BLM Director
Attention: Protest Coordinator (HQ210)
Denver Federal Center, Building 40 (Door W-4)
Lakewood, CO 80215
RE: Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument RMP (DOI-BLM-UT-P010-2022-0006-RMP-EIS)
Dear BLM Director:
Please accept this protest from the above organizations regarding the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS).
1. Background of Our Organizations
In our comments, the “Organizations” will refer to the following four groups:
Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE) is a motorized action group based out of Buena Vista Colorado whose mission is to keep trails open for all users to enjoy. CORE achieves this through trail adoptions, trail maintenance projects, education, stewardship, outreach, and collaborative efforts.
The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 2,500 members seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.
Ride with Respect (RwR) was founded in 2002 to conserve shared-use trails and their surroundings. Since then, over 750 individuals have contributed money or volunteered time to the organization. Primarily in the Moab Field Office, RwR has educated visitors and performed over twenty-thousand hours of high-quality trail work on public lands.
The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) is an advocacy organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of motorized trail riding and multiple use recreation. The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands to diverse multiple-use recreation opportunities.
2. Interest of Our Organizations and Issues
The Organizations have an interest in the GSENM RMP and would be adversely affected by the PRMP/FEIS. As the Organizations stated in our DRMP comments (enclosed):
“The GSENM encompasses a vast area with over a thousand miles of motorized routes that are of high quality for responsible riding and driving. In addition to providing access to remote places of varied geology among other resources, the motorized routes provide opportunities for exploration, a sense of harmony with nature, camaraderie with one’s group, and even some exercise or challenge from the roughest routes.”
In multiple ways, all of these recreational interests would be adversely affected by the PRMP/FEIS.
As stated in the Utah/Arizona ATV Club letter that the Organizations incorporated into our own DRMP comments (enclosed), excessive OHV Closed designations:
would limit the access to remote areas and areas that the physically impaired could not reach. With the US Census Bureau predicting that in just 35 years 25% of Americans will be 65 years and older, and that the number of 85-plus year olds will triple, having more travel routes to better accommodate our aging population is more important than ever. Any time a historically used route is closed, it limits access and is a form of discrimination against our aging and the less mobile individuals that are physically challenged.
As stated in the Travel Management section of Garfield County’s letter that the Organizations incorporated into our own DRMP comments (enclosed), motorized routes:
represent the lifeblood of connectivity for our local communities, facilitating access to our shared public lands, supporting economic activities, outdoor motorized recreational opportunities, greater access off which to base all types of recreational activities, and vital search and rescue and law enforcement activities that ensure the safety and well-being of residents and visitors alike.
The Organizations recognize that recreation is just one of many uses that would be adversely affected by the PRMP/FEIS.
Additionally motorized routes are key conduits for effective and efficient management, whether it’s performed by the BLM, Utah, local government, or nonprofits such as the Organizations. Motorized routes are particularly critical for the kind of active management and adaptability that was recommended by the BLM’s Utah Resource Advisory Council (RAC) in June of 2019 and incorporated into the GSENM and KEPA RMPs in 2020.
3.Parts of the Plan being Protested and their Adverse Effects
The Organizations protest the thin analysis and extreme outcome of the:
- OHV Area designations (Figure 2-36 and corresponding text) as well the underlying designations, specifically the
- Primitive Area (Figure 2-2 and corresponding text) and
- Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC) that would be managed to protect or minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics (Figure 2-12 and corresponding text).
The PRMP/FEIS appears to deny adverse effects of these three designations by stating that only 7 miles of motorized routes would be closed, specifically the V-Road. However, relatively few motorized routes are designated open across the 1,865,600-acre planning area, particularly in the vicinity of the V-Road, which reaches within a mile of the remarkable “cosmic” rock formation.
These three designations would hobble management of the motorized routes that are currently designated open. For example, the OHV Closed area boundaries run up to the sides of many routes, thereby preventing reroutes that could otherwise be done to reduce resource impacts or increase public safety. Another example is LWC management to protect wilderness characteristics that may prohibit using heavy equipment to maintain routes. Even the LWC management that merely minimizes impacts to wilderness characteristics, and even the mere proximity to the Primitive Area or similar designations, would set the stage for more route closures during subsequent travel planning if history is any guide.
