BLM Open Call for Nominations to BLM Advisory Boards

The BLM is asking for people interested in serving in various citizens advisory committees for the BLM. These are important opportunities to give early opinions about land use policies. Joan Kroc has been serving for almost 4 years and her term will be up in 2025, so we need volunteers to speak up for these positions.

NatCallforNominationsOct2023




Donate Today to Stop the Losses


It is with a heavy heart that we bring you the distressing news from Moab today—a destination cherished by many for its rugged trails and breathtaking landscapes. A staggering 317 miles of roads, including iconic trails like Hey Joe Canyon, Ten Mile Wash, and Hell Roaring Canyon, are facing closure by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM-FOREVER). This alarming trend is not isolated to Moab; it’s spreading across various regions, threatening the very essence of not only off-highway vehicle (OHV) activities, but everyone that uses motorized vehicles to get to the areas they enjoy recreating, including equestrians, rock climbers, backpackers, and virtually everyone that wants to get into the backcountry by vehicles before setting off on to enjoy their next adventure.

The recent decisions related to the BLM Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase National Monuments expansion, Middle Gila in Arizona, Rock Springs Resource Management Plan in Wyoming, Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest in Idaho, and Table Mesa in Arizona have further fueled concerns. These decisions are adversely affecting not only the off-road community but also devastating snowmobiling and other OHV activities in places like the Manti LaSal National Forest.

In times like these, being merely mad is not enough. We must unite and fight back to stem the tide of these continuous losses. Understanding the urgency of the situation, the Utah Public Lands Alliance (UPLA) has taken a stand and selected the BlueRibbon Coalition to lead this crucial fight. BlueRibbon has been fighting for our access for over 30 years, and we now want to supercharge their ability to lead this fight.

Now, we’re reaching out to you, the backbone of the off-road community, not just for comments or letters, but for your financial support. We need funds to mount a legal battle against these closures, and we’re asking your organization to stand with us in this critical moment.

UPLA is spearheading a fundraising campaign to benefit BlueRibbon Coalition defense efforts. We are so committed to this effort to save our future, UPLA is matching the first $50,000 in donations dollar for dollar, meaning your donation’s value will be doubled. In addition, we are seeking other clubs, businesses, and organizations to join this effort to extend the match beyond the first $50,000

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

Your support is not just a donation; it’s an investment in the future of off-road adventures.

to save the trails we love, protect our rights to explore, and ensure that future generations can experience the thrill of off-road adventures.

Thank You!

Loren Campbell

president@utahpla.com




NHTSA Proposed Rule on Automated Emergency Braking Systems

We have another threat to OHV recreation, this time by the National Highway Transportation Safety Board in proposed rules that would affect many aspects of vehicles we use off highway. Learn more from this SEMA link on why you should oppose this rule. https://www.sema.org/…/sema-requests-feedback-impact…

AND THEN

 

Click Here to Submit your own Comments Opposing This Rule by August 14

UPLA submitted the following comments in opposition of this additional rule which will threaten OHV vehicles. Please click on the link above to learn more and

As an OHV enthusiast, I have serious concerns and reservations about NHTSA’s proposed rule regarding automated emergency braking systems (AEBS) for off-highway vehicles (OHVs). While safety is undoubtedly crucial, I believe this proposed rule could have several negative implications for the OHV community:

-Overreliance on technology: Implementing AEBS in OHVs might lead to riders becoming overly dependent on this technology. Off-roading requires skill, situational awareness, and quick decision-making, and relying too heavily on automated systems could erode these essential skills, potentially leading to complacency and increased accidents.
-Off-road terrain complexity: AEBS systems are primarily designed for use on paved roads, where conditions are more predictable. Off-road terrains can be highly diverse and unpredictable, featuring obstacles, mud, rocks, and varying slopes. The proposed rule does not take into account the complexities of off-road environments, which may render the AEBS less effective or even cause false alarms, disrupting the driving experience.
-Maintenance and reliability: OHVs are often exposed to rough and demanding environments, which could affect the reliability and performance of complex AEBS systems. If these systems become prone to malfunctions or require constant maintenance, it could be a significant burden for OHV owners and potentially compromise their safety.
-Personal responsibility: Off-roading is inherently an activity that involves an element of risk, and OHV enthusiasts understand and accept this fact. While safety measures are essential, they should not overshadow the responsibility of individual riders to drive cautiously and make informed decisions while navigating challenging terrains.
-Cost burden on consumers: Implementing AEBS systems in OHVs may result in increased manufacturing costs, which will ultimately be passed down to consumers. This could make OHVs less accessible to enthusiasts who rely on more affordable options to enjoy their passion for off-roading.
-Impact on aftermarket modifications: Many OHV owners customize their vehicles with aftermarket parts and modifications to suit their specific needs and preferences. The introduction of mandated AEBS systems might limit the scope for such modifications and reduce the freedom and creativity that enthusiasts enjoy.
-Training and awareness: Instead of focusing solely on mandating AEBS, the NHTSA should consider investing in education, training, and awareness campaigns to promote safe off-roading practices. Providing resources to enhance driving skills and responsible OHV use can be more effective in improving overall safety.
In conclusion, while safety is of paramount importance, the NHTSA’s proposed rule for AEBS in off-highway vehicles appears to be ill-suited for the unique challenges and characteristics of off-road environments. Instead, a more balanced approach that combines improved education, training, and voluntary safety measures could better serve the OHV community without compromising the essence of off-roading.As an OHV enthusiast, I have serious concerns and reservations about NHTSA’s proposed rule regarding automated emergency braking systems (AEBS) for off-highway vehicles (OHVs). While safety is undoubtedly crucial, I believe this proposed rule could have several negative implications for the OHV community:




Learn Why the Proposed BLM Rule Will Devastate Access




Why and What You Can Do to Stop the BLM Rule

Is the sky really falling this time?

