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

The Bureau of Land Management Conservation and Landscape Health Rule (BLM-2023-0001) is threatening to strip away access to public lands that belong to all of us. This rule would allow wealthy organizations to take control of our precious lands, eliminating our access to BLM lands. We cannot sit idly by and watch as our land is sold to the highest bidder. It’s time to take action and stop this rule change before it’s too late. Join us in the fight to preserve our public lands for future generations by going to Regulations.gov and submitting your reasons this rule should be rejected. When submitting comments, the field is limited to 5000 words, so if you have more than that, you may want to attach a document instead.

You can find UPLA’s comments documenting our strong opposition here.

Congress is working to reject adoption of this proposal with H.R. 3397 and we are working on gaining Congressional support, but we cannot count on that solution.

As of today’s date, there have been 82,610 comments already posted on the BLM website, and a quick scan of recent comments shows that more comments are in favor of the Rule have been filed. We must rise to the challenge and get our side of the story on record. Together, we can make a difference and ensure that our natural resources remain in the hands of the people who cherish them most, but it requires your action now.

BLM restrictions on access are already very limiting, but adoption of this Rule will place extreme conservation groups like SUWA to determine who and how BLM land is used..

Stop This Change by going to Regulations.gov and make your comments today. 

Please share this message with all your friends, and email us with your BLM comment tracking number.

A developer is proposing to close 2 public access routes to BLM Lands in Virgin that are designated as RS 2477 Roads. These roads have been in existence and use for many decades, so should be protected from closure by both Utah Code 72-5-104 and RS 2477 protections.

I have been working on this for several months,and will be sending a letter to the Washington County Board of Commissioners this week. I sent the letter this morning along with 81 copies of support messages. Thank you for those that responded. I will keep everyone informed of the progress.

Following is the letter with several attachments included as links in the letter to give you more information.

June 1, 2023

Washington County Commissioners

Dear Commissioners:

I am the President of Utah Public Lands Alliance, and a resident of Virgin, Utah. I recreate often in the BLM and SITLA lands between Gooseberry Mesa and Entrada Drive in Virgin. I am very concerned that the Town of Virgin allowed a developer to close a public highway to vehicle access connecting Entrada Dr with BLM land and Sheeps Bridge Road. At their October 2022 Town Council Meeting, Virgin approved a subdivision plan allowing the developer, JBARS, to close the highways known as RS 2477 Road 0648 and 0650. The attached Access Rights article quotes “that even if abandoned by a local government entity, RS 2477 ar still public roads until abandoned by the State Department of Transportation….this makes it impossible for cities and counties to completely vacate roads created on federal lands before statehood.” Utah Code Ann 872-5-305

I have been working with Laura Ault, Jake Garfield, and Assistant Attorney General Hayden Ballard from the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office about the closure. I also discussed this with Washington County Regional Tourism Regulatory Affairs Director Heath Hansen, and he suggested the next step might be to reach out to the County Commissioners.

The developer claimed that the roads are seldom used by the public, which is untrue. My property is adjacent to Road 0648 and I can testify that the road is used frequently by ATV/UTVs, Jeeps, Equestrians, Pickups, Campers, and Mountain Bikers. Frequent use is also evidenced by the multitude of vehicle tracks on the road. Both roads have also been used for access to Red Bull Rampage, an annual event which attracts thousands of enthusiasts every year into the beautiful backcountry. The roads are also frequently used as routes for both biking and running events. I, along with many other homeowners in Virgin purchased their lots to build homes in part because of the easy access to BLM.

The developer also claimed that access to the BLM land could be accessed from Sheeps Bridge Road, but that is 10 miles away over rough roads that require 4 wheel drive and high clearance, so it will severely restrict access by the current OHV, camping and biking users. Further, it will change the area from being a circuit route to just a one way in and out.

Further, these highways also provide the only alternate access to homeowners south of the Virgin River if the Camino del Rio bridge were closed for any reason.

