjoying public lands.

It is also likely that this rule will be utilized as a tool for socioeconomic class discrimination. It is already common for conservation easements to be used by wealthy landowners in gateway Western communities to prevent development and turn these communities into enclaves for billionaires. The subject of this as a tool for wealthy or prospective landowners has even reached media in the hit television series “Yellowstone”. Conservation leases can be used as a tool to keep the middle classes and working classes away from what eventually become private nature preserves for the wealthy. To spread this toxic outcome across the hundreds of millions of acres of BLM land is completely misguided.

The Federal Government already has enough protections available to protect our available resources, reject this Rule in it’s entirety. 

Please submit your comments to prevent this rule from taking place with these sweeping changes. We encourage you to submit your detailed comments in either of 2 ways.

1. Use the BlueRibbon Coalition’s Action Alert. Please edit to include your personal concerns in your comments.
2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Click on this link to take you directly to the Comments page for this action. If this link does not work, go to https://www.regulations.gov. In the Searchbox, enter “1004-AE-92” and click
   the “Search” button. Follow the instructions at this website.

Thanks in advance for your support in taking action against this proposal.

Remember,

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

Loren Campbell
President

Learn How You Can Help Us Achieve our Mission at http://www.UtahPLA.com/help