These three designations would obstruct the due consideration to re-open many other existing routes, including hundreds of miles of primitive roads claimed by Garfield and Kane counties and the State of Utah. For one thing, the R.S. 2477 bellwether case in Utah District Court recently favored Garfield and Kane counties, putting onus on the BLM to refute R.S. 2477 claims rather than operating as if the claims are unaffected by closing more routes and areas. For another thing, even when it comes to existing routes not claimed by the counties or state, such routes were not necessarily given a fair shake by the travel management plan (TMP) that was wrapped into the 2000 GSENM RMP. Persistent controversies could be partly resolved by more thorough travel planning, but such planning would be precluded by the designation OHV Closed, Primitive Area, or LWCs to be managed for wilderness characteristics.
Finally these three designations would prematurely prevent future planning of a single mile of new route across 1,245,700 acres that would be OHV Closed. Granted, new routes are rarely approved in national monuments, especially GSENM given that nearly half of it is comprised of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). However the monument and WSA status ensure that route proposals would have to meet an especially-high standard, which is all the more reason to let such proposals be addressed rather than being preemptively denied. The fact is that motorized access facilitates the enjoyment of monument resources and the appreciation of monument objects. Across most of the monument, planners should retain the option of adding a route as technology, society, and environmental conditions change. This managerial flexibility should extend to mechanized travel such as mountain biking. Designating 1,217,100 acres as a Primitive Area “without motorized or mechanized recreational access” would prevent bicycling from ever being considered in nearly two thirds of the planning area.
These adverse effects add up to an offensively grim outlook for recreation that depends upon motorized or mechanized access, not just in the WSAs, but across the other hundreds-of-thousands of acres that would be engulphed by the designations of OHV Closed, Primitive Area, and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics.
4.Explanation of how the PRMP/FEIS is Flawed
The heart of the Organizations’ DRMP comments is our “OHV Area Designations” section as follows:
The Organizations are very concerned by the extent of areas proposed to be closed to OHV travel in all three action alternatives, which would force the subsequent travel planning to severely reduce motorized recreation opportunities that are already lacking when one considers the sheer expanse of GSENM. All three action alternatives would force the closure of some motorized routes by zoning their locations are closed to OHV travel. This enormous impact of travel planning isn’t even addressed let alone analyzed at the route-specific or cumulative scales, which violates NEPA and hampers our ability to meaningfully review and comment. Even where the route is “cherry stemmed,” boundaries are so tight that it sort of straitjackets the route and hobbles potential management actions such as a reroute. Further, the closed area designation prohibits even the mere consideration of adding a route in future. Obviously approving any additional routes has proven very difficult, as few routes have been added across the entire GSENM over the past couple decades. Nevertheless it’s important to preserve this flexibility for future planners to discover those instances when adding a route may be appropriate to benefit recreation or mitigate its negative effects. After all, such routes could be as minimal as an e-bike trail, or as useful as a short road to cluster campsites in order to close dispersed sites elsewhere. This RMP may be in effect for decades, by which time the majority of motorcycles and possibly automobiles may become electric and even quieter. The organizations accept some scrutiny when it comes to subsequent travel planning and certainly when new routes are proposed, but area designations at this highest level of land-use planning should only be closed to motorized use outright if it’s certain that the given area won’t ever become suitable for any extent of e-biking or other emerging uses. The fact that the BLM can manage more proactively than the NPS is a distinction that could help GSENM achieve the aspirations of the former BLM state director.
The PRMP/FEIS resolves none of these concerns and, despite that our “OHV Area Designations” section raised at least a half-dozen substantive points, they weren’t addressed by the BLM response to comments.
A. Regulatory Context
Consider the statutory authority for OHV area designations, which the BLM identifies through Executive Order 11644 as amended by Executive Order 11989. These orders, issued before FLPMA had been implemented, were intended to further the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, June 28, 2024 reaffirmed the judicial review of an agency’s legal interpretation. When invoking fifty-year-old executive orders, agency actions should firstly remain grounded by the underlying legislation, and secondly employ executive orders and agency rules conservatively.
Executive Order 11644 as amended states:
Each respective agency head shall develop and issue regulations and administrative instructions, within six months of the date of this order, to provide for administrative designation of the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of off-road vehicles may be permitted, and areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be permitted…
When issuing the orders, did presidents Nixon and Carter regard “areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be permitted” to include a 1,245,700-acre area prohibiting all mechanized travel by the public? When passing NEPA in 1969, is this the extent of authority that Congress intended to delegate? Even BLM Manual MS-1626, “Travel and Transportation Management” states:
OHV Closed Areas. OHV use is prohibited in a closed area. Areas should be designated closed when limitations on OHV use will not suffice to protect resources, promote visitor safety, or reduce use conflicts.
This BLM guidance calls for designating OHV Closed areas when an OHV Limited designation “will not suffice.” For each of the 1,245,7000 acres that would become OHV Closed, the PRMP/FEIS hasn’t even asked the question of whether an OHV Limited designation will not suffice, let alone answered it affirmatively.