If the proposed BLM Conservation and Landscape Health Rule is adopted, the sky will fall for Utah BLM land visitors that enjoy the use of any kind of motorized or wheeled vehicle. This will devastate your use of not only Off Highway Vehicles, but also access to trail heads for equestrians, base jumpers, and rock climbing routes. This is a Federal Rule, so BLM lands across our nation will be affected.

Comments are due by July 5, and now is the time to speak out against this rule.

SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO BLM BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK

The stated purpose by the BLM Director for the Rule is to “Protect the Best and Restore the Rest” They will achieve this by doing all of the following:

  1. The extreme environmental groups behind this Rule have long sought to designate more land as Wilderness. This most restrictive designation will mean that not only OHV users, but mountain bikers, rock climbers, base jumpers, rock hounders, snowmobilers, and even equestrians will be denied access to our lands. If you’re handicapped, leave your wheelchair at home because any type of “wheeled vehicles” are also prohibited. The Red Rock Wilderness Act in the Senate will also designate 8 million acres land as wilderness in Utah, that’s 35% of BLM land in Utah.
  2. Expansion of ACECs- There are already 70 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in Utah. The rule will direct BLM to aggressively identify even more areas to be designated ACEC and will allow the Director to make these designations largely without any public input. It will then require BLM to aggressively adopt rules against all the negative impacts caused by grazing, mining, Off Highway Vehicle Use and many others. There are already many horrible impacts being caused by this, in Oregon private homeowners have cut off access to their homes because the road crossed ACEC boundaries.
  3. Restoration-It will require BLM to focus on conservation efforts to return areas back to natural conditions, wiping out roads and dispersed camping-the first step in a wilderness designation.
  4. Land Conservation Leases- Rules allows BLM to grant Land Conservation Leases to “qualified individuals, companies, or organizations” to manage the land to achieve the desired conservation measures.
    1. There is no definition of what “qualifications” are required, but in addition to the potential impact of allowing extremist conservation groups to further restrict access, there is also a strong threat to national security because it could allow control by foreign interests. For example, if our grazing or farming lands are controlled by foreign interests, our food supply and national security will be impacted.
    2. Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) are likely to be used to state the objectives and responsibilities associated with the leases, but the Federal Government has far more failures associated with enforcing MOUs than successes. That means once they are granted, the rules can be thrown out the window.
    3. Companies that have negative impacts on the environment will be permitted to offset their negative impacts by entering into Conservation Leases on what previously were “public lands” They will be encouraged to aggressively restrict as much use as possible to achieve the maximum offset for their harmful activity elsewhere.
    4. The BLM specifically requests public comment on the following aspects of the conservation lease proposal in the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule.
      • Is the term “conservation lease” the best term for this tool?
      • What is the appropriate default duration for conservation leases?
      • Should the rule constrain which lands are available for conservation leasing? For example, should conservation leases be issued only in areas identified as eligible for conservation leasing in an RMP or areas the BLM has identified (either in an RMP or otherwise) as priority areas for ecosystem restoration or wildlife habitat?
      • Should the rule clarify what actions conservation leases may allow?
      • Should the rule expressly authorize the use of conservation leases to generate carbon offset credits?
      • Should conservation leases be limited to protecting or restoring specific resources, such as wildlife habitat, public water supply watersheds, or cultural resources?

The Rule is unnecessary and illegal. SUWA has claimed that conservation has not been adequately addressed by BLM in their land use decisions, yet this is just untrue. Every land use decision has to run through a gamut of checklists, and 90% of those items concern conservation or protection items. There are already dozens of Acts of Congress that must be complied with including requirements of the Wilderness Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Antiquities Act, Endangered Species Act, Archeological Protection Act, and NEPA.

UPLA has commented, but UPLA can’t vote. We need you to take action to submit comments online before July 5. Be sure to tell them to remove the Rule, but also  give them your reasons for doing so.

Don’t be confused about Congress taking action to protect us. 2 bills have been introduced in Congress that would overturn the power of BLM to adopt a rule like this, but they have only been introduced, not passed. Get your comments done today or quit complaining when your favorite trails and routes are closed.

One final request, share this message with everyone you know on social media, email, or conversation. Make sure if you’re part of a club or organization that everyone knows about this Rule and the impact it will have.

Sincerely,

 

Loren Campbell
UPLA President

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




BLM Rule Proposal May Devastate OHV Use on Public Lands

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