Washington County’s Resource Management Plan Land Access Plan clearly recognizes the importance of protecting RS 2477 highways. I would like for the County to contact the Town of Virgin about finding alternatives to keep these public highways accessible to the BLM lands. In addition to being afforded protection under RS 2477, the roads would also qualify for protection under Utah Code 72-5-104 as a Public Use Dedicated Road, having been in use for many decades.

I attached several resources for your information:

• A map of the area showing the RS 2477 proposed closures and the surrounding recreation area
• An excellent resource guide by the Utah Public Land Use Institute on Public Access Rights on Public Roads and Private Lands that describes RS 2477 and 72-5-104 public highway dedications.
• Excerpt from the Washington County RMP Land Access Policy
• Original letter and endorsement letters from others adding their request to keep these historic highways kept open.

Thank you for your consideration, I am available at any time to discuss this matter further, or to arrange a tour of the area.

Sincerely,

Loren Campbell
President, Utah Public Lands Alliance
Virgin Resident

Attachments

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

Thank You For Helping

Save Sand Mountain!

When we come together, we can accomplish great things. The proposed BLM Sand Mountain Land Exchange posed a serious threat to both the OHV community and Dispersed Campers that used Warner Valley. When we raised a Call to Action to the Community, nearly a thousand of you turned up at the St George Library for BLM’s scoping meeting with only 4 days notice. Hundreds of you submitted scoping comments, including some of the most substantive comments I’ve ever seen. Your response set the stage for how committed the OHV community was in protecting Sand Mountain and helped us immensely in negotiating with BLM, Washington County Water Conservancy District (DISTRICT), and the City of Washington.

The team that negotiated on behalf of the OHV community consisted of Jeff Bieber from DRATS, Ben Burr from BlueRibbon Coalition, Milt Thompson from Dixie 4 Wheel Drive, Steve Jacobs from Tri State ATV, Steve Maxfield and Casey Lofthouse. I had the pleasure of leading the team as the representative from Utah Public Lands Alliance. Together, we spent many hours, weeks, and months strategizing and meeting with 4 different government agencies to find a mutually agreeable solution.

I must recognize the leaders of the agencies for taking the time and effort to understand our needs and respond to them. Jason West, BLM Field Manager was always quick to respond to our inquiries and set up our initial meetings with the DISTRICT. Mayor Nanette Billings from the City of Hurricane setup our first meeting with the City of Washington, Mayor Kress Steheli. General Manager Zach Renstrom and Attorney Morgan Drake from the DISTRICT spent many hours working with us and refining the agreement and working document. Both Mayor Steheli and Jason West went on field trips with Jeff Bieber and I to tour to affected parts of Sand Mountain, and to show them the work the OHV Community has done on Sand Mountain. Morgan Drake and Zach Renstrom organized a field trip in UTVs for DISTRICT staff and Board members to view the mountain for themselves. They got a first hand experience of why we’re so proud and protective.

Last night, the DISTRICT Board passed a Resolution unanimously that identified the protections the OHV Community needed, as well as limited protection for Dispersed Camping until we can find another option. The Resolution, Map and Press Release can be seen here.

As stated in the Board Meeting last night by Morgan Drake and Mayor Kress Steheli from the City of Washington, this has been an excellent example of how difficult land use decisions can best be worked out when everyone sits at the table and work together to find a solution.  Is it a solution that everybody got everything they wanted? No, that only happens in fairy tales. Is the work over? No, there’s still work to be done in the coming months-but this was a very important milestone for us because BLM will insert these conditions into the terms of the Land Exchange if it is approved.

We still have several review processes to complete with the NEPA process, and we’ll be asking you to reengage as those came up. But a sincere thank you to everyone that participated in this effort for a successful outcome.

Remember this for the future…

Together We Can Win,

But We Can’t Do It Without You

Gratefully and with Sincere Appreciation,

Loren Campbell
President
Utah Public Lands Alliance

Learn How You Can Help Us Achieve Our Mission