NEPA and FLMA require the BLM to invite meaningful public participation, and Executive Order 11644 as amended states “The respective agency head shall ensure adequate opportunity for public participation in the promulgation of such regulations and in the designation of areas and trails under this section.” Accordingly 43 CFR § 8342.2(a) Public Participation states:
The designation and redesignation of trails is accomplished through the resource management planning process described in part 1600 of this title. Current and potential impacts of specific vehicle types on all resources and uses in the planning area shall be considered in the process of preparing resource management plans, plan revisions, or plan amendments. Prior to making designations or redesignations, the authorized officer shall consult with interested user groups, Federal, State, county and local agencies, local landowners, and other parties in a manner that provides an opportunity for the public to express itself and have its views given consideration.
For each of the 1,245,7000 acres that would become OHV Closed, the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t provide analysis of the current and potential impacts of specific vehicle types on all resources and uses, which is needed for the public to meaningfully participate.
One might argue that OHV Closed designations and other layers of “protection” are justified merely by virtue of the national monument status, but it’s another example of the executive branch going out on a limb, as GSENM wasn’t established through legislation. Regardless of monument status, RMPs in this planning area should be moderate in order to provide lasting guidance, and the current RMPs wisely relied on existing “protections” such as WSA and national-monument status covering half the planning area rather than piling additional layers onto hundreds-of-thousands of additional acres. If natural and social resources have suffered, it’s only because managerial resources have been diverted to satisfy a heavy-handedness of the executive branch, not because the current RMPs lack the designations of OHV Closed, Primitive Area, or LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics.
B. Purpose, Need, and Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Since the OHV Closed area would cover the WSAs, Primitive Area, and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics, its purpose is presumably to further the purposes of these designations. The purpose and boundaries of the WSAs are clear but, given that the WSAs already cover 881,100 acres, the need for a Primitive Area and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics is highly unlikely. In any case, the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t make the case for LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics or a Primitive Area covering two thirds of this massive monument.
i. Primitive Area
In regard to Alternative C, which proposes a slightly smaller Primitive Area than Alternative E, the PRMP/FEIS on Page 3-242 states:
The majority of GSENM would be managed as a primitive area, which would benefit natural and biological uses and recreation users seeking solitude and primitive opportunities to a greater extent than would the other alternatives.
It appears to assume that the Primitive Area designation would benefit natural resources even though it would be less accessible for active and adaptive management. It appears to assume that the Primitive Area designation would benefit solitude seekers and primitive opportunities even though most of those acres can only be reached by an overnight backpacking trip. While a much higher density of routes may indeed detract from solitude and primitive opportunities, such a low current density of routes makes most of the acres inaccessible for typical day hiking, yet this tension is not handled by the PRMP/FEIS.
ii. LWCs Managed for Wilderness Characteristics
Likewise managing LWCs for wilderness characteristics could wind up hampering their very purpose. For example, BLM Manual MS-1626, “Travel and Transportation Management” states:
6.5 Travel and Transportation Management within Presidential and Congressional Designations or Similar Allocations
F. BLM Manual 6320 – Management of lands with wilderness characteristics, the following apply:
1. In lands managed for wilderness characteristics, the BLM will not designate primitive roads and motorized/mechanized trails and will not classify them as assets within lands managed for wilderness characteristics protection in land use plans.
Therefore converting more LWCs to manage for wilderness characteristics would prevent managers from ever adding a route even for the purpose of public safety or protecting monument objects.
In addition to undermining their very purposes, designating a huge Primitive Area and managing nearly all LWCs for wilderness characteristics simply isn’t needed. The PRMP/FEIS hasn’t demonstrated that demand for such things isn’t met by the current RMPs, let alone identifying why the demand is unmet, as the answer could be a lack of motorized access among other things. The PRMP/FEIS does provide a rationale for the Primitive Area, stating on Page 3-243:
Because the majority of the primitive area is made up of WSAs, ISAs, and LWC managed to protect, this management direction is consistent with the Wilderness Act and FLMPA.
The logic appears to be that the BLM has free rein to designate a huge Primitive Area so long as it doesn’t effectively double the acreage of WSAs and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics. The Organizations assert that, when restrictive designations such as WSAs occupy nearly half of a planning area, sparing the other half becomes essential to meeting FLPMA’s multiple-use mandate. As for the Wilderness Act, Congress intended to preserve existing wilderness, and most of the planning area that hasn’t already been designated as a WSA indeed doesn’t qualify (as indicated by county road claims among other things).
Even if a purpose and need were established to designate a huge Primitive Area and managing nearly all LWCs for wilderness characteristics, changing those areas to OHV Closed isn’t needed. Albeit uncommon, it’s possible to add existing routes to the TMP in those areas, and eliminating that possibility altogether isn’t needed.
iii. OHV Closed
Leaving the Primitive Area and LWC status aside, OHV Closed designation isn’t needed to cover 1,245,700 acres, and the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t even attempt to demonstrate otherwise. Granted, the 1,500-acre No Mans Mesa RNA would continue to be OHV Closed “in part because on-the-ground OHV use is not feasible” and because it hosts a relict plant community, which is a specific resource in a specific location. For the rest of the 1,245,700 acres that would be OHV Closed, no such specificity is provided, other than a rather brief explanation of the V-Road closure that will be covered later in this document.
Beyond the Primitive Area, LWC, and WSA designations, the purpose and need for an enormous OHV Closed designation might be implied by the PRMP/FEIS on Page 3-253, stating:
Under Alternative E, OHV use would be limited to the 914 miles of designated routes across 648,500 acres, this is a decrease of 7 miles of designated routes compared to Alternative A. Under Alternative E, the BLM would manage 1,217,100 acres as closed to OHV travel… More so than Alternative A, B, and C, this management would limit resource damage from cross-country and other OHV travel, but to a lesser extent than Alternative D.
Limiting resource damage from cross-country travel and other OHV travel, on its own, does not justify an enormous OHV Closed designation. Outside of the Little Desert RMZ that’s currently OHV Open, cross-country travel is prohibited, and changing designations from OHV Limited to OHV Closed wouldn’t make cross-country travel any more prohibited than it already is. This issue is clearly not a matter of managerial designations, rather one of law enforcement, education, and perhaps trail work. The same matters are probably the case when it comes to the issue of “other OHV travel,” although the vague phrase makes it impossible for the public to know what the PRMP/FEIS refers to, which is why it must become far more specific about the problems and potential solutions in each location of the planning area. If major negative impacts are occurring, demonstrate them as well as a comprehensive analysis of alternative actions along with their positive and negative effects, as it would be far more fruitful than simply converting the majority of the planning area from OHV Limited to OHV closed.
On Page J-297 of the PRMP/FEIS, the BLM response to comments did provide four criteria regarding OHV Closed designations:
OHV area designations very across alternatives and were developed based on the protection of the resources and GSENM objects. In identifying area designations, the BLM applied OHV closures to areas within GSENM that 1) would minimize damage to soil, watersheds, vegetation, air and other resources, and 2) would minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats and 3) would minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors and 4) would minimize potential adverse effects to primitive areas consistent with the intent of the area designation. These alternatives were designed to meet the purpose and need of this document. Additionally, under the Proposed RMP, only primitive areas have been designated as OHV-closed.
The first three criteria are copied from Executive Order 11644 as amended, but the PRMP/FEIS hasn’t even begun to show the BLM’s work of applying these criteria to the 1,245,700 acres that would become OHV Closed, especially the hundreds-of-thousands of acres beyond the WSAs.
The fourth criterion resembles that of the same executive order, as both use the term Primitive Area, however they have very different meanings. Executive Order 11644 as amended refers to Primitive Areas designated by a higher level, such as the congressional designation of Grand Gulch Primitive Area. The PRMP/FEIS presumably refers to Primitive Areas designated at the level of the BLM’s Paria River District, and this designation is one of four types of Management Areas that are proposed to cover the entire planning area. Given that this fourth criterion of the PRMP/FEIS isn’t copied from Executive Order 11644 as amended, the other three criteria would be needed to justify expanding OHV Closed designations beyond that of the current GSENM and KEPA RMPs.
As with the huge Primitive Area and managing LWC for wilderness characteristics, OHV Closed designations could actually lead to more negative impacts upon natural and social resources. As the PRMP/FEIS acknowledges on Page 3-234, “ATV and UTV use have become one of the fastest-growing recreational activities.” For this and other forms of recreation on motorized trails, the carrying capacity is a function of the motorized trails, themselves. The PRMP/FEIS recognizes the pitfall of use displacement when it comes to an OHV Open area like the Little Desert RMZ, stating on Page 3-240 that:
Alternative B would eliminate access for cross-country OHV recreation on 100 acres when compared with Alternative A. This could result in unauthorized cross-country OHV travel occurring in the previously 100 acres OHV-open area under Alternative A, eliminating the OHV-open area near the town of Escalante, and would likely displace users of the OHV-open area, resulting in unauthorized cross-country travel.
If there isn’t a managed alternative to the use of this area, such as designating a high density of challenging routes at Little Desert RMZ or managing an OHV Open area elsewhere nearby the community of Escalante, then the use becomes more likely to occur in an unmanaged fashion. The same phenomenon is likely to occur when additions to a TMP are prohibited from being considered due to OHV Closed designations, and when subtractions to a TMP are made virtually inevitable by new restrictive layers of management such as a huge Primitive Area and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics. Therefore these three designations of the PRMP/FEIS would increase the likelihood of motorized and mechanized travel that’s unauthorized across the entire planning area and, on the routes that remain open after the subsequent TMP revision, would increase the likelihood of crowding, conflict, and degradation of the routes.
C. Travel Management Planning
The PRMP/FEIS essentially dismisses concerns about travel management planning since it will be done subsequently, but the PRMP/FEIS would in fact make travel planning decisions that would be irreversible without amending the RMP.
On Page J-299 of the PRMP/FEIS, the BLM response to comments seems to imply that thorough travel planning of the V-Road is unwarranted because the agency proposes to close the entire area rather than closing just the route:
The BLM monitors the V-Road and has monitoring data documenting adverse impacts to the WSA that surrounds both sides of the V-Road since it was designated as open to motorized use. Consideration of these impacts informed the BLM’s alternatives and through application of an OHV area designation, the BLM would minimize impacts to the WSA by closing the area to OHV use.
However, the area of closure includes the designated route (along with other existing routes along with proposed ones), so the fact that the BLM proposes to close more than just the route doesn’t justify shortchanging the meaningful public participation of this proposed action. Further the 2020 decision to re-open the V-Road was analyzed and approved in accordance with 43 CFR 8342.1 and accompanied by robust site-specific analysis demonstrating that the opening of these routes was consistent with providing the proper care and management to monument objects. In contrast, the PRMP merely asserts on Page 3-251 that “Closure of this route would minimize adverse impacts to the adjacent WSA, as V-Road is cherry-stemmed into the WSA. The impacts to the WSA are the result of off-route incursions, unauthorized widening of the route, and user created pullouts and parking areas.” However, as stated in the Utah/Arizona ATV Club letter that the Organizations incorporated into our own DRMP comments, closure is not needed to minimize the impacts claimed by the PRMPFEIS. First of all, are things like pullouts actually impacting the WSA significantly? If so, should a modest number of pullouts be accommodated and delineated? What other measures, from trail work to education to enforcement, could be done to mitigate significant impacts? What implementation resources, from local communities to state grants, have been readily and consistently available to the BLM? None of these questions are addressed by the PRMP/FEIS.
Far beyond the V-Road, the PRMP/FEIS makes major travel planning decisions by removing the 1,245,700 acres from any further discussion. This enormous area goes far beyond the WSAs, even beyond LWCs. It contains many county-claimed roads, other existing routes, and locations where a new route may become entirely appropriate for some kind of mechanized use over the lifecycle of an RMP. Aside from properly vetted exceptions (e.g. No Mans Mesa), only by leaving areas OHV Limited can the BLM truly leave travel planning decisions to the subsequent TMP revision. After all, for TMP revision, Page 2-235 of the PRMP/FEIS states the following objective:
Establish a transportation system that provides for appropriate access, protects GSENM objects and resources, provides for appropriate access, minimizes impacts on other resources, and minimizes user conflicts.
The PRMP/FEIS would reduce the OHV Limited acreage from 1,864,000 to 619,900, yet the rationale for this change consists of a few sentences. One cannot have confidence that the remaining 619,900 acres will be adequate to meet the objective of providing for appropriate access. Sticking with the current OHV Limited acreage will allow travel planning to genuinely occur, while existing parameters such as WSA status will ensure the protection of GSENM objects and resources.
5. Conclusion
The Organizations urge GSENM planners to choose Alternative A (the no-action alternative) when it comes to OHV Closed designations, LWCs managed to protect or minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics, and the Primitive Area. The proliferation of these three designations in alternatives B through E (the action alternatives) is completely unnecessary given the other layers of management, such as the 881,100 acres of WSAs in the planning area. When it comes to these three designations, the status quo would avoid adversely affecting the Organizations’ interest in diverse recreation opportunities. The status quo is needed in order to provide a motorized route network of ample quantity, quality, and variety. Such a network is not only compatible with the protection of monument objects, but also essential to “providing visitors with an opportunity to experience a remote landscape rich with opportunities for adventure and self-discovery” as stated in Proclamation 10286.
Sincerely,
Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect
Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance
Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
Colorado Off Road Enterprise
Scott Jones, Esq.
Authorized Representative
Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition
